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

Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 377 posts

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#161

Post by 35bge57dtjku »

BoorishBears wrote: post #130
saguro wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me you are consenting the moment you decide to use services and websites that cost millions of dollars to maintain and expecting and paying little to nothing compared to the real cost of those services. That's not how consent works, if it was then I would just claim that by establishing a connection to my computer, the remote website consents to my rules including ad blocking. My computer is mine, I have the rig…

I guess my point is you’re also not obliged to use their services. I don’t understand the entitlement of “I shouldn’t have to play ball by their rules but I also want to use the ball until it deflates” Your response is just a variation of the “They returned status code 200” argument which I explain as really just supporting the system albeit half-heartedly. If you really hate them so much (I mean, you’re fine with th…

The sandwich analogy doesn't really hold up.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#162

Post by diminish »

zzleeper wrote: post #155
gorhill wrote: post #90

In the paper, this excerpt: > We choose Adblock as it is one of the most popular. It is also possible to use Adblock Plus or uBlock, as the way they operate is exactly the same — HTTP filters and HTML element hiding. AdBlock in the Chrome store uses Adblock Plus filtering engine[1], so to say the way these two "operate is exactly the same" makes sense. However uBlock Origin uses its own code base, and is far better e…

What would you recommend for mobile? Browsing on Android with Chrome is a nightmare, and the last time I tried FF it was a bit sluggish (although it did allowed me to install extensions!)

On mobile Android I mainly use Firefox equipped with ublock origin in order to save battery, bandwidth and boost performance.

- This helps with all types of ads for many news and reading,

- the big benefit is: opening all youtube videos on Firefox with ublock origin in order to get rid of youtube ads -

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#163

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

nojvek wrote: post #94
rc_bhg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. I mean, they would not have jobs if they did not participate in it.

Google + FB, the worlds largest online advertising companies lose probably billions to ad blockers. I’m sure quite a number of people got nice bonuses and promos for bringing some of that revenue back.

I'm sure they do. This doesn't redeem the engineers working on it, in fact it damns them even further.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#164

Post by orbitingpluto »

freedomben wrote: post #108
orbitingpluto wrote: post #39

Okay, here's a crazy idea for advertisers. Tie the advertisement to the type of content that the user is already there to read about. Then you can serve ads from the content web server and make it indistinguishable from content, completely unobtrusive, completely noninvasive, and maybe even welcome.

I only disagree with: > make it indistinguishable from content I kind of hate the idea of having marketing-planted material appearing indistinguishable from real content. Most of that is the general distrust I have towards large organizations in general. That said, one could argue that all content is "marketing-planted" even when it's not an ad. There's always an agenda or at least bias. That's a fair point. Carry on…

I couldn't agree with you more. I worded that horribly. I concede to your point in spite of you being so gracious about it.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#165

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

Advertisers need to fuck off. Ads are never going to work on the web - the ad bubble needs to pop already! Advertising on the web is a horrifying web of fraud, psuedoscience, and invasive tracking and sensitive data hoarding. Frankly, it should have been outlawed by now.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#166

Post by BoorishBears »

strken wrote: post #160
BoorishBears wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess my point is you’re also not obliged to use their services. I don’t understand the entitlement of “I shouldn’t have to play ball by their rules but I also want to use the ball until it deflates” Your response is just a variation of the “They returned status code 200” argument which I explain as really just supporting the system albeit half-heartedly. If you really hate them so much (I mean, you’re fine with th…

I like some content. I am willing to pay ten times[0] the revenue ads would generate, potentially more, to see the content without ads. I want to pay for only the content I read, and not a monthly sum. Why am I unable to pay, and what incentives would change the system so that I can pay, other than using an ad blocker? [0] Say a website has a CPM of $5 and displays 10 ads to each user, such that a single impression f…

>what incentives would change the system so that I can pay, other than using an ad blocker?

That's really simple, more people need to be willing to pay.

I mean, I say in other parts of the page that I can't pay what the content is worth, but I'm actually not sure that's true for myself. But it is true for the general public.

And it's not they can't because they can't afford it, but rather, they don't want to. So we can make it easier to pay, for example. We can try and explain what advertising is doing. But in the end, I don't see a change happening.

People just seriously undervalue content.

People won't pay 99 cents for an app, so the market switched to IAP and suddenly people were gladly be nickled and dimed for more than 99 cents with intrusive applications designed from the ground up to drive IAP.

It's not like content generators wouldn't rather just take your money. I'm sure they don't love the hoops they have to jump through (it cost money to implement those ads too) to get inconsistent ad revenue that is often not very transparent and rife with pitfalls.

But until enough people to at least cover the cost of content are willing to pay, we'll see ads be king.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#167

Post by saguro »

BoorishBears wrote: post #145
saguro wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone is wondering what greater harm comes from the advertising industry than just showing obnoxious images, it's this. Consumers becoming so brain washed, so accepting of the advertising status quo that they actually defend it even though everything about it is against their personal interests. > I don’t understand the entitlement There is no entitlement, it's a right. I am exercising my right as the operator of…

I’d argue you’re pretty much just ignoring my larger points and nitpicking very specific excerpts and ignoring the context of them to make a point that’s not entirely new in the thread then appealing to emotion with what was supposed to be jarring commentary but just comes across as ranting. I mean you spent something like 70% if your commenting trying to dissect half of a sentence in my comment. And, I don’t appreci…

I mean, you're using moralistic arguments to defend a clearly immoral market actor whose entire business model revolves around abusing lack of regulations to collect and sell consumer information without their knowledge or informed consent.

You're defending a business entity whose entire existence is against your personal interest. In market terms, you are not a rational actor maximizing self interest. If you're not brain washed, what are you?

Just like businesses would be irrational if they didn't use every legal tax 'loophole' to make sure they pay no tax, you are irrational if you don't use available legal avenues to get the content you want for the lowest price - in this case, viewing it with ad blockers. If that means content providers go out of business, that's okay. New ones will show up with new business models that are actually viable. The free market expects individuals to maximize their self-interest within the confines of the law. If you're not doing that, you're just harming yourself for no meaningful reason whatsoever.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#168

Post by BoorishBears »

35bge57dtjku wrote: post #161
BoorishBears wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess my point is you’re also not obliged to use their services. I don’t understand the entitlement of “I shouldn’t have to play ball by their rules but I also want to use the ball until it deflates” Your response is just a variation of the “They returned status code 200” argument which I explain as really just supporting the system albeit half-heartedly. If you really hate them so much (I mean, you’re fine with th…

The sandwich analogy doesn't really hold up.

Well it's a complex subject that can't really be boiled down to analogies and idioms as much as people like to act like it is. The analogy is only meant to give a slight glimpse at the direction the entire rest of the comment is going for, not explain the current market.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#169

Post by jonahx »

BoorishBears wrote: post #145
saguro wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone is wondering what greater harm comes from the advertising industry than just showing obnoxious images, it's this. Consumers becoming so brain washed, so accepting of the advertising status quo that they actually defend it even though everything about it is against their personal interests. > I don’t understand the entitlement There is no entitlement, it's a right. I am exercising my right as the operator of…

I’d argue you’re pretty much just ignoring my larger points and nitpicking very specific excerpts and ignoring the context of them to make a point that’s not entirely new in the thread then appealing to emotion with what was supposed to be jarring commentary but just comes across as ranting. I mean you spent something like 70% if your commenting trying to dissect half of a sentence in my comment. And, I don’t appreci…

The answer to your question is: Because of hyperlinks (ie, the way the web works), it's not practical to tell people "hey, you clicked on the link, you agreed to pay them via advertising". A publicly accessible page is like a public space in that way.

If a company doesn't want to offer free access to content that costs them money to produce, they can create a login system and a paywall.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#170

Post by hugo0384729109 »

saguro wrote: post #120
duncan-donuts wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to be that guy, but I'm going to guess you probably _do_ consent just by accessing certain sites. I'm sure if you read the terms they disclose that. I'm not saying that's right, and I also have a similar stance of trying not to be profiled, but don't delude yourself thinking your ad blocker is stopping organizations from gathering your metadata.

> I'm sure if you read the terms they disclose that. As an average person, if you spend 8 hours a day reading all the terms and conditions you 'agree' to, it would take you 76 days to just read them, nevermind understand them. http://techland.time.com/2012/03/06/youd-need-76-work-days-t... I'm not actually sure how we ended up living in a world where those terms and conditions are legally meaningful. But I'll reitera…

Would be nice to have a government standard Meta-TOS with things grouped in sections with plain language and the service specific TOS could be required to reference the sections from the standard that they want to apply, even with a simple standard system of logos.
Post reply on HN