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

Adblocking: How about Nah?

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 549 posts

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#261

Post by hnaccy »

ggg3 wrote: post #244
grenoire wrote: post #10

In the end, it's an arms race, and I don't think either side is giving up on it anytime soon. The only thing that concerns me is that one side has way too much money, while the other side has way too much time. Let's see who wins.

the point of the article is that the wars is over. money won by enlisting the corrupt law makers. from now on, content will have DRM (e.g. netflix) and if any adblocker even tries to touch it, the creators can be jailed. now if you want to create/contribute an adblock, besides time, you must have impeccable opSec or also be willing to do time in jail.

Why hasn't google used this on youtube?

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#262

Post by on_and_off »

What I find interesting about this post is that it only talks about blocking ads but not about how to replace them as a source of revenue for websites.

I actually do pay for some websites, including for not seeing ads on Youtube (with mixed results now that ads are just baked in the video, when the entirety of the video itself is not an ad) and I want an easy way to do so : I want to be able to access the content I want while its creator gets paid.

So far, ads have been a successful way to do micro payments (the only ?).

Instead of waging this increasing war between ads and ad blockers, I would rather see organizations that try to find a better solution (with privacy somewhere at the top of the checklist).

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#263

Post by earenndil »

ddalex wrote: post #238
acdha wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly the best feature of the Brave browser is having that be one tap away, remembered per-site. I really wish Firefox would copy it since I’m not optimistic about Brave’s longevity.

Try the umatrix extension

Doesn't work on ios.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#264

Post by bredren »

ikeboy wrote: post #143
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising has also been proven to be bad for your sense of life satisfaction, which is an externality not paid for by advertisers. "The effect implies that a hypothetical doubling of advertising expenditure would result in a 3% drop in life satisfaction. That is approximately one half the absolute size of the marriage effect on life satisfaction, or approximately one quarter of the absolute size of the effect of be…

I don't see how the study is establishing causation. It does not prove that advertising is creating an externality, as you claim. In fact, it explicitly says that it does not show causation and recommends further research. It's easy to come up with theories to explain it that don't have anything to do with the one you proposed. For instance, higher advertising could be caused by weakness in the economy that doesn't s…

I have managed to block advertising out of my life so effectively for so long I nearly recoil when a normal tv advertisement at someone’s home or a bar catches me somehow at full volume.

That or I marvel to those around me at the amazing production value of some stupid commercial that’s aired to them countless times is.

I have no doubt a barrage of ads day in and day out, regardless of economic condition is bad for a person’s well being.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#266

Post by Ntrails »

jefftk wrote: post #119
deanc wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. I’d go as far as forbidding embedded JS altogether which removes the attack vector for malware within advertising networks. The networks have proved time and time again they are not able to prevent distribution of malware, and this is the primary reason I use an adblocker. Maybe a new tag which points to a resource which can only serve an image, video or text. Absolutely no scripting. Pass along only the adver…

> Maybe a new tag which points to a resource which can only serve an image, video or text. Absolutely no scripting. Pass along only the advertiser ID and the bare minimum. How would fraud detection work in this model? How do advertisers know the requests are coming from real users and not bots? Without assurance there, advertisers would pay much less, and publishers would earn much less. (Disclosure: I work on ads at…

How does fraud detection work on newspaper sales figures, or television viewer numbers?

The internet has seemingly decided that without tracking ads don't work. No. Serve your static ad or I will continue to see nothing. :)

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#267

Post by mcbits »

jokoon wrote: post #198

How is that still a debate? I often use firefox reader mode just because websites use custom fonts, and to remove all the clutter, even when there is no ads. Also, it won't be long until reddit is sued and must remove comments where people copy-paste the entire article because of pay walls and ad blockers. Same for outline. I guess website will start findings ways to prevent copy pasting, and maybe someone will creat…

I think Reddit is largely protected from being sued (in the US) for copyright infringement in comments/submissions as long as they comply with valid DMCA notices. But yeah, that involves removing the content.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#268

Post by 18pfsmt »

ddalex wrote: post #238
acdha wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly the best feature of the Brave browser is having that be one tap away, remembered per-site. I really wish Firefox would copy it since I’m not optimistic about Brave’s longevity.

Try the umatrix extension

Applicable link:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#269

Post by chris_wot »

okr wrote: post #230
dkersten wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don’t care. It worked in print, it can work in digital. Adverts would bother me less if advertisers hadn’t proven again and again that they can’t be trusted and that they don’t care about my privacy. I also believe that advertisement is a cop out for a real business model and the lowest form of business. Besides, as Banksy said: “You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe t…

You say, "google makes a fortune and content creators make fuck all", then why do people still upload their content? That makes no sense to me at all. But besides that, i am all for more competition. Better user interfaces, better conditions, less censorship, i am for all of it. And to me it earns a lot of respect, that i can upload my 8k video to youtube, they distribute it potentially to millions of people, and i d…

That’s a good question. People do it for free, because they want to contribute to society. That’s why people contribute to open source, or Wikipedia, or write blog articles, participate on StackOverflow or post to HN.

Not everything is about the almighty dollar. Did you get paid for participating in this discussion?

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#270

Post by alkonaut »

jefftk wrote: post #119
deanc wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. I’d go as far as forbidding embedded JS altogether which removes the attack vector for malware within advertising networks. The networks have proved time and time again they are not able to prevent distribution of malware, and this is the primary reason I use an adblocker. Maybe a new tag which points to a resource which can only serve an image, video or text. Absolutely no scripting. Pass along only the adver…

> Maybe a new tag which points to a resource which can only serve an image, video or text. Absolutely no scripting. Pass along only the advertiser ID and the bare minimum. How would fraud detection work in this model? How do advertisers know the requests are coming from real users and not bots? Without assurance there, advertisers would pay much less, and publishers would earn much less. (Disclosure: I work on ads at…

> advertisers would pay much less, and publishers would earn much less

I think people like me who argue that web advertising should return to dumb/static/contextual ads also accept that it might kill a huge fraction of web revenue/jobs/content.

The downside is that advertisers move to the walled gardens of a few big players, and to native advertising. I’m still more ok with that than with the way the ad industry works now.

Post reply on HN