The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers • Hacker News Board

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#131

Post by LoSboccacc » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:10 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #39

> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…

> nor do I know anyone that feels that way.

That’d be me (kinda):

I used to make exception for web comics I subscribed to and other websites I visited regularly, using adblocker only for browsing the random internet at large.

Until looking for group served a malware.

So now everything gets blocked.

So I would probably put myself into the “understands ads are your revenue and once upon a time was permissive” category.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#132

Post by orwin » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:11 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #105

annabellish wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>TOS are enforceable to some degree You cannot state "by reading this notice you have accepted our terms and conditions". Maybe - _maybe_ - you could force people to register and explicitly agree to your terms which specify that you may not view the page without also loading the ads, though I think such a clause would be immoral. The ability to control what code executes on one's computer is a fundamental freedom of…

> Maybe - _maybe_ - you could force people to register and explicitly agree to your terms which specify that you may not view the page without also loading the ads, though I think such a clause would be immoral. What moral rule exactly does that contravene? You can simply not load their content. What gives you the right to load their content on terms other than theirs?

Hopping into this. The GDPR ask just that: if you are using ad networks, you should ask your user to give his explicit consent for each network you are serving him. Note that if you are serving malware, you are responsible and can be fined, which is pretty fair, imo.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#133

Post by jbob2000 » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:11 PM UTC

yoodenvranx wrote: post #117

rb808 wrote: post #6

Surely the next step is for websites to host their own ads again? They can even forward cookies on to ad networks etc.

The next step would be to do render the whole page including ads directly into a canvas/opengl element using some heavily obfuscated wasm binary in order to circumvent the DOM and any DOM/JS-based ad blocker.

You still need to make an HTTP request to get the ad data. Ad blockers don't just block the DOM elements, they block the HTTP request too.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#134

Post by rdiddly » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #44

koolba wrote: post #39

> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

Pushing an ad to my browser is stealing - namely CPU cycles and network bandwidth. My terms and conditions (which they implicitly agree to by answering an HTTP request from me), forbid them from supporting themselves with advertising.

Sound ridiculous? That's because a web request and response is a collaborative effort of the two computers. The World Wide Web wasn't built for this kind of shitty, vaguely-adversarial, commercial-transaction-like interaction that everybody seems to want to turn everything into.

If you place your "content" for "consumption" on the World Wide Web, you are saying clients can connect to that server and request content. To say that certain content is mandatory is completely ridiculous. Restricting content can only be subtractive, that's why a paywall is the only sustainable model for anyone who insists on eternally Septembering their way to profit and riche$ on the WWW.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#135

Post by tannhaeuser » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #102

tannhaeuser wrote: post #97

Personally I have no problems with ads per se , it's the tracking, privacy, and security aspect I'm concerned about (and also the unbelievable bloatedness of ad-financed sites lately as ad prices race to the bottom). Personally I'd be fine with ads if we could go back to a content-oriented model where first-party static assets are served as ads rather than the targeted advertising we have now. I know others here who…

it's the tracking, privacy, and security aspect I'm concerned about And that's what ads are, per se , in the 21st century. "Ads", as the current implementation defines it from my perspective, are no longer general-purpose and static. No, they chase you around the web and then for weeks will try to sell you the thing you just purchased. They'll load random executable code onto your machine. I, too, have no problem wit…

Yes, and that's why I'm using an ad blocker, too. But the questions remains what is the Web going to look like as a mass medium when taking this to the extreme and there are only ads and propaganda left as rational incentives to publish content.

Btw, you know you're on a site which occasionally does "native" advertising/promotions, if with decency? Also, think of tech coverage in the last decade or so; it's dominated by big media pushing their agenda aka the "consumerization of IT" (cloud stuff, Fb and Google web frameworks).

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#136

Post by orwin » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

BonesJustice wrote: post #120

darawk wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about the websites who allow dozens of third parties to serve me an unknown quantity and quality of content that I did not request? They steal my bandwidth, compute cycles, and privacy. Yes, even then. You have no right to the content they produce. They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It…

> They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It's that simple. What 'terms'? They're essentially giving third parties the ability to inject anything they want into their websites. How can they meaningfully establish 'terms' if they have willingly given up the ability to hold up their end of those ter…

This is practically GDPR.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#137

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:16 PM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #114

darawk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

What makes you think you have the right to the content The fact that my web browser received a 200 from the server. Server seemed to think it's okay to give it to me. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site. I will once again remind those that pull out this argument that the "implicit agreement" is that my web browser sends a request, and if the server thinks I am worthy of viewi…

You seem to think technical implementations matter for some reason. I find that rather odd. Do you think that someone leaving their front door open entitles you to the contents of their home?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#138

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:17 PM UTC

BonesJustice wrote: post #120

darawk wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about the websites who allow dozens of third parties to serve me an unknown quantity and quality of content that I did not request? They steal my bandwidth, compute cycles, and privacy. Yes, even then. You have no right to the content they produce. They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It…

> They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It's that simple. What 'terms'? They're essentially giving third parties the ability to inject anything they want into their websites. How can they meaningfully establish 'terms' if they have willingly given up the ability to hold up their end of those ter…

> What 'terms'? They're essentially giving third parties the ability to inject anything they want into their websites. How can they meaningfully establish 'terms' if they have willingly given up the ability to hold up their end of those terms?

The terms are that you run the code they give you. If you don't like those terms, don't go. Simple as that.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#139

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:18 PM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #134

darawk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

Pushing an ad to my browser is stealing - namely CPU cycles and network bandwidth. My terms and conditions (which they implicitly agree to by answering an HTTP request from me), forbid them from supporting themselves with advertising. Sound ridiculous? That's because a web request and response is a collaborative effort of the two computers. The World Wide Web wasn't built for this kind of shitty, vaguely-adversarial,…

> Pushing an ad to my browser is stealing - namely CPU cycles and network bandwidth. My terms and conditions (which they implicitly agree to by answering an HTTP request from me), forbid them from supporting themselves with advertising.

Great, and if those are your terms and conditions, guess what, nobody forces you to visit their websites.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#140

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #90

darawk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are if the author makes it a term of the sale.

I can't believe you're being serious. OK, let's take it a step further. What about this: in the middle of the book the author says you can't finish reading if you don't stand on your head. Will you do it? Classic reductio ad absurdum. We are free people. You are free to invent your own terms. You can propose any rules. You can declare that visiting your website without clicking five times on different buttons is unet…

> I can't believe you're being serious. OK, let's take it a step further. What about this: in the middle of the book the author says you can't finish reading if you don't stand on your head. Will you do it? Classic reductio ad absurdum.

That is not an ad reductio argument in the least. It's a silly condition, but if the author requires it, then you must do it, or you can simply not read the book. What part of basic social contract theory do you not get?