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

No adblocker detected

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 388 posts

Re: No adblocker detected

#331

Post by immibis »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #312
MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nevermind the fake stuff, the real stuff is scammy enough. When you select an app to install on Google Play, it takes you to another screen confirming the install. But that install button on top is not for the app you selected, it's for a different, advertised app. You have to scroll down to find the confirmation button for the app you already instructed the store to install. This isn't going to ruin any lives, but i…

At what point does a small bad thing, but one that impacts billions of lives, rise to the level of not acceptable? Google is stealing how many human years of peoples lives with these little things? Are we losing millions of years of people time a year to Googles slimy practices? That is unacceptable. I can't see how Google employees are OK with that.

It's always been acceptable to steal, as long as you're already rich.

Re: No adblocker detected

#332

Post by immibis »

marssaxman wrote: post #308
Aurornis wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While being recorded from 6 different angles while standing next to your vehicle with a license plate on it? You get arrested. That’s what happens. Kiosk makers have already thought of all of these possibilities. There isn’t a nicely exposed speaker. It’s behind a metal plate with tiny holes in it.

> You get arrested. That’s what happens. For petty vandalism? That seems like an expensive overreaction. Perhaps it depends on your demography.

People get arrested for petty vandalism all the time, even if they didn't petty vandalize.

The police won't bother to track down who graffitied your fence, but money-making companies are a different matter.

And it definitely depends on demography. I assume they're still using it, but maybe they just plug everyone's face into Palantir now.

Re: No adblocker detected

#333

Post by immibis »

loeg wrote: post #112
jbstack wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd have to be very careful not to run afoul of insider trading and/or market manipulation laws. Whether you would or not would depend on all the details and the jurisdiction.

Not in the US. There's no insider trading angle at all, and it's not fraudulent market manipulation to attempt to persuade consumers to cease supporting a business you're shorting as long as you're not lying about it.

IIRC insider trading is any trading based on any non-public information. Everyone knows you're running ads because they can see the ads, but not everyone knows how long you're going to run them for, or how much you're paying for them, and that would be enough. Also if you do it before you start the ad campaign, that's non-public knowledge, similar to a pump-and-dump.

Re: No adblocker detected

#335

Post by rkomorn »

hananova wrote: post #329
rkomorn wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would not mind if a website detects my adblocker and not serving me the content either. How do you feel about ad blockers continually trying to evade detection, though? Or guides about how to avoid things that block access to users of ad blockers? I think the "you're free to block me for using an ad blocker!" argument doesn't mean much when said ad blockers do their best to not let that happen in the first place.

The websites are in their right to try to detect adblockers, and the adblockers are equally in their right to avoid detection. If a website really cares, they can try harder. The goal of an adblocker is not just to block ads, but to block anything that isn't the content the user wishes to see. This includes calls to action, consent banners (despite websites wishing otherwise, the default answer is still "no"), and of…

If you had a switch you could turn on that makes your browser send a header that states you use an ad blocker, and that the website could reliably use to decide to show you nothing (including no ads, obviously), would you use it?

Re: No adblocker detected

#336

Post by immibis »

pjc50 wrote: post #211
jdprgm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really can't comprehend how aggressive ad blocking isn't the norm and at 90%+ at this point. Whenever someone just doesn't seem to care i'm concerned something is wrong with them. Youtube ad blocking was briefly not working for me recently and the volume of ads just while doing some chores which forced interrupting flow to go manually skip was astounding and enraging. It's like if I was at a quiet library and every…

It can't survive as the norm. That would cause the economics of sites to collapse. We have to accept that the people clicking on the ads (and sometimes getting scammed) are funding the sites for the rest of us. Like gatcha games are F2P because of whales.

Then let them collapse. It isn't the end of the world. And then we can see what was formerly unable to grow because it was stuck under their canopy not receiving enough light.

Re: No adblocker detected

#337

Post by maurycyz »

reactordev wrote: post #18

Instead of document.cookie consider document.localStorage since there’s verbiage around showing a notice on your site if you use cookies, etc, for tracking purposes. At least with local storage, you aren’t using cookies :P

Except it's not tracking. Remembering user preferences is the original goal of cookies, and doesn't come with any legal requirements.

The law is (paraphrasing) "You must use cookies or similar to be evil without permission". Advertising companies decided that instead of not being evil, they'd annoy users into giving permission.

Re: No adblocker detected

#338

Post by creer »

Vinnl wrote: post #194
bambax wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the same boat. I never see ads anywhere (and not just on the web: I never watch regular TV (I don't even have a TV), never listen to ads-supported radio stations, etc.) How people put up with ads is a complete mystery.

> I never see ads anywhere (and not just on the web: I never watch regular TV (I don't even have a TV), never listen to ads-supported radio stations, etc.) Ads in public places, bus stops, etc. are kinda hard to avoid unfortunately.

> Ads in public places, bus stops, etc. are kinda hard to avoid unfortunately.

These are very different - and largely interesting to me in their colorfulness and often whimsy. (The cities around here are otherwise NOT visually interesting).

This is something that web sites have always had at their disposal: use static locally-hosted images as ads and respect my screen real-estate, don't try to track me with 20-200 trackers, and I WILL allow them (and do). I will even allow some animation if it respects my bandwidth.

But no, very few web sites feel satisfied with this so multiple ad blockers they get. A few sites do small static image ads. I don't block these and even frequently follow their links.

Re: No adblocker detected

#339

Post by NicuCalcea »

allknowingfrog wrote: post #306
NicuCalcea wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish there was a middle ground where I could block ads like the ones you mention, while allowing privacy-respecting ads that don't ruin my browsing experience. I know Adblock Plus have their "Acceptable Ads" policy [1], but that just meant letting through ads from companies that paid them, like Google [2]. [1] https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads [2] https://www.theverge.com/2013/7/5/4496852/adblock-plus-eye-g...

Ads are only easy to block because they load from centralized, third-party domains. Physical print publishers don't leave blanks in their newspapers and send them off to advertisers to fill in. They approve and print the ads, just like any other content. If digital publishers made similar agreements to embed static ads, they would not be affected by ad blockers.

I don't mind ads that are targeted based on the content of the page, like how DuckDuckGo ads work. Google AdWords used to be the same, and it paid publishers much more than it does now.

Re: No adblocker detected

#340

Post by marssaxman »

immibis wrote: post #332
marssaxman wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You get arrested. That’s what happens. For petty vandalism? That seems like an expensive overreaction. Perhaps it depends on your demography.

People get arrested for petty vandalism all the time, even if they didn't petty vandalize. The police won't bother to track down who graffitied your fence, but money-making companies are a different matter. And it definitely depends on demography. I assume they're still using it, but maybe they just plug everyone's face into Palantir now.

Maybe cops are different where you live, but here in Seattle, I cannot imagine a crime so trivial as "someone broke the speaker on a gas pump" ever rising high enough on the SPD priority list for anyone to lift a finger about it, no matter how well-documented it may have been.

It would not surprise me to hear that someone had committed a crime of that scale while being watched by an SPD officer and still gotten away with it.

Post reply on HN