Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

meta.stackoverflow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 416 posts

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#241

Post by ragerino »

Nick-Craver wrote: post #68

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 hear from multiple sides people reporting, to receive ads about topics thy only talked to friends about but never entered in a search engine.

Google has is currently as far away from their previous world famous "don't be evil" corporate culture.

Other examples are AMP where Google wants to make it harder to de-individualise URL's. This is being driven to an extend where Chrome on Android makes it harder to edit the URL.

Or games like Egress or PokemonGo, which in my opinion helps Google constantly update their WiFi SSIDs-To-GPS-location database.This database is rhen furthermore being used to track users location through a little permission called "WiFi Control", which also can not be found in the regular App Permissions settings entry.

To me WiFi-Control sound nothing like location tracking. But I have to admit, I am not a native speaker. Therefore I might be misunderstanding something.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#242

Post by manigandham »

mikeash wrote: post #220
manigandham wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All creatives (and the root templates of dynamically construted ones) are actually audited on the advertiser-facing platforms before they ever get to the publisher. Unfortunately running javascript means these ads can do anything at any time and change into malware. Other than adding some technical guardrails, the best practice would be to ban bad actors (of which many are known and usually the same shady people) but…

So, don't allow them to run JavaScript. That's not necessary, just convenient.

See my other comment for how it all works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20290673

It's not that simple. There are many layers in the supply chain that currently requires JS. Publishers can't disable the JS and they can't demand JS-free creatives either.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#243

Post by NikolaNovak »

shawnz wrote: post #43
superasn wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I thought about it that's why "unless the user turns it off" comment in parens. I think out of 100 sites I visit everyday no website needs to access the audio api without my consent maybe except one or two which i can whitelist. Same for user agent, I don't think it should break if the container says I'm running firefox v65 or v67, etc.

If websites had to ask permission to enable responsive features like screen size detection, then nobody would use them

AWESOME.

Things went downhill once we started writing HTML which required knowing screen size ;-<

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#244

Post by manigandham »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #235
manigandham wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just not how digital ad campaigns are run. Advertisers, agencies, media buyers and the rest of the supply chain don't negotiate with individual sites like that, not at any scale that can sustain a site like SO.

I thought Penny Arcade does bespoke ads. Rock Paper Shotgun used to do bespoke ads. I always found them million times more effective, and more trust-inspiring of both ad AND site, to me. Is SO smaller business? Possible... just surprised.

Those sites are far smaller than Stackoverflow. Bespoke campaigns don't always pay more, and usually mean less total revenue for the site if that's all they run.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#245

Post by Benjammer »

gotodengo wrote: post #92
Nick-Craver wrote: post #68

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…

From the post: "The ad is attempting to use the Audio API as one of literally hundreds of pieces of data it is collecting about your browser in an attempt to "fingerprint" it... Your browser may be blocking this particular API, but it's not blocking most of the data." Seems like killing the audio is the metaphorical putting a finger in the dyke of serving arbitrary JavaScript to your users.

Maybe in the dyke holding back user outrage, but the dyke of serving arbitrary JavaScript was never built in the first place.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#246

Post by mikeash »

manigandham wrote: post #242
mikeash wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, don't allow them to run JavaScript. That's not necessary, just convenient.

See my other comment for how it all works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20290673 It's not that simple. There are many layers in the supply chain that currently requires JS. Publishers can't disable the JS and they can't demand JS-free creatives either.

Of course it’s that simple. Don’t let ads run JS. Done.

You’re saying that doing this would drastically decrease ad revenue. Which is what I’m saying too: it’s about money, not necessity.

Would a site like SO be unable to survive without ads that run arbitrary JS? I don’t know. Even if the answer is that they must do this to survive, it’s still insane that content companies let randos inject arbitrary code into their pages. If this is so entrenched in the industry that there’s no way around it, that just means the industry is insane.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#248

Post by tjpnz »

ragerino wrote: post #241
Nick-Craver wrote: post #68

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 hear from multiple sides people reporting, to receive ads about topics thy only talked to friends about but never entered in a search engine. Google has is currently as far away from their previous world famous "don't be evil" corporate culture. Other examples are AMP where Google wants to make it harder to de-individualise URL's. This is being driven to an extend where Chrome on Android makes it harder to edit the…

"Don't be evil" was replaced by "Do the right thing" years ago. Great piece of corporate speak right there.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#249

Post by wdr1 »

mikeash wrote: post #176
manigandham wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tv spots are very limited. Digital ad impressions number in the billions with 10s of millions of ad creatives. It’s not the same situation.

The only reason it’s not the same situation is because they’re willing to throw their users under the bus for a little extra cash. If they wanted to exert more control, they absolutely could. Ads would cost more and we’d see fewer distinct ads as a result.

Or -- the more expensive ads don't justify the ROI, meaning advertisers don't buy them, meaning fewer ads, but less content.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#250

Post by manigandham »

mikeash wrote: post #246
manigandham wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other comment for how it all works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20290673 It's not that simple. There are many layers in the supply chain that currently requires JS. Publishers can't disable the JS and they can't demand JS-free creatives either.

Of course it’s that simple. Don’t let ads run JS. Done. You’re saying that doing this would drastically decrease ad revenue. Which is what I’m saying too: it’s about money, not necessity. Would a site like SO be unable to survive without ads that run arbitrary JS? I don’t know. Even if the answer is that they must do this to survive, it’s still insane that content companies let randos inject arbitrary code into their…

Money is a necessity, that's how SO exists, and it wouldn't sustain its current size if it required JS-free network campaigns or tried to sell all ad space directly.

Simple doesn't mean it's easy or realistic. Yes, adtech has major problems but they're being slowly worked on and won't change overnight. This applies to any other industry where you think can just walk in and solve everything if everyone just did X. Reality doesn't work that way.

Post reply on HN