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

41–50 of 112 posts

Re: AdFlush

#41

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

JAlexoid wrote: post #38
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.

That really depends on what you mean by "native ads"; if you mean "blog posts that appear legitimate but push a product" then maybe not (although I wouldn't totally rule it out with LLMs), but if you just mean that the ads are inline I have to disagree since ex. SponsorBlock already exists.

Re: AdFlush

#42

Post by hedora »

TheNewsIsHere wrote: post #35
inversetelecine wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

32.8% of global users use an ad blocker. (33% of Americans.) [1]

Chrome's market share is about 65% [2]. If their recent manifest changes eventually break ad blocking (which seems to be the goal), it'll lose a bunch of market share (I guess they're optimizing for short-term profit).

[1] https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

Re: AdFlush

#43

Post by cess11 »

JAlexoid wrote: post #38
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.

In some jurisdictions advertising has to be named as such, there it will be at least theoretically possible to create filters if the platform is compliant.

Re: AdFlush

#44

Post by nemomarx »

JAlexoid wrote: post #38
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.

Stuff like sponsor block works pretty well? If the native ad is seperable from the rest of it you can just skip ahead, and most of those things are still a sign posted sponsor break for now. I can imagine extensions to do something similar in articles by removing affiliate links, etc.

Re: AdFlush

#47

Post by 7734128 »

Spoom wrote: post #40
inversetelecine wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Next month

https://www.pcmag.com/news/rip-ublock-origin-google-proceeds....

Re: AdFlush

#48

Post by ladzoppelin »

4ggr0 wrote: post #29
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.

I guess that's why uBO Lite exists :) I started using it a couple of months ago instead of Ublock Origin, and still haven't seen any ads since. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home

I think eventually there is nothing that can stop certain adds on Chrome once specific API's are removed, even using manifest 3. Maybe someone could chime in on this as its really confusing now since Google keeps pushing back the date to remove manifest 2. (This might be outdated info)

Re: AdFlush

#49

Post by treyd »

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.

They'd massively alienate a large and motivated subset userbase with the ability to build viable alternatives to Google products or at least build more active means to cirvumvent their platform restrictions.

Re: AdFlush

#50

Post by MajimasEyepatch »

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 suspect that such a move would draw significant scrutiny from regulators, potentially far outweighing any impacts from users switching browsers on their own.
Post reply on HN