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

“We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 259 posts

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#121

Post by Retric »

cstross wrote: post #91
Retric wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All industry's are regulated. The general case is normal laws. Ad networks serving links to compromised websites is likely already illegal.

I'm talking about professional registration (exams, licenses to practice, supervisory body, jail sentences for impersonation, forefeiture of registration for ethics infractions), not bog-standard trade law.

In the case of Ad networks serving up malware I don't know if that's a real defense. Yes, proactive regulation is often far more effective, but reactive regulation can often catch the worst offenders.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#122

Post by MBCook »

deprave wrote: post #53
econnors wrote: post #6

As noted other comments, this would only apply to the /r/technology subreddit. The general feedback is in favor of blocking these types of sites. I'm pretty amazed at the current state of ads. With multiple ad exchanges, private sellers, and static brand deals, the entire serving process is a mess and users are paying for it. I don't think publishing websites are being malicious; they're incentived to make money and…

I don't know about "only applies to /r/technology" - we've been there before. Remember when ad blockers were mostly prevalent among techies and visitors to tech sites? Yeah, well, that changed. It may start with /r/technology, but I'm pretty sure it won't end there...

This discussion is specifically from the mods of /r/technology.

Will other parts of Reddit follow suit? Maybe. But right now it's just /r/technology.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#123

Post by beachstartup »

bemmu wrote: post #10
alblue wrote: post #2

The nub of the thread is: these sites have put up ad blocker blockers, so you can't see the content without disabling your ad blocker. And yet when you do you are either exposed to full screen or video auto play ads, or in some cases, malware: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-rea... Given that Reddit is a large source of incoming referrals this stance (if implemented) might be a sufficient lev…

In response to ads, people install ad blockers. In response to ad blockers, sites install ad blocker blockers. In response to ad blocker blockers, Reddit adds ad blocker blocker blocker.

sites will probably install ad blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker, i.e., prevent referrals from reddit.

it's an arms race!

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#124

Post by logfromblammo »

S_A_P wrote: post #60

Ive actually implemented this locally. I reached a breaking point with some of the intrusive ads, so I block ads. If a site(such as Wired) asks me to turn that off, I add it to simple blocker and dont go back. The funny thing is a) I have a print subscription to wired but I cant access the site without turning off ad blocking, and b) I dont miss the online version. If Im just being honest with myself, its doing me a…

I also have a print subscription to Wired. I don't pay for it directly. I use the airline miles I occasionally get from any company that puts me on a plane at their expense, just to keep the remaining balances from expiring due to inactivity.

I usually don't even take it out of the plastic overwrap, because my eyes don't have ad-blockers installed.

I guess next time, I can spend some miles on a cheapo flashlight keyfob, or something. I guess I was just sort of throwing them a bone out of 90s nostalgia, anyway. If they don't want me looking at their website on my own terms, I won't do it. And if I stop looking at their website, I don't have much use for their inky paper, either.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#125

Post by seangrogg »

deprave wrote: post #53
econnors wrote: post #6

As noted other comments, this would only apply to the /r/technology subreddit. The general feedback is in favor of blocking these types of sites. I'm pretty amazed at the current state of ads. With multiple ad exchanges, private sellers, and static brand deals, the entire serving process is a mess and users are paying for it. I don't think publishing websites are being malicious; they're incentived to make money and…

I don't know about "only applies to /r/technology" - we've been there before. Remember when ad blockers were mostly prevalent among techies and visitors to tech sites? Yeah, well, that changed. It may start with /r/technology, but I'm pretty sure it won't end there...

Well, yeah. Things tend to have origins. And if those things are good they tend to expand from those origins...

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#126

Post by MoreTuple »

bemmu wrote: post #10
alblue wrote: post #2

The nub of the thread is: these sites have put up ad blocker blockers, so you can't see the content without disabling your ad blocker. And yet when you do you are either exposed to full screen or video auto play ads, or in some cases, malware: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-rea... Given that Reddit is a large source of incoming referrals this stance (if implemented) might be a sufficient lev…

In response to ads, people install ad blockers. In response to ad blockers, sites install ad blocker blockers. In response to ad blocker blockers, Reddit adds ad blocker blocker blocker.

3 should be:

In response to add blocker blockers, ad blockers install ad blocker blocker blockers.

then onto your number 3

:)

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#127

Post by criddell »

morgante wrote: post #92
phaemon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would be too much. Why would it? I'd like to see those ad-laden pages dropped from HN also. As well as sites with paywalls. There are plenty of other pages on the web that can be featured instead.

Genuine question: do you think all journalism should be done for free? I can somewhat an understand an opposition to advertising or paywalls. Opposing both is unconscionable.

I have no problem with advertising but I don't want to be tracked. So often these are talked about as a single entity but they really aren't, or at least don't have to be.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#128

Post by ksk »

willvarfar wrote: post #28

Tangentially, I would like Google to put a warning on navigating to a site that has served malware any time in the past month. This will increase the penalty of serving malware so much that sites will suddenly push back on the ad networks and improve quality dramatically.

They would have to block their own website then !

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#129

Post by puddintane »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #45
tomp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are malicious. They're serving the high-profit ads, which obviously includes malware, where they could be serving low-profit, safe (but boring) ads. That's equivalent to pharmacists selling illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine) simply because they obviously make them more profits.

In this case, high-profit ads include dynamic content (JavaScript or Flash). Safe (but boring) ads would simply be an image or text link with no tracking capabilities that doesn't use CSS hacks to interrupt your page reading. It just sits up there saying, "If you want it, check this out."

Tracking still happens with "safe" ads. Generally "image pixels" as they call em are actually server side scripts that then pretend to be an image that way they can still track the users IP and what they were doing at that point in time.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#130

Post by mobiuscog »

morgante wrote: post #107
krapp wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is saying "high quality" journalists should work for free (although their employers would probably prefer it), only that they can no longer depend on advertising for revenue. If companies want to remain on the web and continue making money they're going to have to be more creative, begging people to view their ads by blocking ad blockers (while understandable) probably isn't going to work in the long run.

The parent was railing against both adwalls and paywalls. If you don't want advertising and refuse to pay for content, I don't see how that's anything less than expecting free journalism.

Except all of the media companies are scared to do that, because they fear that not enough people are interested in their 'content' to pay, and they don't want that point to be proven.

There's more content these days than most people care for - to be honest, if 99% of sites were paywalled, I'd probably be far more productive and not surfing 'information' that is free for the sake of just existing.

Post reply on HN