The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com • Hacker News Board

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#311

Post by RUG3Y » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

jhall1468 wrote: post #187

njharman wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine. If paywalls is the business model that works (I don't think it is for most content (it's really just not worth anything even ad eyeball time)) then that is how it will be. I'm not a huge "free-market" proponent. But markets exist, and they aren't magic. They smove to solution(s) that the market wants / willing to "pay" for. Pay in broadest sense, money, eyeballs, time, etc. As a business you can fight a…

> That's fine. If paywalls is the business model that works (I don't think it is for most content (it's really just not worth anything even ad eyeball time)) then that is how it will be. This argument is already so tired. When you limit all options to one, that option has to be taken whether or not it is a good option. If everyone blocked every advertisement indiscriminately there would be no other option available b…

Just because you don't like the argument doesn't mean it's "tired." It's absolutely true. I block every ad, I will continue to do so, and should content go behind a paywall, I will simply not view it. If there are enough people like me, content providers will be forced to adapt their strategies. That's the way it is.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#312

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 4:31 PM UTC

RUG3Y wrote: post #311

jhall1468 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's fine. If paywalls is the business model that works (I don't think it is for most content (it's really just not worth anything even ad eyeball time)) then that is how it will be. This argument is already so tired. When you limit all options to one, that option has to be taken whether or not it is a good option. If everyone blocked every advertisement indiscriminately there would be no other option available b…

Just because you don't like the argument doesn't mean it's "tired." It's absolutely true. I block every ad, I will continue to do so, and should content go behind a paywall, I will simply not view it. If there are enough people like me, content providers will be forced to adapt their strategies. That's the way it is.

Let me join in with a Hell Yeah. I'm exactly the same mindset; folks who imagine they can dictate my web viewing habits, are just going to lose a segment of the viewership outright. No amount of self-serving rationalization ("You owe it to us to watch our ads!") is going to change my habits one iota.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#313

Post by RUG3Y » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 4:32 PM UTC

RyanZAG wrote: post #170

jhall1468 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And be replaced with what, exactly? The call to arms over privacy, attention and security is getting old. Not because its wrong, but because it's never accompanied with an actual solution. But that's moot because the ship isn't going to sink. Enough people will not use adblock to ensure that companies like Google and Facebook will always make some money off advertising. So rest assured, the Titanic's will continue to…

Maybe with nothing? There isn't some god-given requirement for there to be all these reviews about 3D cards. If readers refuse to receive ads and refuse to pay, then the site will go out of business and the content will go away. That's honestly fine - if people won't pay in time or by viewing ads, the content is simply not valuable enough to enough people for it to exist. Less content is not the end of the world. Pro…

This is correct. I would be happy with the web I was using in 1995, to be honest. Most of the non-corporate content was produced by people who did so simply for the chance to talk about their passion and have an audience. I could care less if Sally can make a living off of her blog or not.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#314

Post by cm2187 » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 4:48 PM UTC

tehmaco wrote: post #306

cm2187 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but how do you correlate the two cookies? I go on site abc.com, which gives me the cookie abc:111 Then I go on xyz.com which gives me the cookie xyz:222 Because of the same origin policy, xyz.com can't access the cookies set by abc.com. Abc and xyz can communicate as much as they want on the server side, they will not be able to tell that abc:111 and xyz:222 are the same user (absent additional information: brows…

Just a thought - if the ad network uses js code (hosted on abc.com and xyz.com servers), which loads images from the same domain (but it loaded in on a server-to-server link, and cached and served from the the domain you're visiting). Can they not just set a tracking cookie for that domain that they control with a unique ID, tied to browser fingerprinting, which is transmitted to the ad network? So you visit abc.com…

Do you mean: I visit abc.com, abc.com serves me an abc cookie, then I visit xyz.com, and xyz.com makes a call to abc from my browser, so that they can use the abc cookie to track me?

Well, that is effectively using abc as a tracking server, and abc.com would quickly be added to the adblockers lists. Effectively this is the current model.

The other thing is that I may visit abc.com and xyz.com but this particular combination may be unique to me, i.e. I may visit nytime.com and ford.com which may use the same ad network, but you may not visit nytime.com at all and instead wsj.com.

Browser fingerprinting is a different problem. It does defeat the same origin policy. But I suggest you look at the sources of entropy: https://panopticlick.eff.org/ With javascript off, there is virtually no entropy, just your user agent and HTTP_ACCEPT header. You can't fingerprint a browser at all.

If you enable javascript but not plugins, then the Browser Pluggin details give you some entropy, although looking at the list those a relatively generic and would likely be the same on many machines.

If you enable plugins (flash, silverlight, java) then you have a massive amount of entropy but realistically all of these plugins are almost gone from major browsers.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#315

Post by RUG3Y » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 4:57 PM UTC

jhall1468 wrote: post #155

lazyjones wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's exactly this kind of attitude that is going to lead to paywalls for virtually every type of content on the Internet. If you think this is going to happen as a result, you must presume that it would be a good - i.e. acceptable and viable - solution. Why do you simultaneously try to use it as a threatening outlook? If enough people perceive it as a threat or discover later that paywalls are even less convenient…

> If you think this is going to happen as a result, you must presume that it would be a good - i.e. acceptable and viable - solution. What kind of logic are you following? I think dropping a bomb on Paris is going to kill a whole lot of people. How does it follow that because I think that, it stands to reason that I think it's "good". > some other solution will have to be found Because we already have a solution. Uno…

I have an even better model than that: Website erects paywall, nobody pays for content, and another irrelevant site bites the dust.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#316

Post by RUG3Y » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

anonymousab wrote: post #124

jhall1468 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's exactly this kind of attitude that is going to lead to paywalls for virtually every type of content on the Internet. And the people that use the most heavy-handed approaches with ad-blocking are going to be the same people that are screaming "NOT MY PROBLEM" while the ship goes down. Their business model doesn't require changes to reality. Their business model requires the end-user to accept reality for what it…

Your post seems entirely based on the assumption that people will not create and host quality content for free.

This is what people did in the past. People are doing this now, and they will continue to do this. TBH, most of the content that will go away as a result of adblocking is garbage anyway. It's the paid bloggers and other leeches that have had easy for the last 10 years who are really complaining about this.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#317

Post by RUG3Y » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 5:05 PM UTC

BogusIKnow wrote: post #299

cpeterso wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moral distinction between "I do not read ads" and "I block ads" is an illusion. Do not some ad networks pay content providers for "impressions", regardless of whether the ads are clicked? In that case, loading the ads without reading them is not the same as not loading them.

My prediction for the future: Ad blockers will load ads but not display them as more and more websites will block visitors who block them.

Right. We need a blocker that loads the ads and "sandboxes" them from the user.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#318

Post by RUG3Y » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

fromMars wrote: post #88

BogusIKnow wrote: post #83

Main reason for ad-blockers for me: They try to distract you from reading the text you came for. While in print ads don't (can't) do this. Online they open to the whole page after some time, they constantly animate things to draw your attention from the text, some play sound, videos, left, right, above, below and in the text between paragraphs and capturing links. Main reason probably because they don't really work.

I am also not a fan of annoying ads and maybe I am just a crotchety old guy, but, IMO, using an Ad Blocker and viewing content is theft. If one is concerned with privacy, there are alternative measures such as cookie blocking options, legislation, etc. If the ad formats are annoying then the right thing to do is to let the publisher know and work out a way to pay for the content ad-free or just stop using the site. I…

In no way is blocking ads theft. The ads are using your bandwidth.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#319

Post by RUG3Y » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

nwhitmore wrote: post #131

jwmerrill wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Response 1: whether this question already has a technical answer that you find satisfying does not affect whether using an ad blocker is theft. Response 2: a few sites are already popping up messages asking you to turn off your ad blocker, which is at least a partial existence proof. Response 3: if you want to know whether I got your ads, use cookies or make the request url unique to me, and then check that your ad s…

So, your viewpoint boils down to either I allow my content to be viewed solely on your terms or I go out of business. Sounds like the type of negotiation the mob engages in. But, hey, as long as you get what you want, I guess it is ok.

That's pretty much the sum of it. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with that. It's how markets work. You provide something of value, and someone purchases it, or you provide something of no value, and the market refuses to buy it.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#320

Post by RUG3Y » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

nwhitmore wrote: post #116

BogusIKnow wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. If I get a magazine which is mostly not financed by my payment but the ads, and rip out all ads and throw them away, or throw the ad supplements away and not read them, is it theft? If it is theft blocking (aka not reading) ads online, is it theft if I just don't read them? And I don't want to argue, just interested, where is the difference in not reading them and blocking them? Is it morally imperativ…

So, if it is ok for you to view content while denying the content producers the ability to monetize that content, then would you also agree it is ok to take content from behind a paywall and display it for free on your site? If not, what is it specifically that makes the first ok but not the other?

No one is denying content providers the right to monetize by blocking ads. The onus is on them to find a business model that the market will support.