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

21–30 of 259 posts

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

#21

Post by bryanlarsen »

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 any case since the sites are still able to use curated self hosted ads (ie not JavaScript redirects to externally hosted providers) they are able to sell static ad space to make money even with adblockers enabled."

Ad blockers don't just block external ads, they use CSS rules to block internal ads as well. So the only way to avoid ad blockers is to make advertisement completely indistinguishable from content.

Imagine if Google did that, if they made sponsored results competent indistinguishable from organic results. The uproar would be loud.

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

#23

Post by DasIch »

rodionos wrote: post #9

Banning these sites altogether would be too much. Assign a pre-defined downvote so that the hurdle for ad-driven sources is higher to overcome.

I agree that banning all these sites would be a bit much, but sites like Forbes that have actually served malware should be treated accordingly.

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

#24

Post by MichaelBurge »

I wonder if you could sue a website for serving you malware.

Here's my idea for an ad company:

* People who want to post ads have to provide their name, address, verified email, and a security deposit(say $500). Larger volumes of ad purchases require either a long history, insurance, or a bank letter to vouch for you. If you load malware anywhere into the system, you get fined and your information gets turned over to the police.

* People who want to earn money with advertisements have to provide name, address, verified email, and a security deposit. The security deposit could be funded out of earnings(or not). Fraud is countered by randomly sampling websites and fining offenders if the ad isn't visible. Also they get their information turned over to the police if it was intentional fraud.

* Security deposits are returned within 1 month after the advertising relationship is terminated.

* Fines are paid out of the security deposit, and your access is restricted until you refill the account(possible with an even bigger deposit).

* People who are higher risk(from a shady lawless country, no history or background, etc.) have to pay a higher security deposit.

* Ads can be either text or banner ads. Anything Turing-complete needs insurance or a bank letter.

* If someone pushes through a porn ad to get advertised on the NYT by miscategorizing it, they get fined.

Now all the ads are guaranteed to be of high quality, and the websites you're advertising on are probably higher quality too.

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

#25

Post by rkangel »

chris_wot wrote: post #14
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…

If it expanded to the rest of Reddit then it might be the impetuous for the news industry to clean up their act. And no, that's not a mistake. It's not advertisers I direct my ire but those who should know better and who apparently are meant to exist for the greater public good: The Press.

Agree: companies will sell what others will buy.

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

#26

Post by mirimir »

emp_zealoth wrote: post #20
mirimir wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads have never been safe. I got adware from an ad ~15 years ago.

I believe it was said about web experience itself, not security side of things

That was the focus, yes. But "ads have been fine" was a far broader claim, and just too wrong to ignore. One bloody ad cost me hours of unbillable time. I even invoiced the site ;)

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

#27

Post by sambe »

chris_wot wrote: post #16
jcoffland wrote: post #12

I think HN should automatically penalize the scores of paywalled sites. Although I'm not sure HN's pro-corporate politics would ever allow it.

I think that in practice this happens through the normal voting process.

Why is this sufficient for HN but not for Reddit? If opinion is less divided on Reddit I'd also expect it to be less of a problem and thus less likely to require (auto) moderator input.

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

#28

Post by willvarfar »

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.

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

#29

Post by wslh »

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.

The problem with Google is that they are labeling as malware a lot of software that is not malware just because they have an .exe. Source: it is happening at my company.

It seems like just signing the software is enough to remove this labelling but their policies are not transparent.

At the end Google is behaving like a vigilante.

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

#30

Post by cstross »

tomp wrote: post #15
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…

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.

There's a subtle difference: pharmacists are regulated by statute and are legally liable if medication they dispense on prescription causes injury. (Source: I used to be a pharmacist -- in the UK, > 25 years ago, precise regulations vary by jurisdiction.)

Ad networks are utterly unregulated. In terms of this pharmacy metaphor they're snake-oil salesmen.

Post reply on HN