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

Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

webkit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

#21

Post by millstone »

derefr wrote: post #8
IBM wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it will be a good change if publishers were forced to sell/deliver their own ads. The problem has always been third-party ad networks that track you across the web and sometimes delivers malware. Publishers have never had to take ownership for the ads they serve and the user experience has suffered. The way forward is native ads (no, native ads aren't advertorials) like podcast ads, radio ads, or sponsored po…

The problem is with publishers too small to individually attract the attention of advertisers... which is most of the ones that use advertising to begin with. Any way to solve that problem reintroduces an ad network in some form or another. Or would you say that advertising is only for big shots, and small-time publishers should just rely on up-front payment?

It's possible to have ad networks, but for publishers to host the software themselves. This would eliminate the tracking and cookies that follow you from site to site.

Re: Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

#23

Post by frik »

IBM wrote: post #6
derefr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does make sense. Apple aren't helping people block ads because they don't like ads; Apple are helping people block ads to "enhance privacy" (and also for "if everyone's gonna do it anyway, it may as well be fast" reasons, but never mind those.) When a third party serves an ad to a user, the third party gets information about that person (their IP address, etc.) When Apple serves an ad to one of their users on beha…

I think it will be a good change if publishers were forced to sell/deliver their own ads. The problem has always been third-party ad networks that track you across the web and sometimes delivers malware. Publishers have never had to take ownership for the ads they serve and the user experience has suffered. The way forward is native ads (no, native ads aren't advertorials) like podcast ads, radio ads, or sponsored po…

Third party ad networks should pivot and provide a single binary executable (e.g. Go/Rust/C++ application) that a website owner adds to his website. And that binary app delivers the ads from the ad network and the website can choose how he integrates it to the website. The ad network will receive a list of URLs from the binary where it checks (with different IPs) if the ad is displayed to the user and if the image file hash is the same. Such an ad would be good for the users privacy (no more third party JS), good for the website owner (more ads delivered, more money), and good for the ad network (ads delivered also to users with adblockers) - a win-win-win situation.

Re: Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

#24

Post by kbenson »

stephenr wrote: post #20
jimmaswell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are free websites going to last much longer if we keep attacking ads?

I'd take you more seriously if you referred to them as "ad supported websites" rather than "free" websites.

I think "free" is the most accurate succinct terminology to be used here, when used with it's most common definition. An ad-supported site/service can still cost money to use (e.g. Hulu Plus), so just referring to a site as ad-supported to distinguish the business model is no clearer than calling it free. The way to resolve this is to be more explicit, such as saying it's "monetarily free".

But we all knew what was meant, so why bother?

Re: Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

#25

Post by seanp2k2 »

stephenr wrote: post #20
jimmaswell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are free websites going to last much longer if we keep attacking ads?

I'd take you more seriously if you referred to them as "ad supported websites" rather than "free" websites.

Yeah; Google seems to make quite a bit of coin off their "free" search engine and with their "free" maps website.

As for why bother discussing this: I don't think I'm alone in believing in a better B2C business model for the internet than "we'll get lots of users to spend lots of time with our thing, then make them look at ads". It's been said many times here before, but I'll repeat that it seems like a waste to have so many smart and talented people spending so much time on making people look at ads.

Re: Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

#26

Post by seanp2k2 »

carlesfe wrote: post #4

Apple: "We will allow ad blockers for Safari in iOS9. By the way, here's our new News app, which serves unblockable iAds"

And that's why I run my home wifi through Privoxy (runs on my router, a Ubiquiti ER-Lite which is just Debian MIPS + Vyatta) and jailbreak to install Adblocker Networks.

Re: Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

#27

Post by kibwen »

stephenr wrote: post #16
kibwen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indeed more private, and I welcome the move. Users need choice. But let's not overlook the obvious bid here to entice content providers into Apple's walled garden while also taking a direct swipe at the business model of their biggest competitor.

The content blockers stuff is not a "block Google" checkbox. It's a way a safari extension on OS X or iOS can prevent load or hide literally any object requested by the browser/web view It won't affect Google ads if they're in loaded in native apps. Personally I view this as being inevitable given their recent high profile privacy push. I'm not saying they weren't pro-privacy before, but they're enhancing and promoti…

It won't affect Google ads if they're loaded in native apps, but what's keeping Apple from ousting Google ads from their platform entirely? iOS doesn't have a monopoly on mobile, so Google would have no recourse if Apple decided that all new apps must use iAd rather than AdMob. App developers wouldn't care, advertisers wouldn't care, and users definitely wouldn't care.

Re: Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

#28

Post by stephenr »

kibwen wrote: post #27
stephenr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content blockers stuff is not a "block Google" checkbox. It's a way a safari extension on OS X or iOS can prevent load or hide literally any object requested by the browser/web view It won't affect Google ads if they're in loaded in native apps. Personally I view this as being inevitable given their recent high profile privacy push. I'm not saying they weren't pro-privacy before, but they're enhancing and promoti…

It won't affect Google ads if they're loaded in native apps, but what's keeping Apple from ousting Google ads from their platform entirely? iOS doesn't have a monopoly on mobile, so Google would have no recourse if Apple decided that all new apps must use iAd rather than AdMob. App developers wouldn't care, advertisers wouldn't care, and users definitely wouldn't care.

Some developers may care. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't do that, I'm just saying that while this can be used to prevent GA tracking via web ads it isn't an out-and-out attack on googles ad network

Re: Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

#29

Post by comex »

chrischen wrote: post #22

Is this going to lead to client-side content blocking in countries like China, where they could mandate that all iPhones now install the content blockers? The benefit is obviously that the content blocking gets distributed.

No. Their country-wide firewall is sufficient, and there would be no way to enforce a rule that everyone install some iPhone app. (And most Chinese users aren't using iPhones.)

Re: Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

#30

Post by duaneb »

jimmaswell wrote: post #19
kibwen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indeed more private, and I welcome the move. Users need choice. But let's not overlook the obvious bid here to entice content providers into Apple's walled garden while also taking a direct swipe at the business model of their biggest competitor.

Are free websites going to last much longer if we keep attacking ads?

Ads aren't being attacked, they're being ignored. This is a reflection of that.
Post reply on HN