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

311–320 of 377 posts

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

#311

Post by dhimes »

rplnt wrote: post #307
dhimes wrote: post #296

As I've said many times I don't mind ads, but I block trackers. What these websites need to understand is that this is the market in action. We can bemoan trackers. We can legislate against them (at least in principle). But if WEBSITES were to LOSE MONEY if as a result of using trackers and therefore NOT USE THEM then the companies hoarding our data would have to find another business model or go out of business. Usi…

> As I've said many times I don't mind ads Have you seen the web without an ad blocker though?

I definitely agree that some sites are better than others. I guess I should clarify- in principle I don't mind the concept of showing me ads to pay for a site. I do mind the concept of tracking me.

In my view site-related ads have a higher probability of being relevant to me than search-engine ads.

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

#312

Post by matwood »

PrimHelios wrote: post #68
RandomInteger4 wrote: post #67

I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. Maybe if (1) fewer ads pumped up CPU and memory usage for a page, and (2) companies didn't give their non-technical asshole free reign over placing scripts on the page, then maybe many of these sites wouldn't be so bad to visit without an ad blocker.

Animated ads actually give me sensory overload. If a site could promise non-moving ads, I'd gladly whitelist them. It's amazing how many sites think you'll just accept incredibly intrusive and annoying banners.

Or video ads. WTF. Those sites I just close and never return.

Some sites I use a lot, I have enabled ads just to be friendly to the site. These sites also seem to have mostly acceptable ads, so it's not intrusive.

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

#313

Post by hanbura »

distances wrote: post #284
saguro wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sure if you read the terms they disclose that. As an average person, if you spend 8 hours a day reading all the terms and conditions you 'agree' to, it would take you 76 days to just read them, nevermind understand them. http://techland.time.com/2012/03/06/youd-need-76-work-days-t... I'm not actually sure how we ended up living in a world where those terms and conditions are legally meaningful. But I'll reitera…

> I'm not actually sure how we ended up living in a world where those terms and conditions are legally meaningful IANAL, but as an European I'm pretty sure they aren't legally meaningful. To be honest, I don't consider any online T&C's to actually affect me, and only pay attention to explicitly mentioned licenses for content. I have no idea how far from actual reality this is.

According to German law those T&C are meaningless for just browsing the website (they neither ask you to agree nor offer the possibility of reading the terms in advance). And as long as you aren't acting as a business, those "I agree" checkmarks don't bind you to any "surprising" terms (in other words: not even the law expects you to read them)

(IANAL)

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

#314

Post by SilasX »

SilasX wrote: post #178
PhantomGremlin wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drudge Report is probably the most frightening! That particular site is highly functional without allowing any JavaScript at all. All links work. All non-advertising images load. By default I just don't allow JS. Thank you NoScript. Many sites that won't display anything without JS can be viewed by View -> Page Style -> No Style.

This x1000. Any site can circumvent ad blockers by just doing ads like Drudge. So if they want, they can always show ads. The problem is that they want to do more.

Wait, I shouldn’t have been upvoted there. You said non advertising images. But I think the ads would be shown if self hosted so it’s still possible.

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

#315

Post by pmlnr »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #218
tdb7893 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that ad blockers don't often don't discriminate between acceptable ads and unacceptable ads and just block everything. Even if you put a lot of effort to make your ads better most people will just block them regardless.

Doesn't matter. Advertising is a scam and a blight on humanity.

This is not a complete truth. Yes, many of them are scam, especially the big, fat, ugly things the adblocks are invented to block.

However, the need for a list of contractors for works is also required, but things like yellow pages is sort of dead, and if you offer services - eg. you're a freelance photographer, designer, etc. - you need to make yourself visible somehow.

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

#316

Post by BoorishBears »

saguro wrote: post #225
eps wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vilifying content creators who offer ads Not the OP, but the "brainwashed" angle applies to more than just ads. Anyone with a Gmail account is effectively selling my communication with them to Google for a free service. And you bet that when told about this very few would see it that way. Consumers _are_ as guillable as they are ignorant. These new "established" online norms - be it tracking, profiling, ads, what h…

I wonder if this guy will look at this topic and all the counter arguments and downvotes and actually stop and ask himself if maybe its possible he is a bit brainwashed.

Half the comments are yours and aren’t counter arguments at all.

And all the downvotes just tell me people aren’t confident enough in their counter arguements to let them stand against a comment that isn’t intentionally de-emphasized.

And the fact you think I’d change my mind over downvotes, even in part, tells me something about you.

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

#317

Post by pmlnr »

ktta wrote: post #199
leeoniya wrote: post #42

the irony on full display (at the linked article) in chrome devtools / record perf timeline and network log. incognito: 4.4mb, 7000ms scripting, 365 requests, onload: 7600ms with uMatrix (no third party shit): 612kb, 190ms of scripting, 56 requests, onload: 500ms this is on a 300MBit connection

AMP versions of some websites are better https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/27/thousands-of-major-sites-a...

True. However, I refuse to use AMP as long as it's a google vendor lock in. Also not the solution; if they can provide an amp version without all the tracking and ad JS they could just as simply provide an actual, working website as well.

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

#318

Post by wdn »

Without adblocking, the web is unusable for most sites. Full page ads, video ads that follow you while you scrolling, popup, malwares, bitcoin mining, tracking, etc...

TBH, the only solution is browser makers put out an ad acceptable standard. However, with Google's revenue base on ads, I doubt there will be any change to it until someone come along and disrupted the browsers.

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

#319

Post by pmlnr »

zzleeper wrote: post #155
gorhill wrote: post #90

In the paper, this excerpt: > We choose Adblock as it is one of the most popular. It is also possible to use Adblock Plus or uBlock, as the way they operate is exactly the same — HTTP filters and HTML element hiding. AdBlock in the Chrome store uses Adblock Plus filtering engine[1], so to say the way these two "operate is exactly the same" makes sense. However uBlock Origin uses its own code base, and is far better e…

What would you recommend for mobile? Browsing on Android with Chrome is a nightmare, and the last time I tried FF it was a bit sluggish (although it did allowed me to install extensions!)

Lightning with blocked 3rd party cookies and no Javascript. Wonderfully fast.

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

#320

Post by AllegedAlec »

ascorbic wrote: post #214
bonestamp2 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don’t consent why view their content? Ever since newspapers, the social contract has been that they serve content and I become a reader they can sell advertising space for me to look at. They can't suddenly change that contract and expect everyone to automatically agree.

In what way are they changing it? Surely by using ad blockers it is us that are changing the contract, by removing the ability for the publisher to show us ads.

Because the ads they show us are autoplaying headache-inducing flashing videos with jump-scare sounds. Their ads open new windows, which open further new windows when you try to close them. And on top of that, they also gather data about you which they'll sell to whoever is buying it.
Post reply on HN