Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

Post by _up » Sun, Jun 14, 2015, 10:57 AM UTC

asdf99 wrote: post #18

IBM wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it will be a good change if publishers were forced to sell/deliver their own ads. The problem has always been third-party ad networks that track you across the web and sometimes delivers malware. Publishers have never had to take ownership for the ads they serve and the user experience has suffered. The way forward is native ads (no, native ads aren't advertorials) like podcast ads, radio ads, or sponsored po…

even big publishers like Yahoo can't do that because there's an average of 20 companies between then and the brands advertising. publisher would love to be alone in the field and pocket the .20 per click. but ad agencies go a long way to doubt the publisher reports etc and try to pay less. every month a new layer show up, with the sole promise of allowing the ad vendor to pay less for the publisher. the fad du jour i…

Post by serve_yay » Sun, Jun 14, 2015, 2:32 PM UTC

carlesfe wrote: post #4

Apple: "We will allow ad blockers for Safari in iOS9. By the way, here's our new News app, which serves unblockable iAds"

Post by sakawa » Sun, Jun 14, 2015, 2:57 PM UTC

hollerith wrote: post #44

TheDong wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can do the same justification AdblockPlus does: Don't disable unintrusive ads, only intrusive ones, and thus allow google text ads. And yes, the adblock devs were given money by google shortly before making that choice.

>the adblock devs were given money by google shortly before making that choice. (No offense, but you're an anonymous writer on the internet.) Do you know of a URL or something I can use to verify that statement?

Post by spdustin » Sun, Jun 14, 2015, 3:44 PM UTC

brendal wrote: post #42

kbenson wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "free" is the most accurate succinct terminology to be used here, when used with it's most common definition. An ad-supported site/service can still cost money to use (e.g. Hulu Plus), so just referring to a site as ad-supported to distinguish the business model is no clearer than calling it free. The way to resolve this is to be more explicit, such as saying it's "monetarily free". But we all knew what was m…

> But we all knew what was meant, so why bother? Some dudes here have autism. That or they like to be a pain in the ass...

Post by cpeterso » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 7:36 AM UTC

caryhartline wrote: post #10

kibwen wrote: post #9

Firefox is also dabbling with built-in tracking protection ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9594158 ). I'll be curious to see how Google faces this trend with Chrome going forward. Apple may be able to get away with enabling users to block web ads while serving them native ads (in the guise of privacy), but if Google tried to do the same (i.e. with Google-served ads being somehow "blessed" by virtue of not shar…

Is it a guise of privacy when iAds is actually more private? Google has already done this with blocking Flash ads which blocks their own ad network as well.