AdBlock Plus wins in court • Hacker News Board

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#111

Post by cfinke » Thu, May 28, 2015, 6:22 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #103

cfinke wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No it isn't, because no payment is required to view the page in question. How it works is that your browser downloads a page. That page contains scripts and links. Thanks to blocking software working on your behalf, the browser picks and chooses what of that cruft it should activate and what it should ignore. Nobody has a right to make your computer fetch unwanted content and throw it in your face. It's like looking…

> No it isn't, because no payment is required to view the page in question.

The "payment" is the implicit agreement to view the ads.

> How it works is that your browser downloads a page. That page contains scripts and links.

Thanks for the lesson on how Web browsers work. I wish I knew all of that when I worked at Netscape; maybe it would still be around.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#112

Post by nate_meurer » Thu, May 28, 2015, 6:35 PM UTC

cfinke wrote: post #111

kazinator wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't, because no payment is required to view the page in question. How it works is that your browser downloads a page. That page contains scripts and links. Thanks to blocking software working on your behalf, the browser picks and chooses what of that cruft it should activate and what it should ignore. Nobody has a right to make your computer fetch unwanted content and throw it in your face. It's like looking…

> No it isn't, because no payment is required to view the page in question. The "payment" is the implicit agreement to view the ads. > How it works is that your browser downloads a page. That page contains scripts and links. Thanks for the lesson on how Web browsers work. I wish I knew all of that when I worked at Netscape; maybe it would still be around.

There is no fucking "implicit agreement" when you look at a publicly available website, any more than when you look at a billboard on the street. I'm sorry for cussing, but no one gets to dictate the manner in which you use your eyes in public spaces.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#113

Post by nate_meurer » Thu, May 28, 2015, 6:46 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #70

imglorp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad providers are prime hacking targets because it's a vector to deliver malware to reputable sites showing reputable ads. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ad+network+hacked&t=ffnt

I'd be curious if anyone has data on this, but I think hacking sites is a much more common vector. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wordpress+hacked+malware&t=ffnt If an Ad Blocker is the only thing standing in the way of you and an exploit, you're gonna have a bad day.

That's a bit of a strawman, isn't it? No one is saying their ad blocker is their "only" protection. But when you go to to an ad-infested site like huffington post, with dozens of different ad sources on each page, an ad blocker can cut your exposure to a small fraction of what it would be otherwise.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#114

Post by npizzolato » Thu, May 28, 2015, 7:09 PM UTC

a3n wrote: post #65

npizzolato wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the op but, I often disable adblock on sites I enjoy because I feel similarly. I'm not really interested in a semantic debate about what is or is not "stealing," but it certainly deprives others of revenue for creating content I get value from. When that content is otherwise free except for ads, it makes me feel rather shitty to go out of my way to block their revenue stream. Edit: that said, I do still keep adbl…

Virtually every ad is abusive or obnoxious, because they track you. That's probably the leverage that makes online ads worthwhile. That's for better targeted ads, what could be wrong with that (unless maybe you see an ad for sex toys while you're looking at a site with your kid, oops). But data about you can be misused, or stolen and misused, and it's better in general to just not let the data be collected; you don't…

We're obviously going to have different definitions of abusive and obnoxious, but for the record I don't find tracking that I visited a website to fall under that category. I was speaking more for pop ups and things that play video or music.

And as I said, adblock has it's uses. If you don't want your kids to see ads for sex toys, nothing wrong with using adblock when visiting those types of sites.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#115

Post by discreditable » Thu, May 28, 2015, 7:17 PM UTC

aikah wrote: post #96

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 adbl…

>heck now some businesses make all their browsers block ads

As one such business (a school) which blocks ads on company computers, I can say it has drastically reduced our malware-related incidents from teachers/staff. My gut feeling is that search result ads and false download buttons were the source of many of our infections. Users do not think before they click, and it seems like most of them that expect to be able to find useful software behind an advertisement often pay a price.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#116

Post by npizzolato » Thu, May 28, 2015, 7:17 PM UTC

d_theorist wrote: post #101

eis wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

(responding here to eli since we've reached the depth limit) >My definition of stealing includes theft of services. That's fine. You can go off and speak your own private language. The rest of us don't get to redefine words arbitrarily. This is necessary for us to be able to communicate in a common language.

This is some ridiculous pedantry. Theft is a synonym for stealing. Merriam Webster even defines it as the "act of stealing." So if you're going to use "theft of service" as an acceptable phrase, then "stealing a service" must also work conceptually. To complain that is unacceptable to shorten that to just stealing in a conversation is utterly ludicrous.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#117

Post by johnward » Thu, May 28, 2015, 11:59 PM UTC

johnward wrote: post #92

throwaway2048 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relate…

I guess the counterpoint to this is if the site can detect ad blockers than they could attempt to use methods the blockers can't pick up yet.