In the paper, this excerpt:<p>> We choose Adblock as it is one of the most popular. It is also possible to use Adblock Plus or uBlock, as the way they operate is exactly the same — HTTP filters and HTML element hiding.<p>AdBlock in the Chrome store uses Adblock Plus filtering engine[1], so to say the way these two "operate is exactly the same" makes sense.<p>However uBlock Origin uses its own code base, and is far better equipped than AdBlock/Adblock Plus to deal with anti-blockers, so to say that the way uBO operates is "exactly the same" is a stretch.<p>* * *<p>[1] Since version 3.0: <a href="https://help.getadblock.com/support/discussions/topics/6000038686" rel="nofollow">https://help.getadblock.com/support/discussions/topics/60000...</a> -- it's not explicitly stated in the announcement but this code repo mirror shows it: <a href="https://github.com/kzar/watchadblock/blob/c5f5b7f535182d677462463591bd2f8e059c771e/src/lib/adblockplus.js" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/kzar/watchadblock/blob/c5f5b7f535182d6774...</a>
I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable.<p>Maybe if (1) fewer ads pumped up CPU and memory usage for a page, and (2) companies didn't give their non-technical asshole free reign over placing scripts on the page, then maybe many of these sites wouldn't be so bad to visit without an ad blocker.
Some adtech startup should just quit playing games and go full creeper mode:<p>* simple text-only ads<p>* give the advertisers the tools to generate text content that is minimally distracting, maximally invasive, maximally creepy, and maximally personally-identifying<p>"$35,000 in debt, unemployed, recently dumped and insecure about your male sexual identity? You deserve this special price on Axe Body Spray..."<p>The buzz alone would get people to turn off their ad-blockers just to see what content gets generated for them.
I've been using uBlock since it came out and I just immediately leave those sites that don't function unless I disable it. Whatever content they have, someone else likely has a "good enough" alternative.<p>I also happen to run a blog (no where near a major website) but my thought process is, you should write because you want to spread what you've learned with others, not create a platform for the sole purpose of making money.<p>To me, having a visitor on your site is a privilege. Why would you go out of your way to interrupt and attempt to manipulate them, yet that's what so many large sites do. There's other ways to make money rather than tormenting your users.
I've started noticing this from Google, among others. Tracking scripts are no longer explicitly named as such, or they're prefixed with some slug or GUID alongside the legitimate "functional" scripts.<p>It's getting to a point where you need to actively monitor every network request the site makes. It's despicable and I have nothing but ill will for the data scientists, software engineers, and product managers who participate in this.
Okay, here's a crazy idea for advertisers.<p>Tie the advertisement to the type of content that the user is already there to read about. Then you can serve ads from the content web server and make it indistinguishable from content, completely unobtrusive, completely noninvasive, and maybe even welcome.
I was reading the news with Safari on iOS 11.2 with a new iPhone X recently. As I was browsing different sites I noticed I was getting redirected to those scammy "You've won a cruise" style websites. I had no idea ads were so out of control. I've been using ad blocking technology for 10+ years and never see it first hand. It's pretty crazy that website operators have to create such a terrible user experience to survive these days.
Advertisers need to fuck off. Ads are never going to work on the web - the ad bubble needs to pop already! Advertising on the web is a horrifying web of fraud, psuedoscience, and invasive tracking and sensitive data hoarding. Frankly, it should have been outlawed by now.
Disabling javascript is the best anti-anti-adblock solution. I wish chrome added an option for tampermonkey scripts to be run with disabled js, that would make this solution perfect.
Ads are inherently psychologically abusive, targeting your insecurities and exploiting sex and basic instinct to move product.
There needs to be a fundamental shift from the old tv and radio model of advertisers targeting everyone through inescapable ham fisted and manipulative ads, to a system that is all but dormant until I query it for a service.<p>Show me nothing, nothing at all, until I make the effort to ask the question "what products are available for $need?"<p>If I'm on a website and begin searching, give the site the ad revenue.
When I worked as an intrusion analyst, I worked on a lot of content to detect domain generation algorithms (DGA) that are sometimes used by botnets and other malware for more robust command and control. Over the last couple of years this has become increasingly frustrated by a lot of websites using algorithmically generated domain names in order to evade adblocker blocklists. Domains like "djbvueiabjqkna.com" are increasingly just some major news website delivering their banner ads.
I'd be happy to install an extension that blocks all sites/content that consider viewing ads a prerequisite for accessing their content.<p>I run an ad/analytic blocker, and I will never turn it off. I also understand that content creation and hosting costs money. If you're not a company that I already give money to (bank, insurance, other meat space service) then I accept the ad-for-content relationship and choose not to view the content.<p>The biggest problems are that I can't scale randomly adding domains to a host file, and it's difficult to know the intent of content creators/owners regarding ads.<p>It would be nice to have a signal, maybe a html tag in the header or something to state the intent regarding ads. I would set my browser/an extension to honor it and block access to content instead of accepting ads.
Interesting how the response of sites with terrible user experiences caused by ad tech is not to say “oh, how can we change our ads so people will accept them?” but rather to find ways to make their user experiences even more horrible, e.g. popping up <i>new</i> unwanted interruptions accusing you of having an ad-blocker.<p>Hey big web sites, here is the solution, and I won’t even charge you for it: <i>stop making terrible user experiences</i>. I am <i>not trying to block your ad</i>; I am <i>blocking your carelessly-written malware-laden code</i>, your <i>obnoxious pop-ups</i>, your <i>auto-playing videos</i>, your <i>shove-in-my-face-at-the-worst-time messages</i>, your <i>unreasonable consumption of my mobile data</i>, and <i>everything that is making a simple article difficult to load</i>.<p>I’ll even tell you how to fix this: make more simple text ads, or images that are not animated and not peppered with distracting colors. Make the first paragraph of every article a nice little blurb telling me more about a company that pays you to advertise for them. Put some cute ads in muted colors inline with the content. Create a couple simple links to things that cost money that could support you (apps, T-shirts or whatever). In short, don’t be a complete jerk to the people you apparently “need” to help maintain the costs of your site.
As I've said many times I don't mind ads, but I block trackers. What these websites need to understand is that this is the market in action. We can bemoan trackers. We can legislate against them (at least in principle). But if WEBSITES were to LOSE MONEY if as a result of using trackers and therefore NOT USE THEM then the companies hoarding our data would have to find another business model or go out of business.<p>Using ad/tracking blockers is the morally correct choice if you want the market to handle this.
In the beginning, I tried to avoid ad-blockers in the beginning out of consideration for the sustainability of the content providers.<p>It took one site for me to start using ad-blockers.<p>Facebook: they persistently were showing me ads for online MBA programs when I already had completed a better brick-and-mortar one.<p>I recall that I tried complaining and got no response. For some psychological reason, that did it. I installed an ad-blocker on my and my wife's laptops and never looked back.<p>If the big sites had been more conscientious about their ad strategy (and specifically allowing people more control over what shows up on their screens) we might not be in an escalating technological war over ads.
the irony on full display (at the linked article) in chrome devtools / record perf timeline and network log.<p>incognito: 4.4mb, 7000ms scripting, 365 requests, onload: 7600ms<p>with uMatrix (no third party shit): 612kb, 190ms of scripting, 56 requests, onload: 500ms<p>this is on a 300MBit connection
Y'know, you <i>could</i> not force multiple tracker scripts and obtrusive ads on me.<p>Stupid bastards.<p>The sad part is that anti-adblocking may work in their favor because the average person isn't going to go as far as to stop using certain websites or turn off JavaScript. It may get to that point with me, though. I already refuse to use most websites that try to block my ad blocker, autoplay videos, open modals too early, etc.<p>It's not about ads, but the types of ads that are presented. There would be backlash if the types of ads we see on the internet were equally as plastered everywhere in real life, but for some reason we've just got to deal with it on the web.<p>I generally don't disdain people for doing things for a living, but I'd openly thumb my nose at developers and anyone else involved in thwarting adblockers and tracking blockers. Talk about a sisyphean job that helps nobody except one of the slimiest industries to exist.<p>A lot of people would be willing to pay for web content; Patreon and the wealth of content on YouTube are a testament to this. But websites that let you pay to remove ads have a problem, and it's that they don't use a unified system to manage subscriptions. The user is somehow supposed to manage what sites they're subscribed to. It'd make more sense if news sites, for example, could integrate with a service where you could manage your subscriptions to these sites as well as more content.
Without adblocking, the web is unusable for most sites. Full page ads, video ads that follow you while you scrolling, popup, malwares, bitcoin mining, tracking, etc...<p>TBH, the only solution is browser makers put out an ad acceptable standard. However, with Google's revenue base on ads, I doubt there will be any change to it until someone come along and disrupted the browsers.
HN in the same breath:<p>- We miss the old internet of independent creators.<p>- We love ad blockers.<p>The rise of the second has in no small part injured the first. Money is a big incentive for independent creators, and removing it from the equation has a chilling effect.
I recently saw one site that said "It looks like you are using an ad-blocker. So you must wait 10 seconds.".<p>And had an overlay with a countdown.
I wish, instead of fighting Ad Blockers, they would try as hard to fix they way they run ads. Not to mention the sites, which only exist to display ads and practically don't have their own content except for clickbait headlines.<p>A side comment: while blocking ads might reduce revenue for sites, it also means the advertiser has to pay for views by people who wouldn't click on the ads anyway.
I'm not opposed to ads per se but simply the extra workload it puts on the browser. What baffles me though is the across the board negativity and Robin Hood-like mentality here from people who are, to a large part, directly or indirectly monetizing their work by means of advertising.
I find that ad blocking is a must for older relatives, and I think anyone managing technological access for the elderly ought to also be installing ad block.<p>Advertisers love to scare old people in every way, and then peddling them scam solutions and pills.
Discussion of said paper: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16012403" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16012403</a>
While these anti ad blockers may succeed confusing pattern matching ad blockers, how are they going to work against domain/IP list based (i.e. hosts file) ones?
If they would go back to ads hosted on their own servers they likely wouldn’t get blocked. That means the ad network doesn’t get to track the users though.
Given that banner ads are a major malware vector, I'll disable my ad-blocker when sites take responsibility and reimburse me for the time and money spent repairing computers affected by the malware they inevitably end up serving.
> It turns out that many ad providers are offering anti-blocking tech in the form of scripts that produce a variety of “bait” content that’s ad-like — for instance, images or elements named and tagged in such a way that they will trigger ad blockers, tipping the site off.<p>you don't need a provider to help detect ad blocking in most cases. just serve a script from your server called `ads.js` that modifies some global js variable or does an ajax post to some endpoint indicating it was served....or "pixel.gif".
If you're in a niche with decent prospects for contextual advertising, there's an easy way around most ad-blockers.<p>Set up a small piece of editorial content and embed some affiliate links into it.
I have always been against ads and misguiding Internet users. Ads should be strictly regulated and the Internet should be completely free and open, it is that simple.
I wonder why the major websites are not going for the old way of "self-hosted" ads where the ad networks buy a space in the website and the website shows it at that space from their own domain and it is harmless.. That I'd consider allowing in my laptop.<p>It's not the ads themselves that make me run to the blockers. It's their creepiness and tracking. If they're just images shown same to everybody, then I'm okay.
I wish I could view a version of Hacker News in which ALL links to articles that are behind a paywall are just hidden from me. I would just rather not see them at all.
Ad blocking seems like a possible application for machine learning, to distinguish between ads and content.<p>Anti-ad blocking also seems like a possible application for machine learning, to distinguish clients that are blocking ads and those that are not.<p>In a battle between the two it seems like the anti-ad blocking side will win. They have resources (big companies with lots of money and server farms, versus small developers and browser-adons) and incentive (earning money versus improving my web experience).<p>I use an ad-blocker but I am not optimistic about the future of ad-blockers.
I use an ad-blocker and have since 2011. To get around broken/hidden content, I just copy/paste the link into Terminal after $lynx. Works almost every time.
This article got me thinking. There should be an ad company without any tracking. And the only company that I would actually trust with this is Mozilla.
I wish content suppliers would listen more to clients. Clients want more content without ads, so why not invest more into offering content without ads?
At this point use of an ad-blocker for me is no longer a question about ethics or business models or the like, but about security.<p>I use an ad blocker because ad networks serve malware. I'm sure they don't mean to, but they do, so I block them. I'm no longer concerned with their intent, but concerned with what is actually happening.
IAB is already providing a tool to detect adblockers. <a href="https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/AdBlockDetection" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/AdBlockDetec...</a>
starting at the DNS level makes things much smoother: <a href="https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsgate" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsgate</a>
When a site asks me to turn off my ad blocker, I read this as "please trust us not to serve annoying or unsafe ads, and pay for us to do so."<p>Trust? Me pay for it? Pass.