Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#161

Post by fwn » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 3:40 PM UTC

jegutman wrote: post #136

aantix wrote: post #6

FB can't win this cat and mouse game. If the ads are to be distinguishable then there will be inherent properties that will lead to them getting blocked.

I thought most ad blocking right now depends on the fact that ads are served from different locations than the sites themselves. You can try to block native ads being served by the same stuff that serves the page, but it's reasonably more difficult and prone to false positives. There's a separate issue that as they try harder to block ads they will also make it less clear what's an ad. For example many ad blockers do…

Compared to Amazon search ads, Googles are trivial to block. But I think that in both cases as well as with Facebook newsfeed ads, cosmetic filters are the way to go anyway.

Those add css properties to page elements that make the element disappear. Here is an example for advanced cosmetic filter options: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#...

edit: nvm my amazon comment. I spent the last hour vaguely understanding xpath to create a filter for (German) Amazon sponsored search results.

    amazon.de##:xpath(//*[@id="s-results-list-atf"]/li/div[1]/div[1]/div[1]/div[2]/h5[text()="Gesponsert"]/../../../../..)

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#162

Post by wang_li » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 3:41 PM UTC

corford wrote: post #35

SEJeff wrote: post #5

Good luck. I suspect in no time uBlock Origin will have found a way to remove the ad elements from the DOM, even if they are served directly with the html of facebook and not a 3rd party domain.

It's going to be hard for facebook because they're such a big target. I think where ad-blockers will start to have problems is with the millions of lesser known sites. Once these publishers swap over to proxying ad-content through their own domains and using a handful of simple evasion tactics (random file name for the self hosted JS file that pulls in the ad, site specific pseudo-random DOM element names for the ad…

They can just not send you the actual content until you've downloaded the advertising content of the page.

And in HTTP/2.0 they'll just switch to pushing the ads out to you.

In either case they can't guarantee it'll get on the screen, but they assuredly can make sure you download the damned ads.

Long term browsers will become more and more closed, DRMed, protected and such so that people have much less control over how stuff is displayed on screen.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#163

Post by bluehazed » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 3:47 PM UTC

epmatsw wrote: post #132

It's really interesting to me how strongly people dislike actions like this and the "Please turn off your adblock" thing. If this were a physical store, it's the equivalent of you taking something and the owner saying "hey man, that's not free, this is how I make a living". It seems like the right response would be "Oh wow, sorry, I won't take that any more", not "Go away, you're bothering me, and I'm going to keep t…

Even from a security/privacy standpoint? Malicious/Unwanted 3rd party JavaScript is a serious issue.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#164

Post by johndavidback » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 3:50 PM UTC

natrius wrote: post #97

lopatin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?

When you allow targeted ads into your life, you're putting changes in your behavior on the market each time you touch a device. Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid. The market will find every flaw in your psychology that can be used to take money from your pocket. These flaws exist: Las Vegas is built on them. Targeted ads are the Las Vegas of the mind.

That's all well and good, but a key distinction here is that you are using Facebook for absolutely no out-of-pocket expenditure. Going to Vegas costs actual dollars. I suppose a stark, diametric alternative to being forced to view targeted ads would be Facebook as a paid subscription service. It's the age old issue of 'Someone has to pay for this party.'

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#165

Post by fwn » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

sleepychu wrote: post #151

rlidwka wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another basic choice: write a code that is intentionally incompatible with ad blockers. They can name an important navigation element "ad", so ad blocker will hide it for example. Then, when a bunch of users start complaining that the website does not work, point out that it's all ad blocker's fault (because without it everything works). I've seen a few precedents already.

I'm happy to continue to modify my ad blocker until it allows me to use enough of facebook to be happy. How I choose to render the data Facebook sends me, is up to me.

While I think that this is a very bad idea, one could dynamically name them in a defective way. The relevant information (blocking lists) are openly available.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#166

Post by omginternets » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 3:53 PM UTC

hodder wrote: post #89

lopatin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?

"Serious question: Why do you block FB ads?" Because I dont like looking at ads.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "if you [Facebook] want me to consume ads, make ads I want to consume".

The thing is, this already exists and it's called native advertising. The trick is to create advertisements that, while endorsing a product, have real value for me.

A simple example: a tutorial on doing XYZ with Docker on Google Compute Engine might (A) be relevant to my interests and immediately useful, and (B) incite me to use GCE.

Ad-blockers block the scummy, bottom-feeder, AIDS-of-the-internet ads.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#167

Post by legohead » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #7

They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. As long as they don't try to force some sort of legislation on how people can use their internet connection, and their internet browser to fetch and display content, there's no problem. The real problem is Facebook is already full of advertising disguised as content. From sponsored posts to content from things you "like". So I'm kind of surprised…

I worked for a company that got most of its revenue from online ads. When I started, adblockers were 20%. When it got up to 35% the boss decided to take action.

We hired a third party anti-adblocker, and it worked great. It went back and forth with the adblockers as they updated to block our anti-blocking.

Most adblock extensions use some standard rules-lists, similar to email spam lists like Spamhaus. I guess we pissed someone off enough and they introduced a rule to block all AJAX requests on our site. This pretty much ruined our site, so we finally relented and removed the anti-adblocking altogether.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#168

Post by bambax » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 3:56 PM UTC

malchow wrote: post #61

I do not think that ad blockers can win this cat and mouse game. Ads don't annoy a large-enough percentage of humans. And the ad industry is the lifeblood of several other business communities, each of which is many times the size of the ad blocking industry. I had lunch with one well respected publishing CEO last week, who told me that his single largest advertiser was Smuckers. The peanut butter maker. Smuckers is…

Nobody will "win", as in, nobody will exterminate the other. Ad blockers won't eliminate the advertising industry, of course -- but the industry will not be able of getting rid of ad blockers or render them ineffective.

They will need to learn to coexist. This FB initiative is futile.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#169

Post by omginternets » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

creshal wrote: post #96

supster wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That data and content is (near) worthless if they can't serve up ads against it.

That's facebook's problem, not the user's.

You've got it exactly backwards. The service is free, ergo you are the product, ergo Facebook's problems are your problems.

You have three choices:

1. Stop using Facebook

2. Pay Facebook to remove ads

3. Look at ads

I've opted for option 1, though I'll happily revisit this choice if Facebook (A) finds a way to make money without serving ads and without requiring me to pay out-of-pocket (unlikely) or (B) Facebook starts serving ads I want to consume. (Welcome to native advertising.)

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#170

Post by natrius » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

johndavidback wrote: post #164

natrius wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you allow targeted ads into your life, you're putting changes in your behavior on the market each time you touch a device. Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid. The market will find every flaw in your psychology that can be used to take money from your pocket. These flaws exist: Las Vegas is built on them. Targeted ads are the Las Vegas of the mind.

That's all well and good, but a key distinction here is that you are using Facebook for absolutely no out-of-pocket expenditure. Going to Vegas costs actual dollars. I suppose a stark, diametric alternative to being forced to view targeted ads would be Facebook as a paid subscription service. It's the age old issue of 'Someone has to pay for this party.'

Facebook's profitability is not your problem. It's their job to figure out how to get paid. It's your job to protect your mind.

Targeted ads are worse than gambling. We made sure everyone's aware of the dangers of gambling, but everyone's in the dark about targeted ads. These companies know what they're doing. If people want to portray ad blocking as stealing, so be it. Steal from them. They deserve it.