500th comment.
(Wow, this must be one of the most discussed HN posts.)
Adblocking: How about Nah?
511–520 of 549 posts
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#512Couldn't we solve this problem by always clicking on ads we don't like, then close the tab? If I like a company, I tend to scroll down in Google Search until I find their organic result. Hopefully that makes a difference to their bottom line.
If a company is advertising on their own keywords
1) It's much cheaper because AdRank is better
2) They're probably doing something wrong - if people have typed your brand in already and you've got good SEO then there's no reason to advertise on it
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#513Couldn't we solve this problem by always clicking on ads we don't like, then close the tab? If I like a company, I tend to scroll down in Google Search until I find their organic result. Hopefully that makes a difference to their bottom line.
Like this [1] browser extension? It hides all the ads and also clicks them in the background.
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like legislation stops robbery and murder.
You don't think there would be way more robbery and murder if it were legal?
Now that's getting into some serious philosophy there. In this respect, would we be moral people without it being codified in law? I'd like to lean towards yes, because before state's law it was religious law. Humans have always projected their morals via the powers at be.
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#515I don't actually want to block ads. If you want to put a small text or image blurb anywhere on the page... Good for you. I'll gladly accept those on a webpage so that the content creator can make a bit of cash. But these companies are intentionally blurring the lines between advertisement and digital surveillance. You don't need to collect everything about my operating system, browser, monitors, GPU, every click I ma…
If it makes you feel any better, we're only collecting GPU info so we can identify you when you've "forgotten" to accept cookies. It's only like we're lifting your finger prints from discarded coffee cups, no biggie.
(adtech developer)
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#516Earlier 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…
> 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 advertiser ID and the bare minimum. How would fraud detection work in this model? How do advertisers know the requests are coming from real users and not bots? Without assurance there, advertisers would pay much less, and publishers would earn much less. (Disclosure: I work on ads at…
>How do advertisers know the requests are coming from real users and not bots?
Maybe the dominant adops model was a mistake? To throw back to an older, simpler time: what would thinking outside the box look like for this?
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#517The real problem is that the browser does not give enough ropes for the user to hang themself and also a few more just in case, and gives too much control over it by the data received from the server instead.
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#518I don't actually want to block ads. If you want to put a small text or image blurb anywhere on the page... Good for you. I'll gladly accept those on a webpage so that the content creator can make a bit of cash. But these companies are intentionally blurring the lines between advertisement and digital surveillance. You don't need to collect everything about my operating system, browser, monitors, GPU, every click I ma…
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…
That would imply ethical (actual) use of this tag. I cannot thing that any advertiser would ad this, just as they ignore the "Do not track". I fear that we will never we able to rely on the ad-makers honesty, as the hunt for the bottom-line never ends. It looks like this will be a war we will continue fighting with AdB+, NoScript, uBlock(s), hosts, and other tools.
It has been a cat and mouse game. The tech changes, but the game goes on.
Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#519Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?
#520For many many years I resisted installing an ad-blocker. As someone who worked at a website that made the bulk of it's revenue from ads, it felt hypocritical, and also, I wanted to make sure that the experience of our website was bearable without ad blocking, by forcing myself to experience it every day. I gave up about two years ago. The web just go so bad I had to install ad-block. My computer would spin like a jet…
what’s wrong with using your CPU? (seriously)