71–80 of 416 posts
Has there been any serious thought / discussion about how the cat and mouse chase of the ads vs ad blockers is going to end? It would be interesting to see where we are in ten years.
Neural networks scan the final rendered image of the page for ads and remove them. You can't dodge that.
[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1897 [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08864
Has anyone made a plugin that does a DOS on each ad server(s) detected? Then, we have built-in DDOS on the ad servers, if enough users install it.
It's ok. SO's policy on abusive ads is to mention it on mets and hope a moderator notices and then acts upon it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you disagreeing with the person you replied to? Your tone suggests that you are, but the content of your post seems to being agreeing.
I disagree that most people use ad blockers because they “don’t want to see [any] ads.” Meaning, if advertisers hadn’t built more and more intrusive ads and had stuck with static ads that don’t severely harm the UX, then I doubt most users would bother with ad blockers.
Why is this surprising to anyone? It is clear that ads use tracking mechanisms and cookies and this is no different. Audio feature detection isn't even a novel techique. I've seen trackers look at download stream patterns to detect whether or not BBR congestion control is used, I have seen mouse latency based on the difference between mouse ups and downs in double clocks and I have seen speed-of-interaction checks in…
See also the recent decision to allow animated banner ads on various Stack Exchange network sites.
This encapsulates the entire problem with the current state of digital advertising in 1 simple sentence.
If you don’t use an ad blocker you should expect your browser to behave in strange ways. If you don’t use an ad blocker you should consider your computer compromised.
Honestly, how are still allowed to execute javascript at all?! I get it if the ad-manager still executed javascript, but how is it okay to let random 3rd parties run js on your website?
It's ok. SO's policy on abusive ads is to mention it on mets and hope a moderator notices and then acts upon it.
I just wanted to chime in from Stack Overflow here and let people know: we are aware of the issue. And we're NOT okay with it. We're trying to sort out how to kill the audio behavior now. It's not very straightforward to find where it's coming from, but we are working on it. We've also reached out to Google for their assistance in tracking it down. If anyone can offer advice, we'll more than happily take it. - Nick C…
I wonder if the top brass at alphabet ever worry that their trillion dollar empire is based on fragile foundations like web audio fingerprinting, etc. that sure would keep me up at night. obviously, i know google does more, but it seems like a large chunk of their revenue must be dependent on shady technical tricks like these working.
If you want to buy advertising online you're probably gonna end up dealing with them either directly or indirectly.