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

Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

dhowe.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 253 posts

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#91

Post by ajuc »

vertex-four wrote: post #55
jmount wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strongly agree. Ads (and even ads placed by primary distributors and authors) hijacked the internet without permission from browsers/surfers and routinely have additional negative consequences. The reader doesn't need permission to defend themselves.

Do ads in a newspaper "hijack the real world"?

No but billboards do. http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/8/7897/z7897718Q,Polski-Outdoor.jpg

Anyway, I'm not using adblock for the last few years because internet isn't that bad (at least the sites I visit). Before adblock it was awful and I think it was adblock that made it go away. Thanks to users ability to respond we have balance.

So this is good that such extensions exist.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#92

Post by userbinator »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #21
androidb wrote: post #8

Bad idea, ads are also a way to support the site/service you are using. Automatic ad clicks can get that site banned (i.e. Adsense will surely do that) so that's a sure way to kill the site. Google for instance wouldn't have existed without ads. Lots of people on HN saved millennia with help from Stackoverflow (ad supported) and so on. I'm now "ad-aware" so I know how to differentiate content from ads, but I will cli…

I often wonder what the internet would be like without ads. First of all, you're right that it would totally kill sites. Let's say it happens. What's next? I would be ecstatic if sites like BuzzFeed and Gawker died. That'd be great[1]. But it also kills good sites like Stackoverflow. That sucks. Right now people don't have to pay for content. Almost everything is ad based. Because of this people almost never pay for…

I often wonder what the internet would be like without ads.

It's simple, think of all the completely-non-ad-supported sites you've used, and imagine an internet where those are the only ones around. Basically that would largely be sites hosted by the government, companies (whose profit comes from something else), educational institutions, nonprofits, and individuals.

From my experience, I've seen a lot of great content on non-ad-supported (mostly personal) sites.

Stackoverflow in its current incarnation would likely not exist, but I'd guess something similar would appear in its place. P2P systems might become more popular too. It's hard to say but I doubt such an internet would really be worse than the one we have today - it would just be different.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#93

Post by justinpaulson »

"AdNauseam serves as a means of amplifying users' discontent with advertising networks that disregard privacy and facilitate bulk surveillance agendas."

Is it really a privacy issue to track what ads you click and use that information to target advertisements to you later?

I never understand the outrage against targeted ads. You are going to get ads no matter what. That is how "free" content works. Would you rather the ads be catered to your interest and show things you that you might actually like an not know about, or would you rather have the ads be random things that you may have no interest in at all. Either way, you are getting ads. The ad companies are using this information to rob your house when you are away on vacation, or to reveal your embarassing secrets on social media, they are using this information to target ads to you and show you things that might actually interest you.

Why the anger over this?

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#94

Post by hagbardgroup »

forca wrote: post #19

I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…

This is pretty close to ad fraud.

However, I agree with you that display ad networks suck. I'm also not sold on the idea that the web should be free. The happy medium is to have users pay for content, making it so advertisers don't need to track users to verify that they're real humans, and improving the web for everyone except poor people.

One way that this could be done is to use bitcoin for tiny micropayments, billed frictionlessly. Rough for legal reasons among others, but ideas like this are sensible if only for human verification reasons.

If you want the web to largely free content, to pay for that you must accept privacy-destroying ad networks to bear that cost. We've created a situation where the choice is to free ride on other people, or to surrender privacy.

If you want the web to be largely teasers for paid content, then you can have significantly more privacy also. Instead of the articles being articles, you will get articles that are actually big ads for paid content (already the case for a huge number of popular search results).

Spreading tools like these kills free content like snaps fingers loudly that. I'm indifferent. Users might not be.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#95

Post by GhostCursor »

oliwarner wrote: post #7

Just remember that while targeting the ad networks, you're hurting the small publishers (who can't solicit independent advertising) more than the likes of Google. At least in the mid-term, Google can keep charging the same rate for the clicks and still take their cut. If anything, this is making the networks more money. In the long term, this devalues a click. The very moment things turn, the publisher will bear the…

Wrong income stream.

Charge directly. The users have control now, better make with the changes or face loss of business.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#96

Post by rebel »

GhostCursor wrote: post #90
rebel wrote: post #16

It's a shame this is even receiving front page publicity. This is ultimately terrible for everyone except maybe a few anarchists that think they deserve every websites information for free while sabotaging the publishers who work to develop the sites. And if it actually were to take off, it would then be bad for the anarchists who no longer get that free access to the information they wanted. Who wins? Edit: Seriousl…

We don't agree with ads as a means for 'paying for your hosting and content'. Charge people for your content and hosting, but this ad business doesn't work because of one reason: the user has control now. Can't be as shady anymore.

Then don't visit those websites. If you haven't paid money to access the content, immediately turn away from websites that are free and ad supported. If you don't agree with it, why do you have the right to not only "steal" the content on the website, but also needlessly shut down their revenue source just because you not only want the data for free, but you actively want to harm this person supplying the data for free.

Edit: I can't reply further down. However, I included in my original statement that using adblock is an acceptable measure. Why do you actually have to shut down the publishers revenue stream and ultimately their website to show off your dislike for ads? If you want to go with your street musician example, the way I see it is that you are free to not pay him money, however to punch him in the face after listening to his music (and presumably enjoying it) is completely pointless.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#97

Post by justinpaulson »

forca wrote: post #63
carrier_lost wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs" When I go to McDonald's, I don't pay for my Big Mac. I already put gas in my car!

Not even close with the analogy. Unless the content is behind a paywall, it's "free". Want to make money? Charge access. If your content is THAT compelling, people will line up and hand you money. Using a backhanded revenue machine like ads that track me and violate my "anonymity" is beyond the pale. So, yes. If I arrive on your site and there is no paywall, I will gladly view said content without allowing ads. If th…

You really want to live in a world where every single site is behind a paywall? because that is what you are advocating.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#98

Post by smcg »

psykovsky wrote: post #61
smcg wrote: post #6

one of the main reasons why I use adblock is to avoid malware (either from sites that are malicious that I don't know about, or legitimate sites that have been compromised to display malware ads, or legit sites that use an ad provider that has been compromised to display malware ads)... so no, I do not want to click on those ads, thank you very much.

NoScript and domain blocking using the hosts file is the best I've found to stop tracking. AdBlock is such a resource hog...

my main gripe with NoScript has been performing transactions and buying things online... if you don't allow all JS or enable JS on exactly the right domains then your purchases can fall through or fall in to limbo. and I don't have any resource problems with AdBlock.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#99

Post by Ntrails »

joopxiv wrote: post #33
forca wrote: post #19

I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…

... since I've paid to access the Interwebs You're paying for data transport, you're not paying for the content.

but the content is free - just ad supported.

They can construct an "ad-wall" in the same way they construct a "pay-wall" and are free to do so. Otherwise they are offering free content.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#100

Post by [deleted] »

androidb wrote: post #8

Bad idea, ads are also a way to support the site/service you are using. Automatic ad clicks can get that site banned (i.e. Adsense will surely do that) so that's a sure way to kill the site. Google for instance wouldn't have existed without ads. Lots of people on HN saved millennia with help from Stackoverflow (ad supported) and so on. I'm now "ad-aware" so I know how to differentiate content from ads, but I will cli…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN