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

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

adguard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 241 posts

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

#201

Post by kevingadd »

thekyle wrote: post #189
JohnFen wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat of WebAssembly is that it may encourage more sites to require users to allow client-side code execution to work. For those of us who aren't trusting enough to allow this, it means that the web gets smaller even faster than it already is.

It seems like if you replace WebAssembly with JavaScript in this comment it makes just as much sense. What is different about WebAssembly?

WebAssembly adds new functionality to the browser runtime environment that isn't available to regular JavaScript. It was originally 1:1 with asm.js/JS but that stopped being true relatively quick.

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

#202

Post by freehunter »

mobjack wrote: post #188
korethr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the ad. In the before time, long ago, ads were a simple static image or body of text. And in that case, while not impossible, it's rather hard to compromise a computer with a static image or block of text. You'd have to have a fairly specific image crafted to adversarially target a specific bug in the rendering of images to get code execution, and thus compromise a computer. It is no longer the before t…

Are there any ad networks that allow random advertisers to include custom JavaScript in ads? It just seems like a huge security hole and is not in the interest of ad networks for multiple reasons. They might have JS in ads, but isn't that from the ad network's infrastructure.

In short, yes. Advertisements are a huge way to get malware onto people’s computers. This just one random article from a google search for “malware advertising” but there are tons and it still happens today.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/big-n...

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

#203

Post by jakub_g »

Scottn1 wrote: post #160
jakub_g wrote: post #110

I feel like the article is missing an important milestone about release of Brave browser for Android circa 2017/2018 (it's only briefly mentioned at the end). It changed the landscape on Android in my opinion: it was the first browser that was as good as Chrome (fast, same look & feel -- being a fork of Chromium -- plus regularly updated and having strong, credible technical team behind it) but also having ad blockin…

You have your timeline backwards. Opera was the first browser to implement a built-in native adblocker in 2016. Here is the blog announcement: https://blogs.opera.com/desktop/2016/03/opera-built-ad-block... Opera was and actually continues to be a pioneering browser with many "firsts" over the years. I was an avid user of it for a decade but I am saddened that it has become surrounded in controversy with a shady Chin…

Good catch! Here's a better link specifically talking about mobile: https://blogs.opera.com/news/2016/06/ad-blocker-android-ios-...

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

#204

Post by michaelmrose »

mobjack wrote: post #188
korethr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the ad. In the before time, long ago, ads were a simple static image or body of text. And in that case, while not impossible, it's rather hard to compromise a computer with a static image or block of text. You'd have to have a fairly specific image crafted to adversarially target a specific bug in the rendering of images to get code execution, and thus compromise a computer. It is no longer the before t…

Are there any ad networks that allow random advertisers to include custom JavaScript in ads? It just seems like a huge security hole and is not in the interest of ad networks for multiple reasons. They might have JS in ads, but isn't that from the ad network's infrastructure.

Are there ad networks that don't?

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

#205

Post by bllguo »

tayo42 wrote: post #116
mrlala wrote: post #111

Who is honestly clicking on all these ads that makes advertising worthwhile? I am honestly baffled sometimes how this all works... In my 30+ years of internet usage in one form or another I have rarely, rarely, rarely ever clicked on a freakin ad. Yes, I've generally had them blocked for the most part. But when they aren't blocked, I see what the content is and why would I even want to click on one! Color me confused…

Part of me thinks theres an internet ad bubble. I think its really hard to know how much value an ad provides, so it gets handwaved as being critical to success and worth tons of money. A lot of big internet companies rely on ads or provide services to companies that provide ads or make it easier to use ads.

this is outdated by something like a decade, at least. reach aside, the whole draw of internet advertising is that you can actually quantify the effect of your ads and tie them to real revenue events

I suppose it's fun to think that billions yearly are being thrown into the bonfire, but that's just not the reality

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

#206

Post by teunispeters »

mobjack wrote: post #188
korethr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the ad. In the before time, long ago, ads were a simple static image or body of text. And in that case, while not impossible, it's rather hard to compromise a computer with a static image or block of text. You'd have to have a fairly specific image crafted to adversarially target a specific bug in the rendering of images to get code execution, and thus compromise a computer. It is no longer the before t…

Are there any ad networks that allow random advertisers to include custom JavaScript in ads? It just seems like a huge security hole and is not in the interest of ad networks for multiple reasons. They might have JS in ads, but isn't that from the ad network's infrastructure.

Every single ad seller's been caught by companies selling these dangerous ads. Google, yahoo, etc. They usually catch it within 3-5 days. That's too long.

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

#207

Post by nwallin »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #168
umvi wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it must be good, the data says so Slightly unrelated, but I heard a good quote the other day: "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess."

Nice, I'm stealing it! Thanks!

What are you thanking him for? It was your idea.

Wait. I mean, it was my idea. Why aren't you thanking me? Donate to my Patreon please.

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

#208

Post by adrr »

thekyle wrote: post #189
JohnFen wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat of WebAssembly is that it may encourage more sites to require users to allow client-side code execution to work. For those of us who aren't trusting enough to allow this, it means that the web gets smaller even faster than it already is.

It seems like if you replace WebAssembly with JavaScript in this comment it makes just as much sense. What is different about WebAssembly?

WebAssembly allows allocation of memory and exposes a huge threat surface. We can't even protect the current APIs and these are being exploited by sovereign nations to oppress people like the Uyghurs. How about we focus on making the sandboxes stronger instead of building out things like WebGL and WebAssembly.

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

#209

Post by nonbirithm »

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.

Google hosts YouTube and the ads for YouTube on the same domain with obfuscated paths, so that won't work. About all you can do if you want to use the app is pay for premium or use something like Vanced which unlocks the premium features without paying.

The main reason content blocking works is because anyone can introspect webpages and the source is available for modification. When things become byte-compiled it gets exponentially harder, if not impossible.

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

#210

Post by jslabovitz »

lmm wrote: post #197
jslabovitz wrote: post #15

From the article: > The very beginning of ad blocking is the 90s, just when the ads appeared. In 1993, GNN, the very first web advertising service, was launched. Then in 1994, the first-ever banner was sold. In the blink of an eye, the online ad industry was worth billions of dollars. Double Click emerged, Yahoo started to sell ads. And that's when the very first ad blocker was created. GNN (Global Network Navigator)…

> GNN (Global Network Navigator) was not an advertising service. It was the first commercial online magazine. Isn't that the same thing? With a couple of exceptions, magazines are advertising services first and foremost, in as much as the overwhelming majority of their revenue comes from ads.

I don’t want to argue about magazines (or newspapers) in general, since it seems you have quite a cynical view there. I’d advise that you research common standards of journalism, including the concept of the editorial/advertising wall.

But I’ll tell you that the the existence of GNN itself, in 1993, was certainly not for the purpose of serving ads. Heck, as I explained, online advertising didn’t even exist at that time (besides a few misguided attempts on Usenet), so there was only conjecture that it might work at all, and lots of room to experiment.

Also, there was really no other economic revenue model accessible to us, other than sponsored content, as there were no online payment systems on the WWW of that era. Heck, there weren’t really any active websites at all — almost all sites (including GNN) were what we’d today call static sites. (As I mentioned, cookies came later, so there was also zero targeting of ads besides basic demographics of Internet users at the time.)

Post reply on HN