Are ad blockers doomed or have we already won? A history lesson

Post by buzzkillington » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #114

ukoki wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Big sites will eventually convert to essentially "a web browser inside a web browser" so they have total control over the content and how it's displayed. This has already happened: Just look at how many websites pester you to download their mobile app or even block content unless you access from the app. From a user functionality perspective the vast majority of apps do nothing a browser can't do. But the killer fe…

You use a firewall on the device to block requests to the ad server. Most apps will keep working fine. Then all it takes is an OS that lets you revoke permissions on sensitive data without the app knowing.

Post by mandelbrotwurst » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 10:29 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #138

SignalsFromBob wrote: post #109

I feel that we've done ourselves a disservice by referring to them as ad blockers rather than content blockers or, better yet, virus blockers. With malicious ads being the primary vector for compromising a person's computer, calling these tools virus blockers would not only be more accurate, but it would make it harder for sites to counter their use from a public relations point of view. Could you imagine visiting a…

> With malicious ads being the primary vector for compromising a person's computer, calling these tools virus blockers would not only be more accurate, but it would make it harder for sites to counter their use from a public relations point of view. I don't understand this. How are malicious ads the primary way to compromise a computer?

Post by Nextgrid » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #138

SignalsFromBob wrote: post #109

I feel that we've done ourselves a disservice by referring to them as ad blockers rather than content blockers or, better yet, virus blockers. With malicious ads being the primary vector for compromising a person's computer, calling these tools virus blockers would not only be more accurate, but it would make it harder for sites to counter their use from a public relations point of view. Could you imagine visiting a…

> With malicious ads being the primary vector for compromising a person's computer, calling these tools virus blockers would not only be more accurate, but it would make it harder for sites to counter their use from a public relations point of view. I don't understand this. How are malicious ads the primary way to compromise a computer?

Post by umvi » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #162

birdyrooster wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of A/B testing that likely was the method Google unwittingly used to obfuscate sponsored results in Search. The A/B test KPI they were measuring clearly was creating more click through to sponsored properties and it eroded trust and utility in exchange. I am sure they increased their short term Ad Words profits.

I keep saying: A/B testing is how Satan influences this world. They make it all too easy to turn your product development into optimizing bad metrics, and they give ammunition for justifying self-destructive decisions (it must be good, the data says so).

Post by ansible » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 10:44 PM UTC

ayushgp wrote: post #62

bambax wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many websites indeed pester us to download their mobile app but I have yet to find one that forces me to? Do they actually exist?

Reddit forces you to download the app now. You can scroll like 2-4 pages worth of content and then it'll pop up asking you to open in app. On every page you navigate to from within the website you'll first get a pop up asking to choose between browser and reddit app.