“We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers” • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by DannyBee » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #149

DannyBee wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The first are overtly refusing to accept users' terms." As they are refusing to accept theirs :) This is just contract negotiation. I'm not sure why you have an issue with it (or would desire to ban it). You have told them "we want to change the terms'. They are saying "no". Great, so move if you don't like that supplier. Humorously, the thing you (and reddit) want to perform by banning is known as "concerted refusa…

Because the trade is openly hostile to the intent of discussion sites: to exchange and discuss information. If users can't view the content, they cannot discuss it. And, as I've also mentioned at length (in the post and its links, as well as elsewhere) advertising itself is the problem in multiple aspects . The sooner we render it nonviable, the sooner we move to something that works.

"Because the trade is openly hostile to the intent of discussion sites: to exchange and discuss information. "

This is an opinion. It sounds like your your mechanism of dealing with the opposing opinion is to censor it?

That seems bad ... Why not say: "let them do what they want, and let me convince people they are wrong on the merits?"

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

#212

Post by tracker1 » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:20 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #204

tracker1 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it wouldn't be the target for your small personal blog... once you approach it at a small business level, it means running server-side code do deliver ads injected into your content that reports what data can be reported upstream. It does mean more limited analytical data, but it would also mean better privacy constraints... it means moving the delivery to first-party servers, that can use other SaaS behind tha…

What it also means is more publishers cut journalism/content, transition to buzzfeed style "news", or go out of business. Or really some admixture thereof.

Why would it mean that?

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

#213

Post by Silhouette » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #207

Silhouette wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine to load jQuery from a specific server that you trust. It's also fine to load ads from the ad network's server, as long as they are policing uploads properly. The problem is they usually don't. You keep saying they usually don't, but billions of harmless ads are served every day while only a tiny fraction of the served ads are malicious. I just don't see how it's reasonable to assume depending on a third par…

They don't have a system that makes malicious uploads impossible (outside of hacking, of course). They could implement such a system, without much trouble. They choose not to. Using a third party ad network is not inherently risky. But most specific third party ad networks are risky, because of bad practices. That most ads are harmless is enforced through social norms and after-the-fact takedowns. They could do bette…

OK, so let's be constructive. What reasonable, practical alternative do you suggest for someone who is just running a small site and wants to cover their hosting costs?

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

#214

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

Buge wrote: post #192

alkonaut wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what ways do ad blockers block internally served ads? I'm perfectly happy with static ads served from the same site as the content. If seems adblockers should have an option to block only the "bad" ads, I.e anything referencing one of a list of known ad nets.

Go to the reddit homepage. Look at the very top link (that's highlighed with an outline). That's an ad, but it's hosted by reddit and contains no scripts or iframes, in fact doesn't even contain offsite images. Its div has the CSS class promotedlink. If you look in the default list used by Adblock Plus https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt you will see that it blocks this because it contains the lin…

> because many companies pay to get their ads put on it and allowed

Is this 100% verified, or just speculation? AB+ has always stated that they whitelist suitable ads, not ones that are paid. In my experience, this is true; only static text and image ads ever get through, and it's pretty rare. I think this is desirable as it incentivises the use of better ads.

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

#215

Post by Buge » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

Obi_Juan_Kenobi wrote: post #214

Buge wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go to the reddit homepage. Look at the very top link (that's highlighed with an outline). That's an ad, but it's hosted by reddit and contains no scripts or iframes, in fact doesn't even contain offsite images. Its div has the CSS class promotedlink. If you look in the default list used by Adblock Plus https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt you will see that it blocks this because it contains the lin…

> because many companies pay to get their ads put on it and allowed Is this 100% verified, or just speculation? AB+ has always stated that they whitelist suitable ads, not ones that are paid. In my experience, this is true; only static text and image ads ever get through, and it's pretty rare. I think this is desirable as it incentivises the use of better ads.

Small companies get on the list for free. Big companies have to pay. But they all get vetted by their "non-intrusive" guidelines.

https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization

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

#216

Post by zem » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #92

phaemon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would be too much. Why would it? I'd like to see those ad-laden pages dropped from HN also. As well as sites with paywalls. There are plenty of other pages on the web that can be featured instead.

Genuine question: do you think all journalism should be done for free? I can somewhat an understand an opposition to advertising or paywalls. Opposing both is unconscionable.

you could argue that you support either or both, but draw the line at free publicity for paid journalism

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

#217

Post by vorg » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #85

oarsinsync wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scale. Reddit is bigger with hundreds, if not thousands, of subcultures and norms. But the link is about /r/technology only, not reddit as a whole.

If /r/technology has a lot of paywall and ad-filled links, and HN does not, yet both sites have similar moderating technology, then either dang et al. are seriously better admins, or HN is frequented by a better class of person. There, you done gone made me say it.

> “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers” (reddit.com)

It should be obvious before I click the front-page link on HN that it's about /r/technology only, not reddit as a whole. That means there's still room for admin improvement here on HN.

You made me say it!

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

#218

Post by kd0amg » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #210

csydas wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strongly disagree since I feel there is misinformation and a very strange perception as to where the onus of protection should come from. The reason that the bad advertisement issue is such a big problem is that very often the anti-virus programs simply don't work on the malware being served. The exploits used either aren't in the definitions database or the AV has a blindspot. It's also very difficult to be running…

I'm still waiting to see an argument for why a content provider who is making something available to others for free and without obligation has any obligation in return, either legally or ethically, beyond the same basic decency that we all owe to each other. I think a site that is neither actively malicious nor grossly negligent has satisfied that basic decency requirement. Ultimately, it's just not realistic to exp…

an argument for why a content provider who is making something available to others for free and without obligation has any obligation in return, either legally or ethically, beyond the same basic decency that we all owe to each other.

A grocery store handing out free samples still has an obligation to make sure it's not contaminated, and I really don't buy idea that "don't send people malware" is significantly less a part of a common decency than "don't feed people tainted food" is.

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

#219

Post by x0x0 » Mon, May 09, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #212

x0x0 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it also means is more publishers cut journalism/content, transition to buzzfeed style "news", or go out of business. Or really some admixture thereof.

Why would it mean that?

Because no-tracking image ads served publisher-side with no verification are worth a small fraction -- perhaps 10% at most -- of what with-tracking ads are worth.

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

#220

Post by dcposch » Mon, May 09, 2016, 10:19 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #203

devishard wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At any one time, a publisher can be serving ads from a few exchanges, a few different private sellers, and custom built ads for brands. And these all are served in different combinations across several different ad units on multiple pages. And some of those ad sellers may be backfilling with other ad networks, or maybe the publisher is backfilling certain ads from the ad exchanges at certain CPM prices. So, don't d…

So stop going to those sites. Really; you voluntarily visit those sites. To quote you, "It is absolutely that simple."

Some of those sites have good information that you'll miss out on.

I think there's an even simpler and more realistic solution: someone needs to make a Chrome extension that is like uBlock Origin, but unblockable.

It should be:

* an adblocker that also blocks tracking scripts

* ...with no "acceptable ads" whitelist like Adblock Plus

* ...open source

* ...with workarounds for ad-blocker-blockers

Here's how I think we can do that: we maintain a list of domains that are using ad-blocker-blockers, and for those, rather than blocking ads at the HTTP request level, the user agent loads them and simply doesn't display them.

In principle, you can do this in a way that is completely undetectable by the site owner. There doesn't need to be an "arms race" between ad-blocker-blockers and the workaround developers--you simply win outright by having DOM look exactly the same as if it had ads, but rendering, say, a box with a tasteful light grey smiley face instead of the ad. (You can even make it so that canvas.getPixelData returns the ad that the page thinks it drew, but the actual screen output doesn't show it.)

At that point, sites are actually incentivized to stop using ad-blocker-blockers, because the only difference they'll make is that site will load slower, since the user agent has to load and pretend to display all those extra resources. The user never actually sees the ads either way.

--

For extra credit, this hypothetical browser extension can also simulate a click on YouTube's "Skip This Ad" button as soon as it appears, etc.

You could even keep per-domain blacklists of bloat resources and simply not load those. That would make the internet feel a lot faster. A user with this extension would visit The Verge and instead of getting a janky 5 megabyte page load, they'd get a near-instant load with just the text and images.

Finally, this extension could keep a mapping of desktop sites to auto-redirect to the lightweight mobile equivalent, with a body{max-width:800px} thrown in to keep things readable.

I know I'd install this hypothetical extension immediately and never go back.