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

AdBlock Plus wins in court

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 117 posts

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#41

Post by eli »

eis wrote: post #16
k-mcgrady wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not. In other words it's not stealing unless you get caught? Edit: Relax people. Let's not get into another debate on copying vs. theft. I was merely pointing out that the parents analogy (which was the one that referenced stealing) was bad.

It's not stealing because nothing is stolen. Or what is your definition of stealing?

Is jumping a subway turnstile stealing? The same train leaves whether you're on it or not. But if enough people don't pay the fare, the whole system breaks down.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#42

Post by eli »

summerdown2 wrote: post #30
baldfat wrote: post #4

Personally I don't use Ad Blockers just due to the fact my own personal ethics feels I am stealing when I do use it. When I am teaching I have ad blocker installed because I don't want to get in trouble for what advertisement will be shown, especially YouTube. AdBlock Plus and their paid white list is the worst and I don't know why people use them.

How do you feel about disabling javascript by default, and making things click-to-play? I ask because I think the line between "advert used for site finance," and "drive-by malware" can sometimes be blurry. For example: http://www.cnet.com/news/malware-delivered-by-yahoo-fox-goog... I think that when I click on a link I agree to see the content they provide. I'm not sure I really want to agree to third-party stuff wi…

Fair enough, but if your browser is susceptible to drive-by malware, you're going to have a bad time on the internet whether you block ads or not. I think hacked sites are a far more common malware vector than ads.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#43

Post by d_theorist »

aroch wrote: post #38
uxp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to love Ghostery, until I learned that their business model is to resell your browsing habits and profile back to advertisers. If you want a suggestion for an alternative, I really don't have one. I'm currently using µBlock, which isn't bad, but requires a bit more setup than Ghostery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock

>until I learned that their business model is to resell your browsing habits and profile back to advertisers. ...If you voluntarily opt into that program (Ghostrank), after reading the straight-forward description. I don't understand why people find their business model so abhorrent when its entirely opt-in and they don't weasel around what ghostrank does. Surely you must find every service on the internet that you u…

Yes. I have no problem with their model. They are completely open about it and it does me no harm. Ghostery does exactly what I need.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#44

Post by eli »

struppi wrote: post #15
honest_joe wrote: post #12

This is sad day for content creators. If the site is full of ads you are not comfortable to view do NOT VISIT such sites again. It's stealing, it's manipulating the statistics. We can't get good content because corporations taught people to not pay for content and now we will not get good content because people will slice the income of those who use ads.

Do you switch channels on your TV when the commercials start and switch back when the show resumes? Blocking online ads is basically the same. i.e. perfectly legitimate. Only you hurt the creator more online, since the advertisers can now measure the views+clicks. Which is also perfectly fair - They should not have to pay for ads nobody sees. This would also be fair on TV - But there it's impossible to measure.

> This would also be fair on TV - But there it's impossible to measure.

Offtopic, but Neilsen actually does measure whether people are changing channels during commercials.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#45

Post by tracker1 »

eli wrote: post #24
sparaker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't use AdBlock Plus but i do use AdBlock. I think its my decision to choose which ads i watch and which i don't. It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not.

It's actually not easy to detect adblock use. Popular ad blockers actively try to evade detection. If the intent is to let publishers decide whether to allow adblock users or not, it should send an easily detectable flag.

Put a div tag with a class of "ad" on it... then test it's display style property 100ms after the load event...

For that matter, wrap your primary content in a div with a class of "ad" ... then users won't even see the content, and you can replace it with a notice to disable adblock and refresh the page.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#46

Post by discreditable »

mahouse wrote: post #27
erikb wrote: post #5

TIL: Firefox has configurable tracking protection! https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-fir...

I enabled it and I still see social buttons. :(

It's fairly spartan compared to other anti-tracking services. I haven't been able to find a policy regarding what is included in the list.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#47

Post by eli »

tracker1 wrote: post #45
eli wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually not easy to detect adblock use. Popular ad blockers actively try to evade detection. If the intent is to let publishers decide whether to allow adblock users or not, it should send an easily detectable flag.

Put a div tag with a class of "ad" on it... then test it's display style property 100ms after the load event... For that matter, wrap your primary content in a div with a class of "ad" ... then users won't even see the content, and you can replace it with a notice to disable adblock and refresh the page.

I tried that: https://github.com/elidickinson/ad-block-test

Much harder to get right than you'd think and if you're a big site it's worse: the block lists will be updated to "whitelist" your test ad.

It's difficult for publishers to even accurately measure what impact ad blocking is having on their business.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#48

Post by d_theorist »

baldfat wrote: post #35
eis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not stealing because nothing is stolen. Or what is your definition of stealing?

To quote an old saying, "Nothing in life is free." Websites rely on ad revenue. If the ads are blocked the website or streamers on Twitch do not receive the revenue. Just because it doesn't go into my pocket doesn't mean it isn't stealing in my own personal view. For example if you take a sapphire from the Museum of Natural History and than throw away or lose the golf ball size 563 carat Star of India. You gained not…

>Websites rely on ad revenue. If the ads are blocked the website or streamers on Twitch do not receive the revenue.

And I'm perfectly happy with that.

It is not my responsibility to download webpages in such a way as to maximise the revenue of the site owner.

It is the business' responsibility to make money. Not mine. If they are employing ineffective methods then it is up to them to alter them. It is not up to me to change my behaviour to suit their business plan.

I am perfectly within my rights to download web pages using whatever software I like, whether that be lynx, wget, curl, a screen-reader, or Firefox with add-ons or Firefox with javascript or images or widgets or cookies blocked. I use the software that suits me. I am under no obligation - legal or moral - to use the software that suits companies serving websites.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#49

Post by blfr »

baldfat wrote: post #4

Personally I don't use Ad Blockers just due to the fact my own personal ethics feels I am stealing when I do use it. When I am teaching I have ad blocker installed because I don't want to get in trouble for what advertisement will be shown, especially YouTube. AdBlock Plus and their paid white list is the worst and I don't know why people use them.

You can disable that white list of "unobtrusive advertising" by unchecking a single tick box.

I use it because it works and has worked for a long time. I tried µBlock but it was leading to weird short lockups of my Firefox after a longer session.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#50

Post by [deleted] »

uxp wrote: post #32
d_theorist wrote: post #7

Good. Although I prefer Ghostery. The main thing for me isn't even blocking ads as such. The main thing is blocking the absurd amount of crappy javascript that clogs up my browser, in which I have no interest. I find the unfiltered web insufferable these days.

I used to love Ghostery, until I learned that their business model is to resell your browsing habits and profile back to advertisers. If you want a suggestion for an alternative, I really don't have one. I'm currently using µBlock, which isn't bad, but requires a bit more setup than Ghostery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock

[deleted]
Post reply on HN