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

Ad blocking is under attack

blog.adguard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 598 posts

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#531

Post by zaphar »

nilved wrote: post #515
justinmayer wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I just reported that account ( https://github.com/dmcahelper ) for submitting spurious DMCA takedown requests. GitHub personnel responded promptly: Hi Justin, Thanks for writing in. We're looking at the account. All best, (GitHub employee name redacted) GitHub is listening. Please consider reporting this account, which can be done via the link above. Look for Block or report user link under the user descripti…

How does that non-response (the same one they pasted to me) give you the impression they're listening? For one, they have done nothing to address the issue of flagrant DMCA abuse. For two, the account is still active. For three, the commit hasn't been reverted. This is not the first time this has happened.[0] GitHub's response has been woefully inadequate and OSS maintainers should consider using another platform. Ev…

The beauty of git and similar DVCS's is that you essentially can't lose the repository. You can only lose the github namespace for that repository. And using a different platform has the same effect. If you are worried about losing the Github namespace for the repository then moving to a different platform doesn't seem like a solution.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#532

Post by mirimir »

kelnos wrote: post #429
jxramos wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if its a matter of forgetting but about not knowing the contours of the boundaries of what's permissible and seeing a straightforward workaround as a proposition which also serves to give feedback regarding why or why not the proposition would be tenable. Evaluating a concrete technical solution in light of some legal matter should do well to illuminate and draw attention to the crux of the problem. I gu…

It's not specifically about the DMCA; it's about legal issues in general. Intent matters in the vast majority of law. You'd be hard-pressed to argue in front of a judge that your intent wasn't to block this specific site, based on the sequence of events: 1. Site added to block list. 2. Site removed from block list due to DMCA takedown request. 3. Site block by new rule added that doesn't target it directly. I can't i…

OK, why not circumvent the "argue in front of a judge" aspect? Instead of a list hosted on GitHub, put it on some server that's very hard to take down, leased anonymously. You could get EasyList, and then add back whatever's been removed. And make sure that no logs are retained concerning user input.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#533

Post by nilved »

zaphar wrote: post #531
nilved wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that non-response (the same one they pasted to me) give you the impression they're listening? For one, they have done nothing to address the issue of flagrant DMCA abuse. For two, the account is still active. For three, the commit hasn't been reverted. This is not the first time this has happened.[0] GitHub's response has been woefully inadequate and OSS maintainers should consider using another platform. Ev…

The beauty of git and similar DVCS's is that you essentially can't lose the repository. You can only lose the github namespace for that repository. And using a different platform has the same effect. If you are worried about losing the Github namespace for the repository then moving to a different platform doesn't seem like a solution.

Not true. Issues, pull requests, deploy keys, access control...

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#534

Post by Gracana »

bigbugbag wrote: post #503
acdjuiamadfn wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like your style- maybe hard initially but if we could just stop using pages with intrusive ads, firms may finally listen and stop using those ads

> I like your style- maybe hard initially but if we could just stop using pages with intrusive ads, Why stop at intrusive ads ? Just block everything that features commercial ads. Though the real issue is not ads per se but the tracking that tags along.

That would be neat as an experiment. Like, see how far you can go and what you can get to with a "total blocker."

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#535

Post by mirimir »

kelnos wrote: post #432
stale2002 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, first of all, blocking a URL is not against the DMCA. So one argument to do is this is because it is NOT illegal, and the purpose would be to stop frivolous lawsuits. So yes, it would be trying to creatively skirt frivolous lawsuits. Another legit reason though, is obfuscation. The company that tried to threaten this frivolous lawsuit may have not even noticed, if it was some weird regex. And they'd either not…

Blocking a URL is, in and of itself, not illegal, sure. Blocking a URL that allows you to break a copyright-protection mechanism[1,2]? Well, that's not so clear. It's also unclear whether or not Admiral falls under the umbrella of a copyright-protection mechanism. I really really really want EasyList to be in the right here, and be able to re-add the block without fear, but it's far from clear what all the implicatio…

> I really really really want EasyList to be in the right here

Well, they're obviously in the right :)

> and be able to re-add the block without fear

They could fix that by improving their OPSEC. So as to not be so easily threatened.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#536

Post by zaphar »

nilved wrote: post #533
zaphar wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The beauty of git and similar DVCS's is that you essentially can't lose the repository. You can only lose the github namespace for that repository. And using a different platform has the same effect. If you are worried about losing the Github namespace for the repository then moving to a different platform doesn't seem like a solution.

Not true. Issues, pull requests, deploy keys, access control...

issues, pull requests, deploy keys, access control. None of those the repository. They are associated with the repository and it would be annoying to lose them But with the exception of the issues all of them are replaceable with mostly minimal effort unless you did something really wrong.

And again switching to a different platform doesn't solve that problem either. You'd still lose the issues that are in github.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#538

Post by mirimir »

hmage wrote: post #403
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about don't host the code at a location which has such hostile laws?

That actually made me think -- is there such location?

Botnet operators seem to manage it well enough. I'm guessing that something on HostSailor would be hard to take down. Or maybe China.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#539

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

warcher wrote: post #519
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm a hardline free speech dude, but I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like." How? How can that possibly be hard to justify for anyone that even believes vaguely in the notion of freedom, much less someone "hardline"? Do you think I break the law (or ethics) if I take the ads insert out of a newspaper I buy without reading them? How about if…

I get in a lot of arguments with dudes who believe they have a right to stuff other people made without payment or consequence. The last one I remember is a bunch of DJs who didn't want to get permission to use samples. I find the arguments pretty spurious and it's best not to engage. It's their website. If you don't like their website, we got a whole other internet to enjoy.

Two points:

Free sampling for the purposes of cultural remixing is explicitly built into (US) copyright (across media) as a mitigation to some of the harmful effects of artificial monopolies on culture. It's a compromise between those who think artificial monopolies are the only way to encourage the creation of culture and those who view such contrived monopolies as a net negative. There's a fundamental difference between copying and stealing. You seem to be intentionally conflating them by using phrases like "stuff other people made". It's not really "stuff" that they're "taking" and the copy is made by the copier, not the original composer. Nothing has been taken besides the right to artificially restrict the behavior of other people for the purpose of rent extraction.

Secondly, they give me a copy free when I request it. It just has ads included. But there's no reason I'm obligated to read the ads. It's exactly the case where they give me a free paper with an ad insert and I have the secretary throw away the ad insert before I read it.

Do you think I'm a monster because I throw out the ads in my weekly periodocal unread?

(For the record, I'm taking about ad blockers, not bypassing paywalls -- I generally just don't go to those sites. Your arguments hold more weight when discussing bypassing paywalls.)

Post reply on HN