Live data from Hacker News

Adblocking: How about Nah?

eff.org

451–460 of 549 posts

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#451
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a sane world, DNT would be opt-out and enforced by legislation.

There's legislation to stop robocalls. How many have you gotten in the last 24 hours? I've had 3, and it's been a pretty typical day.

The richest companies on the planet don't robocall me, but they do stalk me all over the internet and wherever I bring my phone, which I consider worse.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as far as forbidding embedded JS altogether I do this on my iOS device. It's a bit of a pain to not have JS enabled in safari, but I can always share a page from Safari --> Duckduckgo's browser which i have installed for just such occasions. Settings > Safari > Advanced > Javascript off

Good idea, but I wish there was a less harsh method. I have been using my iPad a lot recently and the thing that bugs me is that it’s almost impossible to listen to Spotify uninterrupted as you use Safari because of auto-playing videos (not just advertisements). It’s completely obnoxious and there is no way to stop it. Safari takes control of sound even if the video does not have audio toggled on and pauses your Spot…

On iOS I swear by Dnscloak - local-only vpn that routes only DNS requests through pihole-enabled dns server of your choice: https://apps.apple.com/cz/app/dnscloak-secure-dns-client/id1...

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you're also blocking their analytics scripts, so you don't send any signal at all.

They should learn to do the job correctly and look at the server logs too.

I'm not saying you're wrong.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#454
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do want to block ads. I hate advertising in all its forms. I despise the psychological games that advertisers play with our minds. If I could wear a pair of contact lenses that blocked out billboards and other kinds of non-digital advertising, I would do so in a heartbeat.

Agreed. I would go so far as to vote for a representative who wanted to pass a law restricting what is legal advertisement. I believe undisclosed ads should be illegal, I would ban music in ads, I would ban color in ads, I would ban sexuality in advertisement, I would ban appeals to emotions in ads. If a product truly makes the life of the purchaser better, then no gimmicks are needed to sell it.

And yet we try to appeal to others ratio or emotion with arguments in discussions like these. So that that they buy in to our ideas. We persuade, it is good to be charismastic and seducing too. And if someone famous writes or speaks, someone we adore, we listen more careful. In the end it matters, that we can find enough people to vote for that one guy, to give him or her the power, that bans or controls behaviour, that we just used ourselves. Meh. Its all blurry lines.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#455
post #377

So there is a technical solution to ad delivery that is pretty hard to impossible to block that is serve everything from the same domain. It’s very possible today and even desirable with http/2. You can configure this with cloud front and multiple origins or using service workers with cloudflare... I’d guess it’s only a matter of time before this becomes the more common way to deliver content and ads as one origin...

There are obstacles to this, for advertisers.

Tracking impressions (something advertisers seem to want) is facilitated by third-party servers. Self-served ads defeat this and raise fraud concerns.

Standardised advertising units (display sizes) mean that blocking elements strictly on dimensions is possible. One of my early userContent.css stylesheets, borrowing from online souces, did just this, and was highly effective, for a time.

Obfuscated content and JS can get around some of this, thou stylesheets whitelisting elements would be yet another workaround.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#456

It's somewhat ironic that this page contains the most impressive procession of banner ads that I've seen in a long while. And almost all of them keep changing every thirty seconds or so. Apparently I've been successful in systematically avoiding sites that would torture me like that. They may succeed once but only at the price that they won't see me again.

OP -- I realised the article was served from EFF as well only. after submitting the Boing Boing version. HN's mods edited the link, thankfully.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#457
post #99

It's somewhat ironic that this page contains the most impressive procession of banner ads that I've seen in a long while. And almost all of them keep changing every thirty seconds or so. Apparently I've been successful in systematically avoiding sites that would torture me like that. They may succeed once but only at the price that they won't see me again.

The EFF site is full of ads on your machine?!? That doesn’t sound right (and disabling ad block doesn’t cause it to serve any to me, unless you count the mailing list signup form after the article). I’d guess that you are looking at a different page or your machine is compromised.

I'd submitted the BoingBoing version of this initially.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#458
post #61

Remember that the formal name for a web browser is a User Agent . This metaphor makes it clear that when there is a conflict of interest between you the user and whatever the server on the other side wants, your Agent should act in your interest.

This - so far I have a title, 'The death of User Agent' of an article about how browsers turned from user (my) agents, who represent my best interests on the internet, into corporate agents (which act in best interests of their makers - on my own computer!)

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#459

Show me just one ad per page, no scripts, no movement, no tracking and I'll be fine with that.

I counted eleven interstitial "advertising" breaks within an article on some site recently. I use adblock, so the label. was the only trace left, but that's still absolutely ridiculous, and is precisely why I'm doing same.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#460
post #116
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. I’d go as far as forbidding embedded JS altogether which removes the attack vector for malware within advertising networks. The networks have proved time and time again they are not able to prevent distribution of malware, and this is the primary reason I use an adblocker. Maybe a new tag which points to a resource which can only serve an image, video or text. Absolutely no scripting. Pass along only the adver…

Another possibility would be to create ad blockers that do that, i.e. block third party javascript but not pure text or images. Then you get the same result, simple ads get through but ad scripts don't, so the people who use ads without scripts are the only ones who make money from them.

I think it's too late for that. I, for one, wouldn't enable even static ads anymore even if my blocker offered the option. The trust is completely lost and would take a long time to rebuild.
Post reply on HN