IAB is already providing a tool to detect adblockers. https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/AdBlockDetec...
Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures
221–230 of 377 posts
Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
TIL that the author of uBlock Origin reads HN. Cool! And thank you for your service to the Internet!
They all suck. Period. Block any outgoing connection you don't trust instead of simply taking some 3rd party list with URLs, unverified, no quality control etc, and only blacklist these KNOWN bad urls. Ad parties don't sit still, they don't keep their ads on the same url when they found out they are blocked or maybe already preventive rotate through new urls etc. In the end you'll end up with some bizar long list whi…
Little snitch! (OSX) https://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/index.html
no i don't work for or get paid in anyway by little snitch, i just love the product.
Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ads targeted at women almost universally target their vulnerabilities in subtle ways, many of which are culturally cultivated and manipulated by marketers. Consider how the food industry plays on weight anxiety: "light", "guilt free" (why should anyone feel guilt over eating?), "sinful", "temptation", "fear X". All the foods are "out to kill you" or at least make you "fat and undesirable". It's all manufactured, alar…
Firstly, none of those examples are subtle. I'm not sure when the actual words fear, temptation, sin and guilt were redefined to be 'subtle' manipulation, and these words are literally used in the advertisements. Secondly, the indulgence food industry doesn't care about cultural inclinations in the way you argue. They didn't set up a culture of considering fatty or carb rich food bad for one's health, or sinful. They…
> Firstly, none of those examples are subtle.
Who mentioned subtle? That's not even moving a goalpost, that's conjuring one out of thin air.
> However the association of candy bars and decadence didn't come from advertisers originally.
Again: so? The point is they use it. The point of many ads being "inherently psychologically abusive" stands, and I count the space wasted on sophistry to try and wriggle out of that as further damage caused by it.
Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures
#224Okay, here's a crazy idea for advertisers. Tie the advertisement to the type of content that the user is already there to read about. Then you can serve ads from the content web server and make it indistinguishable from content, completely unobtrusive, completely noninvasive, and maybe even welcome.
This. As a positive example, I like how many YouTube channels take 30 seconds out of a 10 minute video to talk about some company's product that might be of interest to their audience. Not an annoying video ad that has nothing to do with what I'm reading / watching, just the host talking about a product or service that their audience has a chance to be interested in.
This is the only type of internet ad that has ever worked on me. They read-out a promo code unique to their channel that gave me a 10% off discount upon purchase. Not just that, but the channel got a kick-back for promoting relevant content, and the advertiser got data telling it exactly how effective money-spent on this channel was by virtue of the promo code.
No tracking of my habits was required, and all parties involved probably got detailed-enough feedback as to their campaign's effectiveness.
Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thinks we need to remember the context of this conversation, I’m not against blocking tracking and not wanting to be tracked. I’m just against blocking ads then saying it’s taking the moral high ground and vilifying content creators who offer ads. I’m not even against blocking ads period, so long as we’re accepting the fact that it’s for personal benefit and definitely not “sticking it to the man” The problem is we…
> vilifying content creators who offer ads Not the OP, but the "brainwashed" angle applies to more than just ads. Anyone with a Gmail account is effectively selling my communication with them to Google for a free service. And you bet that when told about this very few would see it that way. Consumers _are_ as guillable as they are ignorant. These new "established" online norms - be it tracking, profiling, ads, what h…
I wonder if this guy will look at this topic and all the counter arguments and downvotes and actually stop and ask himself if maybe its possible he is a bit brainwashed.
Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
TV scene pirates use machine learning to automatically cut advertisement breaks from ripped shows before they get uploaded.
The newest version of Plex DVR software can cut commercials out of your recorded video too
Only because they’re using comskip. Don’t give Plex credit for simply setting a post process script. It’s also not very reliable as you need to tweak the settings per channel/show and so on.
Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures
#227IAB is already providing a tool to detect adblockers. https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/AdBlockDetec...
Hmm, one more thing to block.
Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures
#228IAB is already providing a tool to detect adblockers. https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/AdBlockDetec...
Cool so my adblocker will detect their script and block it too.
Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you call it negative, I call it realistic. It's like putting all _caught_ pedofiles in a jail, and then saying children can roam the streets free and in safety...
It might be realistic to whitelist egress on a production server, but certainly not at my mother’s house.
The safety of your mothers' e.g. online banking, privacy, computer data(pictures, home videos etc) is less important then the company you work for (and probably has insurance)?
update: Apparently for many here, protecting your family is less important. Sort of happy you are not my son or daughter giving me computer advice.
Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use an ad blocker for a much simpler reason. I do not consent to having my behavior analyzed. Calling these things `ads` is deliberately misleading. The primary purpose of these things isn't to show you an ad, its to record everything you do on every site you visit, so then that data can be correlated to your credit history and other real world sources to profile you and optimally manipulate your behavior to sell y…
If you don’t consent why view their content? And I’d like an answer for once other than the super literal “Because their server returned the status code 200” Because sure, it did, but if we’re turning this into an ideological discussion of how you feel you haven’t given permission, why even feed the system with your view. Even using an ad blocked you’re still adding views to the page, and the powers that be will simp…
> And I’d like an answer for once other than the super literal “Because their server returned the status code 200”
Hopefully I can answer your question.
I use an adblocker all the time. I make no exceptions, and I have never whitelisted any site. If I notice something managed to sneak through a filter, I send a pull request to add it to the filter.
I know I'm robbing the content hosts of their ad-based revenue. So why do I keep doing it?
Because I fucking hate ads of any kind. I want all ad-based revenue streams to dry up permanently. And I put a lot of effort into that. Fuck ads. They can burn in hell.