Live data from Hacker News

German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

arstechnica.com

241–250 of 273 posts

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#241
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not the same. Advertisers can negotiate with AdBlock Plus about what reasonable advertising should be. If we all choose our own block lists there is nobody for them to negotiate with. The war between ad blockers and advertisers continues forever. We have very different opinions, because I don't see it as a bargaining situation. The reasonable and acceptable level of spam, web advertising, malware, and user tra…

> The reasonable and acceptable level of spam, web advertising, malware, and user tracking is zero. Given that you put advertising in there with the other items, I assume this means that you pay for all websites that you block ads on? Because it seems to me that your model is "I get free stuff, fuck everyone else".

> Because it seems to me that your model is "I get free stuff, fuck everyone else".

No, that's putting the cart in front of the horse. The World Wide Web was built for users by users, not for publishers by publishers. It's nice that publishers, who are themselves users, can make use of it. Good for them. If they can support themselves, even better.

However, any user has the moral right to filter any content delivered to them, as he or she sees fit. If publishers don't like that, they can build their own Internet instead of using ours, the users', Internet.

In fact, I would say it is a moral obligation for any Internet user to oppose any content-provider that attempts to put undue technical restraints on their content under threat of not publishing that content at all.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#242
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason for still using ABP is because you haven't heard of uBlock.

What's the best solution for iOS?

i use adblock[0], which while generically named, works phenomenally well. it's a pay app, which is a turnoff for some people, but well worth two dollars to me and is under active development. it uses a local vpn with host based filtering to adblock domains on all apps. the same developer also has a safari plugin adblocker, ADmosphere[1], which is free. alternately, or concurrently, if you prefer safari plugin adblockers, mozilla has one called focus[2], which they've recently expanded into an ephemeral browser that you can easily clear all local data on to avoid tracking. it's handy for one-off searches you don't necessarily want added to tracking network profiles of yourself.

[0] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id691121579?mt=8

[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/admosphere-free-ad-blocker/i...

[2] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firefox-focus-privacy-browse...

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was on HN a few days ago: http://www.welivesecurity.com/2016/12/06/readers-popular-web... Basically ads that exploit you without you clicking on them. I don't know if it was on the acceptable ads list and you had a old copy of adobe acrobat, then you would be hacked. They didn't mention what sites but users in Central Europe got it on popular websites. Sites you'd probably trust. Other than static ads between th…

That definitely does not meet the standard of ABP's acceptable ads program and it would be banned if found.

> if found

Herein lies the problem

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#244
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the best solution for iOS?

For your home wifi network, look at Pi-Hole[0], a DNS based ad blocker [0]: https://pi-hole.net

I'd rather use OpenDNS to block the malware domains than use DNS based ad blocker

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#245
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not the same. Advertisers can negotiate with AdBlock Plus about what reasonable advertising should be. If we all choose our own block lists there is nobody for them to negotiate with. The war between ad blockers and advertisers continues forever. We have very different opinions, because I don't see it as a bargaining situation. The reasonable and acceptable level of spam, web advertising, malware, and user tra…

> The reasonable and acceptable level of spam, web advertising, malware, and user tracking is zero. Given that you put advertising in there with the other items, I assume this means that you pay for all websites that you block ads on? Because it seems to me that your model is "I get free stuff, fuck everyone else".

craigsmansion sums up my thoughts pretty well. The way the internet works is that the end user is able to interpret and display web content as they see fit. If that's a problem for somebody, they can use something else.

And FWIW I do pay for or donate to several online services that I use often and that provide real value for me. At the same time, it's very unlikely that I'll ever pay to read somebody's blog, twitter, facebook, personal website, etc.

But I'm curious why you wouldn't put web advertising in with spam, tracking, and malware? They're all heavily entwined, AFAICT.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kind of a ridiculous statement. Not a single category other than energy consumption does Safari benchmark near Chrome, Firefox or even Edge http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/best-browser-internet... Any of you are free to offer actual data proving otherwise

Err, I didn't say anything about any browser. I said that performance and battery life are not at odds, they often go hand in hand.

Efficiency and energy use go hand and hand, performance and energy use often do not.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#247
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasonable and acceptable level of spam, web advertising, malware, and user tracking is zero. Given that you put advertising in there with the other items, I assume this means that you pay for all websites that you block ads on? Because it seems to me that your model is "I get free stuff, fuck everyone else".

> Because it seems to me that your model is "I get free stuff, fuck everyone else". No, that's putting the cart in front of the horse. The World Wide Web was built for users by users, not for publishers by publishers. It's nice that publishers, who are themselves users, can make use of it. Good for them. If they can support themselves, even better. However, any user has the moral right to filter any content delivered…

The internet does not belong to the users. It's an inter net - a large collection of networks that have decided to interoperate using common protocols. The internet belongs to the people who own the networks. Hence the whole "get your own internet" argument is begging the question.

We're all in this shit together, and we need to give content providers the ability to earn money off that. At the moment most of us get away with being parasites, but it's not sustainable if we want to maintain quality content. The moral obligation, if any, is 'play fair'. If someone asks that you see an ad along with the rest of the content, then the moral answer is to view that ad if you want to access the content. It's 'play fair', not 'play selfishly'. If you don't want to play fair, then either don't consume the content, or don't pretend you're being moral.

Also, just because you can access certain content streams with technical trickery doesn't mean you're morally clear to do so. A clear example is private data. Just because I might be able to get someone else's private data with a few http requests doesn't make it moral for me to do so.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#248
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasonable and acceptable level of spam, web advertising, malware, and user tracking is zero. Given that you put advertising in there with the other items, I assume this means that you pay for all websites that you block ads on? Because it seems to me that your model is "I get free stuff, fuck everyone else".

> Because it seems to me that your model is "I get free stuff, fuck everyone else". No, that's putting the cart in front of the horse. The World Wide Web was built for users by users, not for publishers by publishers. It's nice that publishers, who are themselves users, can make use of it. Good for them. If they can support themselves, even better. However, any user has the moral right to filter any content delivered…

The internet was not built by the users (as they are known today). It was designed and built by the department of defense, for the military to use initially. They let some universities make use of it since several helped research, document and build it. They (The DoD) enjoyed the benefits of letting academics contribute to the technology. It grew organically over time into the complex set of networks and implementations you see before you.

Interstate highways were created in the same manor. That is fun reading if you research it a bit.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#249

Adblocking has indirectly created many of these fake news sites we see today and will only create a more cluttered and product-filled user experience. Most news sites rely only on advertising for income. Real reporting and investigation costs money. Since their main money source is now drying up, news is starting to become hearsay, rumors, and things you see on Twitter (anything you can find from the comfort of an of…

Quite the opposite. Ads led to all these fake news sites. Ads disable the concept of people paying for something they consider valuable. Instead all you need to make profit is to get people to look in your direction long enough to show them something they might actually consider spending money on. You don't need facts and journalism for that. You only need facts and journalism to build trust with your customers so th…

"Ads disable the concept of people paying for something they consider valuable"

Nobody pays for news anymore, so sites are forced to get money through ads. The concept that everything needs to be free has also led to the abundance of advertisements.

"You only need facts and journalism to build trust with your customers so they might consider paying you directly."

In the past 5 years, many local, paid, newspapers have gone out of business. It nearly destroyed the entire industry. People don't pay for news anymore because of the Internet. It had the same shakeup the music industry had a decade ago.

I seriously doubt you would be happy paying a fee for every website you visit. This is what would need to happen if we get rid of advertising completely.

I feel like many people want it both ways: a quality product for $0 dollars and no advertisements of any kind. It's just not realistic.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, I don't get why larger content owners don't self publish ads. You're right, it's about auditing. They need to be able to prove the quantity of ads were delivered as sold, which needs to go through a third party. Actually, Vox, NBC, Quartz, The Outline, and NYT have started building their own ad creatives in-house, which is an excellent idea because it gives the publisher control of what code runs. This gets s…

Could they use sampling [+ trust!] instead for audit purposes? Or indeed serve from their domain with a third-party server that sits inside (eg by VPN) the orgs network.

That's interesting. You could serve the delivery system from the same domain with a proxy or CNAME or something, but that would actually be less secure. Moving them onto the main domain means they'd have access to its cookies/localStorage/cross-origin policy. Today, they don't.

There may be a middle ground--using a separate, unique domain (i.e., nytimes-adserver.com). I'm trying to think through the side effects, what breaks, etc.

Post reply on HN