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

Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers

community.blokada.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 608 posts

Re: Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers

#461

Post by SoftTalker »

arkitaip wrote: post #176
londons_explore wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there would be a market for something like ublock, but instead of removing the ads, it removes just the content and puts it on an entirely new page - a bit like 'reader mode'. Obviously it would probably need logic for every web page, but that could be croudsourced

Firefox has the builtin reader mode but there is also plugins that auto click or hide cookie banners.

Reader mode sometimes doesn't appear for some sites. I am guessing there is a way for sites to disable it with JS or indicate to the browser that they don't want it.

Re: Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers

#462

Post by broguinn »

fvrghl wrote: post #346
broguinn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently learned about 'Jevons Paradox': >In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological progress could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption. Which is a criticism, it seems, for any syste…

Is that basically the same as induced demand? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

I very cursory read seems to say yes. The biggest difference I see is that Jevons paradox is paradoxical because of the intent to increase efficiency (eg. make pages load faster, reduce the amount of coal needed, etc).

Re: Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers

#463

Post by mxkopy »

cortesoft wrote: post #451
mxkopy wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you can't read. > Granted this might be different from ads that do just make you aware of a product. But this reasoning is looking more and more like justification rather than purpose. I have no problem with promoting a product, as long as it takes into account basic human empathy. But I guess if your bank account is directly correlated with product sales, you kind of forget about that.

Telling me I can’t read is not a very charitable response. I can read fine, I was assuming you were trying to respond to my original comment, where the very first thing I write is “I agree a lot of advertising is awful”. My original comment was arguing that even if a lot of advertising today is bad, that doesn’t mean we should get rid of all advertising. I don’t understand what your response has to do with that. Were…

I don't really have a stance on 'abolish all advertising'. I'm just pointing out that in practice, "promoting a product" is rarely the only effect of an advertisement, and having discussions about ads in the context of benign promotion isn't acknowledging that reality.

Re: Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers

#464

Post by PeterisP »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #266
alexb_ wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

95% of users have no idea what any of this is.

I would guess it’s more like 99%

The first random source I googled - https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users - asserts that 15% of USA users report using an adblocker on mobile - in contrast to 37% of USA desktop users using an adblocker.

Re: Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers

#465

Post by tarakat »

mdavis6890 wrote: post #365
disintegore wrote: post #178

I categorically reject ads. I want them completely abolished. I will do everything that's in my power to get them out of my machines. If I had just a little bit more courage I would go out at night with cans of spray paint and deface billboards.

"I will do everything that's in my power" Will you pay money for the content you consume?

As the sibling replies illustrates, this is now more akin to paying the Danegeld, than paying for a service.

Re: Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers

#466

Post by londons_explore »

SoftTalker wrote: post #461
arkitaip wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox has the builtin reader mode but there is also plugins that auto click or hide cookie banners.

Reader mode sometimes doesn't appear for some sites. I am guessing there is a way for sites to disable it with JS or indicate to the browser that they don't want it.

And reader mode doesn't auto activate during page load...

If I have to wait for all the ads and banners and fonts to load anyway, most of the benefits of reader mode are removed.

Re: Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers

#467

Post by matheusmoreira »

IX-103 wrote: post #415
midasuni wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don’t spread the ad company’s lies. There is no need for pop ups under the gdpr. If you are handling personal information, giving cookies etc which aren’t required (E.g to sign in), then ask at the point of signing in/up. Otherwise you don’t need to set cookies, you might want to, to track and monetise your visitors, but that’s different.

How are you supposed to provide a consistent appearance for A/B testing changes without being able to store which group a user is assigned to? How are you supposed to count unique users that visit your site? How are you supposed to figure out why most users bounce? These are legitimate questions a publisher may want to know to improve their site, but are not allowed under GDPR without a specific notice and opt-out. T…

> How are you supposed to provide a consistent appearance for A/B testing changes without being able to store which group a user is assigned to?

You're not supposed to A/B test at all. Users are not test subjects.

> How are you supposed to count unique users that visit your site? How are you supposed to figure out why most users bounce?

You're not supposed to. You simply aren't entitled to any of that information.

> These are legitimate questions a publisher may want to know to improve their site

It doesn't matter how "legitimate" it is or how much money it costs publishers. The attempt to learn these facts requires collecting identifying information and that is harmful to us.

The least you can do is ask permission.

> There are many cases where what publications consider "essential" for their business do not match what the EU has decided is "essential".

That's by design. Nobody really cares what an industry that's being regulated thinks. Obviously adtech considers it "essential" to collect as much personal data as humanly possible.

What matters is what society thinks and we think sites work just fine with all the tracking disabled.

> publishers assumed advertising would be allowed under "essential" business uses

Advertising is allowed. It's just the abusive adtech model of targeted advertising that requires consent. Nothing stops people from signing a deal with some brand and serving static images or something. As long as it's not surveillance capitalism it's fine.

Re: Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers

#468

Post by raydev »

judge2020 wrote: post #374
NavinF wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er no, most iOS apps are not thinly veiled webapps. Have you ever used iOS?

Most apps are moving to React Native especially if they're targeting Android and iOS, but that's still a far cry from being a wrapper around a webapp.

I think this is only true for small biz.

All the big names quietly or publicly abandoned their efforts to fully migrate to React Native, focusing only on the most simple use-cases/views if they do keep it around. Even with the smartest people working on it, it's tough to keep React Native performant.

Re: Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers

#469

Post by zamadatix »

disintegore wrote: post #412
chopin wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the paid tier is infested with ads and/or tracking.

Microsoft littered its frickin operating system with ads. Something you (officially at least) are expected to pay full price for. It boggles the mind that people continue to accept this treatment.

I'd be willing to bet most Windows users probably haven't even thought about Windows costing money - somewhere in the high 90 percent range. For the last 13 years upgrades have been free and new purchases have the price built in. The only exceptions are those that actually know about other operating systems and look for the option to buy without or people that do custom builds.

At least when one signs up for e.g. Hulu you're forced to realize different rates include different things. With Windows most don't even realize they had a choice.

It does lead to the question why people are fine buying a PC then having ads but again I'm not sure many really understand (or necessarily care) about the difference between ads in the start menu or ads in something like the browser, it's all just "the computer" and ads have just always been a part of a computer for most so what's to make them expect otherwise.

Re: Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers

#470

Post by abawany »

jrm4 wrote: post #397
jrm4 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa. Customized adblocking DNS servers? This is definitely striking me as one of those "why didn't I think of that" and "why don't we already have a lot of this?" Any ideas? Seems like you could go wild with this and do something like "Tor"ify, or "torrentify" or dare I say "blockchain" it? Someone can probably school me on why this is harder than it sounds.

I think I misspoke. I understand Pi-Hole. What I'm talking about is publicly usable adblocking DNS servers. As in instead of me at home having to install anything, just (probably clear a cache or something) and change all my DNS servers to a public reachable-by-anyone DNS server. No installation.

NextDNS, which I've been using for over 2 years now, might help in your endeavor. In addition to its stock lists of lookup rules, you are allowed to customize your own blacklists/whitelists.
Post reply on HN