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

Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 377 posts

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#261

Post by InternetUser »

reacharavindh wrote: post #191

I wonder why the major websites are not going for the old way of "self-hosted" ads where the ad networks buy a space in the website and the website shows it at that space from their own domain and it is harmless.. That I'd consider allowing in my laptop. It's not the ads themselves that make me run to the blockers. It's their creepiness and tracking. If they're just images shown same to everybody, then I'm okay.

But the millions of people working at news websites and at ad companies need to feed themselves and their families. What do you have to say to them?

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#262

Post by snarfy »

iaml wrote: post #247
cbcoutinho wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this work? I'm not in webdev so I don't know the ins and outs of browser editing, is it really possible to only accept a portion of a website and get around those things? Wouldn't this also be useful for getting around pay-to-view sites as well?

Those types of limitations can be implemented either client or server -side. When it's clientside, removing overlays from DOM can easily circumvent paywalls and such, but when it's server side, there's nothing you can do.

They usually don't send you the content for a paywall without a login. But adblock detection is another story. They need to render the ad to detect that it's being blocked. They could use some js to do this before downloading the rest of the content, but they usually don't.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#263

Post by _0ffh »

klibertp wrote: post #239
ascorbic wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Right, and how is that supposed to happen in practice? Manually inspect every CDN domain loaded on every page that you visit? Or just live without scripts, images, fonts, video?

> Manually inspect every CDN domain loaded on every page that you visit? Basically, yes, see uMatrix. It's not for non-web-devs, I feel, but if you can easily recognize unnecessary connections it works pretty well.

> It's not for non-web-devs, I feel

I don't know. I'm not a web dev (x), and I went from "dafuq?" to "I get it, this is so cool" in two minutes flat. Let's just say it sure helps if you're a technical person, not j. random user.

(x) but engineer/CS, tbh

edit: remove accidental markup

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#264

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

_0ffh wrote: post #263
klibertp wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Manually inspect every CDN domain loaded on every page that you visit? Basically, yes, see uMatrix. It's not for non-web-devs, I feel, but if you can easily recognize unnecessary connections it works pretty well.

> It's not for non-web-devs, I feel I don't know. I'm not a web dev (x), and I went from "dafuq?" to "I get it, this is so cool" in two minutes flat. Let's just say it sure helps if you're a technical person, not j. random user. (x) but engineer/CS, tbh edit: remove accidental markup

I'm a trade qualified welder and metal fabricator and even I understand uMatrix. It's not rocket surgery.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#265

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

mobilemidget wrote: post #200
joaodlf wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way too negative. I have been using uBlock Origin for years and it's one of those things that just works. Turning it off in those rare moments it needs to be off is a bleak reminder of the state of the internet. Why would I want to go through the hassle of managing all of this work by myself? A massive THANK YOU to the individuals behind uBlock - You literally make the internet tolerable for me.

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...

> I don't know why you call it negative, I call it realistic.

Negativity usually bills itself as realism, but that doesn't make it so.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#266

Post by IronKettle »

executesorder66 wrote: post #245
Thorncorona wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anybody listened to your advice then search engines, stack overflow, web forums, news agencies, and Reddit would simply disappear.

Or be replaced by open source alternatives. And if you are wondering why they haven't already, it's because google/stackoverflow/reddit etc. are already providing the service for 'free'. So as soon as they shut down, someone else will make an alternative.

> So as soon as they shut down, someone else will make an alternative.

They exist already. They're mostly horrible.

I pretty religiously use DDG, but even then I probably use the !g operator every third search or so.

Reddit's already almost entirely open-source IIRC. People have used it to make alternatives. Check out Voat, you can see the alternative in action (you might not like what you find, though).

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#267

Post by dhimes »

klibertp wrote: post #239
ascorbic wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Right, and how is that supposed to happen in practice? Manually inspect every CDN domain loaded on every page that you visit? Or just live without scripts, images, fonts, video?

> Manually inspect every CDN domain loaded on every page that you visit? Basically, yes, see uMatrix. It's not for non-web-devs, I feel, but if you can easily recognize unnecessary connections it works pretty well.

if you can easily recognize unnecessary connections it works pretty well

I find recognizing unnecessary connections to be the painful part.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#269

Post by bryanlarsen »

abhishek0318 wrote: post #240
shandor wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox for Android is wonderful after Quantum. uBlock Origin works fine with it, and you can even use the custom filters to purge the scourge of the so called "dickbars" from your browsing experience. It's not as streamlined to use as with a mouse, but never having to see those Medium banners again makes my Internet life so much better.

Though Firefox on Android has improved a lot with the recent quantum update, you can still feel it's a little laggy as compared to Chrome. Specifically, scrolling on Firefox feels very laggy. Also, Firefox doesn't play videos on same tab. That becomes very frustrating.

Are you sure you're using Quantum? Quantum isn't in Firefox 57 for mobile, you need the beta 58 for Quantum.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#270

Post by klibertp »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #264
_0ffh wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not for non-web-devs, I feel I don't know. I'm not a web dev (x), and I went from "dafuq?" to "I get it, this is so cool" in two minutes flat. Let's just say it sure helps if you're a technical person, not j. random user. (x) but engineer/CS, tbh edit: remove accidental markup

I'm a trade qualified welder and metal fabricator and even I understand uMatrix. It's not rocket surgery.

> It's not rocket surgery.

Certainly, it just can take more time to sift through the list of tens of domains and deciding to allow or ban each connection if you don't already know which connections tend to be needed and which are not.

Still, it's perfectly doable for anyone if you experiment a little, and it's done once per site, so the time needed for this shouldn't be an issue. It's just that people working with this stuff will have an easier time using uMatrix - which is what I really meant in my comment above :)

Post reply on HN