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

91–100 of 117 posts

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#91

Post by leejoramo »

johnward wrote: post #81
NickNameNick wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a fundamental level, your server is free to do whatever it wants with the requests I send it, and my browser is free to do whatever I want with the responses it receives. Because your server is yours, and my computer is mine.

Is it easy to detect people who are using adblock and serve them nothing? Not that that is the best way to handle it but the OP does have a point. At least it would stop leaches. If you put content out for "free" because you make a few cents from advertising if they block the ads it's not much different than stealing.

I have never done this, but technically you could do this. The problem I see how to implement this in a way that can not easily be countered with new ad blocking tools.

For example, a year or so ago I saw that DuckDuckGo notices when you use ad blocking and very respectfully asks you to consider not blocking their ads.

A few months later, the ad blocking software that I use, added a feature to block those respectful messages too.

Note: I am not currently blocking ads on DDG

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#92

Post by johnward »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #89
johnward wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it easy to detect people who are using adblock and serve them nothing? Not that that is the best way to handle it but the OP does have a point. At least it would stop leaches. If you put content out for "free" because you make a few cents from advertising if they block the ads it's not much different than stealing.

no matter what the adblocker can always pretend to view the ad, this is not a fight advertisers can win.

Ad blockers should develop a way for sites to know if a user is using the ad blocker. It's not about advertisers winning it's about people that pay for hosting with the expectation they will make ad revenue from their content. I feel like ad blockers is pushing us towards the "comcast pay per channel" type internet.

The fact is a majority of sites need to make money from their content. So they can sell ads, or related products, or paid access or just beg like wikipedia but there has to be some potential to make money or a majority of sites cease to exist.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#93

Post by johnward »

leejoramo wrote: post #91
johnward wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it easy to detect people who are using adblock and serve them nothing? Not that that is the best way to handle it but the OP does have a point. At least it would stop leaches. If you put content out for "free" because you make a few cents from advertising if they block the ads it's not much different than stealing.

I have never done this, but technically you could do this. The problem I see how to implement this in a way that can not easily be countered with new ad blocking tools. For example, a year or so ago I saw that DuckDuckGo notices when you use ad blocking and very respectfully asks you to consider not blocking their ads. A few months later, the ad blocking software that I use, added a feature to block those respectful…

It's kind of a problem. If users should be allowed to choose not to view ads then content creators should be allowed to not serve that content.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#94

Post by leejoramo »

johnward wrote: post #93
leejoramo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never done this, but technically you could do this. The problem I see how to implement this in a way that can not easily be countered with new ad blocking tools. For example, a year or so ago I saw that DuckDuckGo notices when you use ad blocking and very respectfully asks you to consider not blocking their ads. A few months later, the ad blocking software that I use, added a feature to block those respectful…

It's kind of a problem. If users should be allowed to choose not to view ads then content creators should be allowed to not serve that content.

To be clear, I am not against ad publishers taking this approach. I am just doubtful about how effective it will be.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#95

Post by infamouscow »

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.

Yes, but you might discover that your content is not valuable.

People are willing to pay for content that is valuable. LWN [1] and the No Agenda Show [2] prove that you don't need ads to produce content that is leagues beyond any ad-supported content.

The underlying reason most newspapers are dying is because they aren't doing anything but regergitating the Associated Press and Reuters. There's no difference between a thoughtful, well investigated new article, and one that's a rehash of the Associated Press or Reuters. Why go through all the work of confirming with credible sources, looking through documents, and interviewing experts when you can get the same number of page views from a syndicated article.

1: https://lwn.net/

2: http://www.noagendashow.com/

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#96

Post by aikah »

Adblockers are not that popular yet, but each time I show adblock and co to someone, that persons just doesn't go back and recommends adblock and co to his family,friends and coworkers. The rise of adblocking solutions WILL be exponential, the heck now some businesses make all their browsers block ads.. It's today that advertisers or sites relying on ad revenue need to find solutions.

One could bare people using adblockers from seeing content("free" pornsites are starting doing that). but then it will just be an escalation in technology. Adblockers will become smarter and ultimately defeat detection techniques.

One can appeal to user's "conscience" by displaying a message stating one relies on ad revenue. I think it's a good compromise if one promises that his ads are discrete like simple pictures or text.

Frankly, years of ad abuse, loud auto-play video ads and flash ads that take over the whole window have made users weary of online advertising.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#97

Post by JoeAltmaier »

infamouscow wrote: post #95
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.

Yes, but you might discover that your content is not valuable. People are willing to pay for content that is valuable. LWN [1] and the No Agenda Show [2] prove that you don't need ads to produce content that is leagues beyond any ad-supported content. The underlying reason most newspapers are dying is because they aren't doing anything but regergitating the Associated Press and Reuters. There's no difference between…

I got lost. Your content is not valueable, ok plausible. Then, newspapers are dying because they only show (valuable) articles?

I think rather, its not the value of the information that's at issue. Its the monopoly on the source that's valuable. Once the monopoly is gone, once you can get the same stuff for free somewhere else, then nobody pays.

And all information on the web is free somewhere.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#98

Post by d_theorist »

baldfat wrote: post #86
d_theorist wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

It is up to you but if 100% of people did exactly what you did where would we be? Pay walls?

If the advertising is so appallingly bad that 100% of people are blocking it, then it doesn't deserve to exist, does it?

The idea of advertising is to get people interested in some product or service; not to provide an income stream for websites that can't persuade users to pay for their content.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#99

Post by eli »

eis wrote: post #90
eli wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think jumping a turnstile is self-evidently stealing. It is also the case that it becomes a problem for everyone when enough people do it, but it would be stealing either way.

So please lay out your definition of stealing and explain why it would apply to this case. "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it." No property is taken. It's not stealing. There are other correct terms to describe these things like theft of service.

My definition of stealing includes theft of services.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#100

Post by cfinke »

kazinator wrote: post #83
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.

Am I stealing if I pick out the nice apples from the bin at the grocery store, and leave behind the ones with rotten spots?

Ad-blocking is more akin to eating the good parts of an apple and then not paying the grocery store because you didn't want the rotten spots.
Post reply on HN