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

Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

dhowe.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 253 posts

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#181

Post by justinpaulson »

DanBC wrote: post #128
justinpaulson wrote: post #93

"AdNauseam serves as a means of amplifying users' discontent with advertising networks that disregard privacy and facilitate bulk surveillance agendas." Is it really a privacy issue to track what ads you click and use that information to target advertisements to you later? I never understand the outrage against targeted ads. You are going to get ads no matter what. That is how "free" content works. Would you rather t…

i) I see an unfamiliar term. I search for it. For the next X weeks I am showered with stupid useless adverts for something that I have zero interest in. ii) I am[1] a person with alcoholism / gambling addict / person with anorexia / etc. This informs my search habits. Showing alcohol ads is immoral anyway, but showing those ads to a person with alcoholism is sub-optimal for many reasons. iii) I like gory movies. My 5…

I can see the argument for ii. But the ads could just as easily be for rehabilitation clinics.

For i, a single data point is not creating all of your targetted ads. And so what if it is, it is still closer to what you might be interested in than completely random ads.

iii. Is your own problem for sharing devices and accounts with a 5 year old when you use it for "adult" things.

iv. Sure, ads suck, but that metal detector ad is at least close to something you might be interested in. What if you searched for metal detector and got ads for high heeled shoes and candy bars?? How is the metal detector ad not better?

You have made some good arguments though, and I think ii. really makes the most sense. I wouldn't be surprised if that very thing is happening.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#182

Post by a3_nm »

justinpaulson wrote: post #97
forca wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even close with the analogy. Unless the content is behind a paywall, it's "free". Want to make money? Charge access. If your content is THAT compelling, people will line up and hand you money. Using a backhanded revenue machine like ads that track me and violate my "anonymity" is beyond the pale. So, yes. If I arrive on your site and there is no paywall, I will gladly view said content without allowing ads. If th…

You really want to live in a world where every single site is behind a paywall? because that is what you are advocating.

> every single site is behind a paywall

Not every single site. Some people are fine serving their content for free: because they do it as a hobby, because they are financed by donations, ...

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#183

Post by tombrossman »

forca wrote: post #19

I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…

When you say you disallow CSS history, how are you accomplishing this? Is it a side effect of disallowing scripts?

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#184

Post by forca »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #155
jmount wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Permission for what? To see a single text ad? To see a series of gifs? To have an autoplay video start? To accumulate tracking cookies? To accumulate permanent flash storage? Permission to do some reverse lookup and call your phone? Permission to capture later browsing and re-write links in a i-Frame? I am not currently using an adblocker/clicker (broke too many things). By a similar argument if the site doesn't want…

>Isn't something being placed in public implying some permission? It seems to me like it's a two way street. The site is implying permission to consume the content by placing it out there, we imply permission to have ads served at us by going to the sites knowing the ads are there. If the site is serving up malware why patronize it to begin with? There is a distinction between an ad and malware.

The sites don't always know the ad servers have been compromised. A person visits a site, allows ads/3rd-party cookies, is surfing with admin rights, the ad servers gladly push their drive-by malware and ta-da... infected user. It's that simple...

Blocking ads, disallowing cookies (whitelisting), blocking the general ad industry is the only safe way. It's like sex: use protection.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#185

Post by forgotpasswd3x »

[deleted] wrote: post #165
forca wrote: post #19

I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…

[deleted]

Well, if you go to a restaurant, you're agreeing to pay for the food. There isn't any agreement between me and any websites that I view ads.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#186

Post by WorldWideWayne »

acdha wrote: post #58
forca wrote: post #19

I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…

> There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I dislike the ad model but this is dangerously wrong: you pay your ISP for transit – unless you're subscribing to a specific site, nobody else gets a dime from you to pay for their costs. Unless subscriptions or micropayments catch on, that means that sites are either going to rely on ads or will be limited to organizations with…

How does the survival of web sites that depend on ads create a moral imperative though?

These sites are instructing my browser to download content from ad networks using the ISP bandwidth that I paid for. I'm fully in my right to tell my browser not to download that content.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#187

Post by aw3c2 »

acdha wrote: post #58
forca wrote: post #19

I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…

> There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I dislike the ad model but this is dangerously wrong: you pay your ISP for transit – unless you're subscribing to a specific site, nobody else gets a dime from you to pay for their costs. Unless subscriptions or micropayments catch on, that means that sites are either going to rely on ads or will be limited to organizations with…

A gazillion of websites that are run by collectives, communities, hobbyists and like-minded people are a big counterpoint to this. The internet got big on them, not commercial interests.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#188

Post by wpietri »

acdha wrote: post #58
forca wrote: post #19

I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…

> There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I dislike the ad model but this is dangerously wrong: you pay your ISP for transit – unless you're subscribing to a specific site, nobody else gets a dime from you to pay for their costs. Unless subscriptions or micropayments catch on, that means that sites are either going to rely on ads or will be limited to organizations with…

I agree that the point you're replying to is ridiculous, but I still think there's no moral imperative. An equivalent moral case is broadcast TV ads. You aren't obligated to stay in the room and pay attention; going to the kitchen, using Tivo, and flipping channels are all morally ok.

Part of the reason that subscriptions and micropayments haven't caught on is that people put up with ads. If ads stop working as a business model, I doubt we'll be looking at a bleak future of watching Love Boat reruns and rereading old Family Circle articles. We will find some other way of funding good content.

Indeed, when I look at the way the quality of television has improved over the last couple of decades, I think it's a reasonable argument that blocking ads would be the moral imperative. As anybody who has worked in ad-supported industries knows, consumers aren't the customers, they're the product. Rather than being served, viewers and readers are being served up to advertisers. The system has a conflict of interest at the heart of it. It's reasonable to refuse to support corrupt systems.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#189

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #165
forca wrote: post #19

I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#190

Post by forgotpasswd3x »

raldi wrote: post #153
forca wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually have a subscription in my AdBlock Plus that also kills these "requests". It's called Adblock Warning Removal List.

When you visit a restaurant in a country where tipping is the norm, do you leave a tip?

It's not the same thing, because leaving a tip doesn't cause any privacy or security issues. If all ads were just static images, no scripts/tracking, I wouldn't mind them.
Post reply on HN