Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try the umatrix extension
Doesn't work on ios.
This is true. uMatrix's interface is difficult even where it works on Android. This calls for custom firewall rules and/or Privoxy.
Adblocking: How about Nah?
271–280 of 549 posts
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not saying you are wrong, but which European states is this common in? I’ve never noticed this, and many public spaces in Europe have a great deal of poster/bill board style advertisements. I remember reading Paris tried this, but that’s a long way from “common in Europe”.
It's possible I'm mistaken about the commonness, I'm just repeating hearsay. That said, I still think it should become the norm everywhere.
Maybe you heard about prohibition of billboards in highways, but it was only of alcoholic beverages. I remember hearing about it years ago when Osborne's bulls where saved because they were (justly IMHO) a national monument or something like that. The name was removed though.
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
The web has long-ago graduated beyond just serving up documents, and having a capable language and platform was key in enabling it. There are downsides to everything, but we cant dismiss that positives that came from it.
The problem is that document delivery is still the main function, but the platform wants to be a fully capable app platform. Yes, it’s great that the web is capable of stuff like Google Docs. But all those capabilities are actually liabilities when it’s a news site.
It is a fully capable platform. How it's used isn't a fault of the platform though. It seems user-agents and adblockers are applying the proper protections, just like how antivirus works on your desktop.
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly the best feature of the Brave browser is having that be one tap away, remembered per-site. I really wish Firefox would copy it since I’m not optimistic about Brave’s longevity.
Try the umatrix extension
I should have been more specific that I wanted it on iOS, too. That’s a good option for desktop and worth mentioning.
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#275Couldn't we solve this problem by always clicking on ads we don't like, then close the tab?
If I like a company, I tend to scroll down in Google Search until I find their organic result. Hopefully that makes a difference to their bottom line.
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you feel like advertisers know that now? I feel like I hear about clickspam/ad fraud operations getting closed down (and nigh-instantly popping up elsewhere) on a constant basis. Is this like intrusive DRM in PC games, where all the studies show that it increases producer costs and complexity, annoys consumers, and doesn’t actually improve sales revenue, but some companies do it anyway because “what about piracy?”
I think one big difference with DRM for PC games, is that piracy of PC games is normally not a money making activity for the pirates. It might prevent companies from selling a game to certain people, but there is no clear cut evidence that person would have otherwise bought it. For advertising however, you can first of all incur a cost to an advertiser (since costs are calculated per click, view, etc), but furthermor…
Ha, please have a little trip to any of the open air electronic markets of Eastern Europe(even of those countries that are within the EU) and every other stall has DVDs of almost any PC game/software you can think of. Signs like "newest game releases here!", "Windows 10 all versions no key one dvd!", "Blu-ray movies - 10 per disc!" Are still common. They are not even trying to hide this even though the police are meant to be on a look out for that stuff, but I can guarantee that I could come back with a backpack absolutely full of pirated PC games from one of these markets - that is making people money, no one is doing this out of charity even if prices are low.
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would only do business with companies you trust to not cheat. Or just charge flat rates.
>You would only do business with companies you trust to not cheat. That massively increases the barrier to entry. Right now you can make a new site, sign up with an ad network, and start showing ads. No one involved needs to trust you (much) since the ad network is in a good position to detect cheating. Remove that, and big trusted publishers (NYT, FB, Google) are still fine, but smaller ones wouldn't be able to demo…
Yes. Arguing that online advertising should be like traditional advertising (killing the adtech industry of today) means accepting that a ton of money will flow from small players to the bigger players, and into more insidious forms of ads (video overlays, native ads posing as news). But it’s a tradeoff I’m more than happy to accept.
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of the major browsers which are non-US based? Hint: not the majority. The point the op was making had nothing to do with your response claiming the US is the "only ruler of the internet". Does the US do a poor job of regulation of monopolies in tech? You don't have to look hard to find supporters of that statement. But we're at a point in time where things are finally starting to bubble up and garner traction. Will i…
Opera!
> Of the major browsers...
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#279This embarrassing early era of an internet built on the ludicrous house of cards of advertising can't come to an end soon enough.
I look forward to reading in the history books about how some of the world's greatest minds spent their time and energy figuring out how to build businesses on manifestly bad UX.
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would only do business with companies you trust to not cheat. Or just charge flat rates.
>You would only do business with companies you trust to not cheat. That massively increases the barrier to entry. Right now you can make a new site, sign up with an ad network, and start showing ads. No one involved needs to trust you (much) since the ad network is in a good position to detect cheating. Remove that, and big trusted publishers (NYT, FB, Google) are still fine, but smaller ones wouldn't be able to demo…
> Right now you can make a new site, sign up with an ad network, and start showing ads.
With the tiny payout you get from Adsense, unless your site is really popular to begin with, you're not going to make much of anything. Pennies maybe (which you won't receive until hitting a threshold anyway). So I don't see how it helps with entry.
By the time your service is popular enough to make real money you could approach smaller brands and advertisers to get better deals than Adsense.
Adsense exists to make ads cheaper for the advertisers and there's no way around the fact that that means content producers will be making less money as a whole. You can't have it both ways. It's lowering the amount that advertisers are willing to pay content creators by giving them the perception that their money stretches further, aided by online tracking and targeting. Meanwhile Google caches in on their cut of the deal and all of the piles of data they collect with their monopoly while content producers get shafted.