Surely the next step is for websites to host their own ads again? They can even forward cookies on to ad networks etc.
I wish it were that simple. Self-hosted ads still get blocked.
The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
251–260 of 299 posts
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#252Surely the next step is for websites to host their own ads again? They can even forward cookies on to ad networks etc.
Would be great if this would be an option, especially with the GDPR coming. But for small to medium sized publishers there are no ads you could host your own.
It also requires you to self-host an ad server (and most open source ad servers are terrible) and it requires the advertiser to completely trust your numbers since they'll have no way to verify how many impressions you served. That's tough right now even for people who sell ads directly.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#253> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…
You're of course correct, but right now on a great many sites that non-adblock users are subsidizing the content for adblock users. If everyone (or even just a critical mass) of people run adblockers then many sites will either need to put up paywalls or go out of business.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#254Is it me, or is pi hole way more popular than it should be? Compared to the alternatives, it's worse in almost every way. It only works on your local network, so good luck blocking ads while you're at work, using mobile data, or at a cafe. Browser based adblockers (which is available on most desktop browsers, mobile safari, and firefox for android) can block elements and url patterns, pi hole can't. Even if you're on…
I run pi-hole in conjunction with browser blockers and still find it a net benefit overall. Anyone who uses my wifi gets an adblocker, any device, for any browser, and any configuration gets the benefit of having it. It's not just myself, a technically literate person, but my mother, sister, girlfriend and friends... Ideally if it stops just one malicious ad from landing itself upon my home's network then I say the b…
Not just that but it also can block all sorts of telemetry for devices on your network beyond PCs.
For example, mine blocks Samsung telemetry from my TV, so I can still use the TV apps without having my info sent to Samsung.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#255> Publishers will target Salmela’s software if it becomes anywhere near as popular as AdBlock Plus, says Nicole Perrin, an analyst at researcher EMarketer. I'd caution about that claim. Google pulled AdNauseam[0], a uBlock Origin extension, from the Chrome Web Store since it was fundamentally disrupting Google's business model via click fraud. (It automates clicking ads in order to create noise in user tracking.) Thi…
I disagree with you :
1) Unlike AdNauseam, Google can't do much to get in the way of Pi-Hole. This isn't within its ecosystem.
2) Actually, while it's not great for publishers, it's not that disruptive (at that scale) because it doesn't impact the advertiser's ad spend. No request > No charge.
Now if you wanted to create something that would be quite disruptive, you'd need to combine the 2, with a twist :
You could have a headless browser in a VM (for safety) that makes some of those calls and mimic a click + follow the redirect + stay on the landing page and browse another N pages.
Not every single ad obviously because that'd be easy to detect but at random, in an erratic way. That'd be like simulating an actual user.
Throw in there some cookie dropping / reset to mess with tracking and it could have some pretty interesting effects.
The reason why it'd more dangerous? Because it'd throw off performance of those ads and ML optimizations done by various vendors. Usually you expect a click-through rate (CTR) of 0.X % to maybe 2-3% and similarly an actual conversion rate in the single digits.
On a large scale, you'd see a a CTR that either go up or stay on par, but a conversion rate that is free falling and that would have some serious consequences for both the advertiser's marketing team and the publisher / ad network.
Take it one step further and have a TOR like network of those pi-holes taking care of that both to prevent device finger-printing and maybe coordinating a specific publisher / ad network / advertisers and you could see that advertiser looking at reducing its ad spend quite drastically when performance goes down the drain. And an ad network / publisher having to do some explaining.
Some kind of "activist" bot network to force specific advertisers to reduce ad spending or simply occur costs.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#256> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…
The only reason we have free online content to consume is because content creators expect to be reimbursed through ads. When I block ads I am free-riding off of people that don't. Whether this is stealing or not is semantics, and I don't care to get into that discussion. But I do see a moral problem here. I personally do block most ads, which is kind of justifiable to me because of malware concerns, but I'm not going…
If a site I cared about was teetering on the edge in the internet stone age, they'd put up a Paypal donation button and you chip in.
Now, sites with value have either figured their strategy out or have something like Patreon, which I'm a big fan of. I'll donate to the Guardian if they flash that yellow banner, you know?
So no big loss for the other 99% of the web that feels slighted by ad-blockers and complains or shills for the ad network industry to save their bacon. If they fold, it's no loss.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next step would be to do render the whole page including ads directly into a canvas/opengl element using some heavily obfuscated wasm binary in order to circumvent the DOM and any DOM/JS-based ad blocker.
You still need to make an HTTP request to get the ad data. Ad blockers don't just block the DOM elements, they block the HTTP request too.
Data can easily be embedded either as inline data URI or as JS arrays. You can have static pages containing many MB of embedded data. If the adds used SVG they might not even be very large, bandwidth wise.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#258> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…
> On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is my decision and mine alone. Absolutely. I reserve the right to decide what gets displayed on my computer, and what code runs. Websites can try to serve me stuff I don't want to see, but if they do, I am well within my rights to remove it. That doesn't stop at ads, either. I often use my ad blocker's element…
> I don't want to see your social media sharing buttons...
I don't want to see them, and I don't want them to see (track) me either.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It's that simple. What 'terms'? They're essentially giving third parties the ability to inject anything they want into their websites. How can they meaningfully establish 'terms' if they have willingly given up the ability to hold up their end of those ter…
> What 'terms'? They're essentially giving third parties the ability to inject anything they want into their websites. How can they meaningfully establish 'terms' if they have willingly given up the ability to hold up their end of those terms? The terms are that you run the code they give you. If you don't like those terms, don't go. Simple as that.
If an ad. includes malware, am I contractually obliged to run it? That position doesn't seem tenable.
Further, what does "run" mean in this context? For example, I don't download images by default on mobile devices - is that not "run[ning] the code"? - or different rendering engines, or screen-readers, that run the same code differently.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tricky question. I think I would come down on the side that they are liable for that, perhaps unless they very explicitly and clearly disclaim liability before exposing you to the risk.
Product liability disclaimers are often found to be unenforceable; is there a particular disclaimer strategy[1] you have in mind that would effectively shift liability to the presumed counter party? [1] https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/are-product-lia...
I'm not saying that a disclaimer would necessarily do it, I was just excluding that case from consideration. I'd defer to standard disclaimer case law on the matter.