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

AdFlush

dl.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 112 posts

Re: AdFlush

#31

Post by inversetelecine »

Gud wrote: post #27
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The filter based adblockers are at risk though, with Google's new extension thingy that - at least a few years ago, I haven't heard from it since - limited the amount of rules. If there's a non-rule based system that is 98% effective then that would circumvent the arbitrary rule limits that Google set.

They day Google starts blocking ad blocking users is the day the exodus starts from Google services.

I think you're overestimating the number of people who 1) care and 2) use adblocking extensions or any extension for that matter.

Google knows what will likely happen, and pays people lots of money to know.

Re: AdFlush

#32

Post by fckgw »

RamRodification wrote: post #14
nomilk wrote: post #7

AdFlush (F1 Score: 0.98) seems to do better than some other adblockers: AdGraph (F1 score: 0.93), WebGraph (F1 score: 0.90), and WTAgraph (F1 score: 0.84), but it begs the question: why not compare to the most popular adblockers: uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus etc. I think the authors want to compare apples with apples, so they only compare their algorithm to other adblockers that use algorithms, as opposed to those whi…

> only one person has to report an ad for it to go into a crowdsourced list that blocks it for millions of others Is it that easy? Sounds very abusable

Yes, but the effects of that abuse are observable and easily fixable. If suddenly a whole site goes offline for a bunch of people a change like that is likely to get reversed very quickly.

Re: AdFlush

#33

Post by _al_ »

nomilk wrote: post #7

AdFlush (F1 Score: 0.98) seems to do better than some other adblockers: AdGraph (F1 score: 0.93), WebGraph (F1 score: 0.90), and WTAgraph (F1 score: 0.84), but it begs the question: why not compare to the most popular adblockers: uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus etc. I think the authors want to compare apples with apples, so they only compare their algorithm to other adblockers that use algorithms, as opposed to those whi…

there is an entire section in the paper sub-titled: Comparison with uBlock Origin..

Re: AdFlush

#34

Post by Centigonal »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #16
nomilk wrote: post #7

AdFlush (F1 Score: 0.98) seems to do better than some other adblockers: AdGraph (F1 score: 0.93), WebGraph (F1 score: 0.90), and WTAgraph (F1 score: 0.84), but it begs the question: why not compare to the most popular adblockers: uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus etc. I think the authors want to compare apples with apples, so they only compare their algorithm to other adblockers that use algorithms, as opposed to those whi…

The filter based adblockers are at risk though, with Google's new extension thingy that - at least a few years ago, I haven't heard from it since - limited the amount of rules. If there's a non-rule based system that is 98% effective then that would circumvent the arbitrary rule limits that Google set.

If Google's goal is to thwart adblockers by creating limitations on what browser extensions can do, then creating a browser extension that blocks ads within the current set of limitations is a temporary solution at best.

Re: AdFlush

#35

Post by TheNewsIsHere »

inversetelecine wrote: post #31
Gud wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They day Google starts blocking ad blocking users is the day the exodus starts from Google services.

I think you're overestimating the number of people who 1) care and 2) use adblocking extensions or any extension for that matter. Google knows what will likely happen, and pays people lots of money to know.

I think you are unfortunately correct about this.

I am consistently blown away when I inadvertently experience the Internet without ad-blocking. It’s absolute garbage.

I am sad that people are either OK with this or don’t care. For many they don’t know any better, and asking many of those same groups to install and manage plugins is a fraught request.

Re: AdFlush

#36

Post by avmich »

Centigonal wrote: post #34
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The filter based adblockers are at risk though, with Google's new extension thingy that - at least a few years ago, I haven't heard from it since - limited the amount of rules. If there's a non-rule based system that is 98% effective then that would circumvent the arbitrary rule limits that Google set.

If Google's goal is to thwart adblockers by creating limitations on what browser extensions can do, then creating a browser extension that blocks ads within the current set of limitations is a temporary solution at best.

Google doesn't control the browser, user does.

Re: AdFlush

#37

Post by JAlexoid »

rvnx wrote: post #15
RamRodification wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only one person has to report an ad for it to go into a crowdsourced list that blocks it for millions of others Is it that easy? Sounds very abusable

Yes, and some list maintainers accept money to add or remove you from the list (officially, or officiously through a secondary maintainer, depending on the list), but otherwise it's no different than getting a domain marked as malware or phishing (with a few paid editors on Phishtank or VirusTotal). It's easier to get a domain added than removed. and for the "corruption"/"rackeetering" part, it's a "win-win" for the…

Humans are really the primary attack vectors for any security system.

Re: AdFlush

#38

Post by JAlexoid »

YmiYugy wrote: post #22

Without comparison to the accuracy of crowed sourced blocklists it's not that valuable. Maybe there is a group of hopelessly overworked blocklist maintainers/contributors, that I'm not aware of. If so, their cries for help don't seem to make the HN front page. From a user perspective, blocking banner ads feels like a basically solved problem. I think the real pain point here is that for large chunks of the web, there…

There will never be a solution to native ads. It's part of the content you choose to consume, that someone produced.

The only way to avoid native ads is to stop consuming content that relies on ads.

Re: AdFlush

#39

Post by Centigonal »

avmich wrote: post #36
Centigonal wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google's goal is to thwart adblockers by creating limitations on what browser extensions can do, then creating a browser extension that blocks ads within the current set of limitations is a temporary solution at best.

Google doesn't control the browser, user does.

Google controls the APIs that extension writers can use. They are currently using that control to impose limits on what adblocker extensions can do. [1][2]

You could download the Chromium source and patch it to change the extensions APIs (or better, just use Firefox), but the majority of users won't do this, and extension writers aren't going to make a version for a patched Chromium browser unless it has significant market share and support.

[1] https://nordvpn.com/blog/manifest-v3-ad-blockers/

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-ma...

Re: AdFlush

#40

Post by Spoom »

inversetelecine wrote: post #31
Gud wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They day Google starts blocking ad blocking users is the day the exodus starts from Google services.

I think you're overestimating the number of people who 1) care and 2) use adblocking extensions or any extension for that matter. Google knows what will likely happen, and pays people lots of money to know.

Without commenting on Google[1], I think this sort of thing is true in the short term but less true in the long term. I expect that, were Chrome to ban ad blockers, technical folks will start to teach non-technical folks in their orbit how to e.g. install Firefox to regain ad-blocking capability. I think it would take some number of years but there would be a pushback in the medium- to long-term.

1. Googler, opinion solely my own.

Post reply on HN