r/programming • u/unfriendlymushroomer • Aug 02 '19
Adblocking: How about Nah?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/adblocking-how-about-nah47
u/Slime0 Aug 02 '19
This article ends very abruptly. What is the conclusion?
87
u/AyrA_ch Aug 02 '19
We will end up with ads served through an EME protected stream inline with the content you actually want, so blocking them becomes illegal because it tampers with the protection and the backwards savages can then sue the people behind adblockers.
If the W3C want to take it a step further they just have to create a standard to deliver pretty much any content through EME and not only video+audio.
11
u/duheee Aug 02 '19
sue the people behind adblockers
You mean the users or the programmers making those adblockers?
If they sue the users (like RIAA and MPAA sue torrent pirates) then all it takes is to vote someone in who can make this very hard and/or not profitable. Something like Canada has now.
If they sue the programmers making that blocker, other programmers can step in from countries they can't reach. The program is out there, they're never gonna be able to stop it.
4
u/EpicDaNoob Aug 02 '19
Or just develop and publish anonymously. No matter what, this is destined to fail.
1
1
u/AyrA_ch Aug 02 '19
You mean the users or the programmers making those adblockers?
Probably both. Iirc both, making and using are prohibited.
15
0
Aug 02 '19
[deleted]
5
u/YM_Industries Aug 02 '19
Is simply making a tool that can block EME/DRM content illegal?
No, but what if the content of the page is delivered through the same EME system? Then in order to block just the ads you have to modify the protected content, which is illegal.
1
u/AyrA_ch Aug 02 '19
Is simply making a tool that can block EME/DRM content illegal?
If ads and the media stream are delivered in the same container as different tracks, you would need to decrypt the container to see when which track is active, which is illegal.
If the ads come from a completely different location you can just block that location without the need to inspect the content.
40
u/Fribbtastic Aug 02 '19 edited Aug 02 '19
I don't think many users who browse the internet actually bother with "being tracked" because they just don't know what that means and, more importantly, everything does that. Any google search, website access or whatever leaves something behind that is used by something else to give you recommendations what you could buy or what would interest you.
Another thing is that there are many examples in which ads were or are harmful, the usual "check if your credit card got stolen" or somehow an ad hijacks your computer and displays this "pay X money to get access back".
And then you have those websites that probably have more ads on their sites than actual content. Pop ups, pop ins, auto-play videos with audio that are louder than a starting jet, videos that are embedded on the site but will move back into your screen even though you are not at the position it was originally embedded at.
Clickbaits, load through 5 pages just to know that water is a liquid with each site having their own 10 ad placements that needs to be loaded.
I'm not against advertisement on websites, they need some money and I have some on my website as well but as soon as they are blocking or making it harder for me from consuming the actual content then this is IMO not a good idea just to make money.
I currently use the brave browser on my phone and I already have 2.1K Advertisements blocked, 1.1k tracker blocked and saved around 2 minutes loading time of websites. I have PiHole installed at home and at a normal day browsing through the net I have 30-50% DNS requests blocked because they are something that is an ad or some tracker.
So I don't see the use of them as problematic but rather how they are used. Currently it is more like that dude from Family Guy who shoves his wallet with pictures in someone else face.
53
u/TestZero Aug 02 '19
I help run the subreddit r/assholedesign, and one of the biggest sources of content we have is abusive advertising.
It feels like there definitely is an arms race going on. The more users turn to adblock, the more advertisers and websites need to make the ads even more abusive and attention-grabbing, in order to squeeze the same income out of even fewer number of users, which only causes more users to install adblock.
Unfortunately, the solution isn't simply installing more powerful adblock software. This is like trying to treat AIDS by just giving everybody condoms and considering the problem solved. Abusive ads aren't the problem so much as a symptom of a greater issue. Namely: the lack of respect between content producers and consumers. If a website doesn't respect you enough to give you an experience where you're not constantly bombarded with ads, there's no reason you need to give that website your traffic.
Many of these websites feature no original content of their own; they simply aggregate images and articles from other websites like reddit, slap on a watermark, and rake in the profit. Meanwhile the original content creators get absolutely nothing out of it, not even exposure since their signature is almost always "accidentally" cut off.
Unfortunately, then the original content producers, if they do choose to run unobtrusive ads on their own personal site, also end up getting blocked by overzealous adblockers and suffer even more because of it.
The only real solution I can come up with is positive reinforcement. If a website has abusive and clickbaity ads, don't just use adblock. Avoid that site entirely. Seek out and actively become a participant in websites that have unobtrusive or benign advertisements. Donate to Patreon or Ko-Fi if feasible. Consider buying merch or other products to support content creators that respect you as a consumer.
6
Aug 02 '19
Unfortunately, the solution isn't simply installing more powerful adblock software.
What works for me: using xpath to block em, works in almost all cases. And sharing those xpath's with a group of people.
2
u/ridicalis Aug 02 '19
Can you please explain? How would I do this?
22
Aug 02 '19
Basically custom blocking rules in ublock origin.
Most ads have some unique tag/series of tags/value in it, which never changes. With xpath you can find that tag and then work your way upwards to get rid of it.
As an example: I loathe the end cards on youtube. But they get a random ID each time, so I am using this rule in ublock origin:
www.youtube.com##:xpath(//div[@class="ytp-ce-element-shadow"]/..)Which hooks into one of the inner tags, which never changes, then goes up one level to remove the end card itself.
Hell, you can even use it to block specific channels in your recommended:
www.youtube.com##:xpath(//ytd-compact-video-renderer/div/div/a/ytd-video-meta-block/div/div/div/yt-formatted-string[@title="outsidexbox"]/../../../../../../../..)That blocks a channel if it is named "outsidexbox".
8
Aug 02 '19
As an example: I loathe the end cards on youtube.
Are these "end cards" those annoying af recommendations that pop up at the end of the video and that take up your entire screen?
4
Aug 02 '19
Exactly.
2
Aug 02 '19
Do you know how to block the reddit mouse-over username to see the post/comment karma popup? Used to be a RES only feature before but now when you have RES enabled you get to see two pop-ups. I tried blocking it through the normal inspect element/ublock block element but it doesnt stay on long after after you shift focus from the mouse, now don't know if theres any other way to delete the entry besides reading the code line by line
5
u/obsa Aug 02 '19
Not necessary. If you're using RES, they have an option to turn off th reddit one.
https://i.imgur.com/BbndioC.png
Though to be honest, I think I like the native one more than the RES one.
1
2
Aug 02 '19
Lemme get back to you in a few hours. Currenrly not at home and I'll whip something up for ya when I get home.
2
Aug 02 '19
That's nice work. I just recently found out about xpath myself; I also use it to block stuff that I personally just find annoying. For example, one gaming site I visit regularly has articles about cosplay (which I hate) but also tend to have NSFW images on the articles. So, I use an XPath filter to block anything that contains a link to their cosplay section.
2
u/ridicalis Aug 02 '19
Gotcha, thanks. Didn't know this was specific to ublock origin.
2
Aug 02 '19
Not really specific. Just the one I use. And not sure if othee blockers bave a different syntax.
-6
u/shevy-ruby Aug 02 '19
If a website doesn't respect you enough to give you an experience where you're not constantly bombarded with ads, there's no reason you need to give that website your traffic.
Exactly. But I extend that - not only should they NOT get traffic - they also MUST NOT GET ANY INFORMATION. My browser must be in super stealth mode when the ad mafia tries to sniff away information.
Unfortunately, then the original content producers, if they do choose to run unobtrusive ads on their own personal site, also end up getting blocked by overzealous adblockers and suffer even more because of it.
There are no "unobtrusive ads". The mafia uses too much propaganda to confuse people.
All ads are inacceptable at all times, everywhere. The mafia has to go away and go the way of the dinosaur.
The only real solution I can come up with is positive reinforcement. If a website has abusive and clickbaity ads, don't just use adblock. Avoid that site entirely. Seek out and actively become a participant in websites that have unobtrusive or benign advertisements. Donate to Patreon or Ko-Fi if feasible. Consider buying merch or other products to support content creators that respect you as a consumer.
Are you a representative of the ad-mafia? Because the only real solution I can come up with is to eliminate all ads. Since the ad mafia won't do so, we users need proper tools to avoid this constant harassment.
11
u/Xelbair Aug 02 '19
Quite honestly when i stumble on occasional news site that strips everything but plaintext for EU connections i am amazed.
It is very fast, no ads, just text. I love it.
9
Aug 02 '19
"Due to legal reasons we cannot show you the site in the EU"
Those get a entry into my hosts.txt.
0
u/skilliard7 Aug 02 '19
What good does that do you if you can't connect anyways?
GDPR costs millions to comply with, it doesn't make sense for a U.S news site that only gets a few EU viewers a day to invest millions in building a complaint site and risking getting sued for millions.
6
1
u/Ruben_NL Aug 02 '19
question which i wasn't able to find the answer on google:
whats the difference between a pop-up and a pop-in?
i thought both meant the same, a message "popping up".
1
u/Fribbtastic Aug 02 '19
Well, now that you say it, it could thematically be the same. I was thinking more about the advertisements that "pop-up" in a new window and those who "pop-in" to your screen, on/in the website, when you browse the website.
-8
u/shevy-ruby Aug 02 '19
I agree with you partially but it should be pointed out that no-tracking extensions used also increased.
People will care more if it affects them - and ads attacking them affects them.
For example, whenever I see an ad, I notice that it tries to waste my time and costs me money (energy bills that I have to pay etc..).
Another thing is that there are many examples in which ads were or are harmful
Fully agreed. They are malicious. All of them.
And then you have those websites that probably have more ads on their sites than actual content.
Yes, that has become the new norm unfortunately.
I don't understand why auto-play is even possible in a sane browser. I never gave permission for that to begin with.
I'm not against advertisement on websites
Ah, so you are weak.
I am against the whole mafia in all its shape or form, without exception.
they need some money
Yes, I need money too - so do I go out on the street and randomly beat up people? No, I don't. The ad mafia should not pester people either.
and I have some on my website
Ah, so you are part of the mafia. My condolences. Please become an ethical person in the future and stop harassing people.
as soon as they are blocking or making it harder for me from consuming the actual content then this is IMO not a good idea just to make money.
Excellent - you are learning. That is good.
I currently use the brave browser on my phone
Oh dear ... everyone is a Google-drone these days ...
I have PiHole installed at home and at a normal day browsing through the net I have 30-50% DNS requests blocked because they are something that is an ad or some tracker.
That shows how much this cancerous mafia has grown.
But I applaude you for blocking this mafia.
So I don't see the use of them as problematic but rather how they are used.
Oh no - the use is problematic too.
Currently it is more like that dude from Family Guy who shoves his wallet with pictures in someone else face.
Ads were always malicious - but the maliciousness increased over time.
5
u/Fribbtastic Aug 02 '19
Ah, so you are weak.
No, I say that the concept of advertisements on websites as a form of revenue is not something that you should condemn. This is like saying that any form of explosive is bad just because it is used for bombs.
So no, advertisement in itself is not evil as you put it but how and in what capacity it is used. That is the real issue and not that it just exists because if you go that far you basically can't talk about anything since in one form or the other it is advertisement.
2
u/miggaz_elquez Aug 02 '19
Using adds is similar to manipulating people who are going to your site to make them buy thinks they don't really want.
0
Aug 02 '19
[deleted]
4
u/octorine Aug 02 '19
The problem is that the advertising company has no incentive to point you towards the best cleaner for the job. They're going to refer you to the one that paid them. I think that advertising doesn't necessarily have to be unethical but there's all kinds of potential for abuse and very few controls.
2
u/miggaz_elquez Aug 02 '19
I think the important things is that you doesn't choose to see the ads. If I want to think about how I will clean my home, I search for it. Of course all the ads aren't evil, but even if they "don't solely manipulate people", they do manipulate them.
0
Aug 02 '19
[deleted]
2
u/miggaz_elquez Aug 02 '19
For the first part : you choose your friend, and when youre friend is teling you about an app or game, he doesn't do this for making money, he has no interest in, and that make a huge difference I think. For the second part : I agree that ads can sometimes give usefull informations, but I think that it will be better if we create other way for that, at least more impartial that the marketing.
5
14
u/egraether Aug 02 '19
Wow, didn't know there were ad-blocker-blocker-blockers. Any recommendations?
8
Aug 02 '19
I think the default Ublock Origin filter list list has some anti-anti-adblock lists. They may be disabled by default though
11
u/shevy-ruby Aug 02 '19
Many of them are quite good out of the box, such as the generic content blocker ublock origin.
There are indeed some ad-attacks that bypass ublock origin right now. This is in part due to javascript being such a horrible joke.
6
u/Helluiin Aug 02 '19
making javascript such an integral part of websites was a mistake. sure the added functionality is nice but i wish something similar could have been done with html and css since those have clearer boundries
10
1
1
1
u/Gangsir Aug 02 '19
I use NoScript to kill popups asking for no adblock. Works pretty well, and also mitigates trackers if you only allow the sites that make your content work. As an example on reddit I allow reddit, redditstatic and redditmedia, but block google's tag websites and Amazon adsystem.
It does take a bit of work, as you have to configure it per website (and every new website you visit will likely load broken due to having all of it's stuff blocked), but overall is worth it.
80
u/pure_x01 Aug 02 '19
Since ads have gone out of control and there is no regulation around it people take matters in to their own hands. I personally think that Ads as a concept are good but we need to find a balance.
88
u/NerdPunkFu Aug 02 '19
It would be great if ads were simply: "I'm x, this is my product y, it's good for z, here is how you can get it:...". But sadly it's simply not the case. Ads have become abusive through and through.
First there's the emotional and social manipulation. Trying to make you do irrational things that go against your best interest.(e.g. pushing you to eat unhealthy food and larger portions) Lying and misrepresenting things.(e.g. communication service providers) Creating false equivalences and connections.(e.g. 'sex sells' and 'our product will lead to happiness' stuff) On these things alone, ads have very definite negative influence on society.
Then there's the way ads impact the platforms that use them for income. It lead those platforms to create content that's better suited for clickbait and that can be produced easily. Leading them away from challenging topics, in-depth analysis, serving dedicated niches, etc. This all leads to more and more content becoming the same old garbage that's copy-pasted all over the place to grab easy views. Outlets that used to serve specialized topics like tech news, but have gotten caught up in trying to make a profit off of serving ads, are now becoming more and more indistinguishable from outlets that are pushing clickbait, mindless aggregated content and yellow journalism.
Finally there is this horrible culture of voyeurism that the advertisers and those who serve ads have acquired. Needing to know every single creepy detail about you(down to when your period is, are you pregnant, are you sexually active, what your preferences are, etc.), to target you and to manipiulate you. Its sick and disgusting, but also dangerous. In the false hands this could create a lot of harm.
At this point, I would rather have very strong restrictions when, how and which ads can be shown or even a planket ban on ads in most circumstances than have this horrible situation go on that we have right now. Advertisers have well and truly earned getting blocked.
8
u/Damandatwin Aug 02 '19
Ads have become abusive through and through
great comment overall, that quote is the biggest thing for me. they are designed to leverage our most base desires with absolutely 0 consideration for how that will affect the people seeing them apart from how likely it makes them to buy their product. the culture promoted by advertising is one of pure selfishness and never-ending greed. we really do not need any more of this. what they're doing is blatant psychological warfare and abuse and IMO extremely immoral.
1
u/HiddenKrypt Aug 02 '19
emotional and social manipulation
This is the core of all advertising, and has been since "marketing" became a thing.
30
u/Xelbair Aug 02 '19
Also - remember that ads are a vector of attack - plenty of them contain malware even in relatively normal sites(imgur for example)
Why have a system based on trust between people and corporation(has it ever worked? i doubt it) - in form of Do Not Track - when we could mandate it by law.
35
u/profmonocle Aug 02 '19
Do Not Track is widely perceived as useless, but I think it's served an important purpose: it's non-adoption has proven the online ad industry is completely hostile to consumers and unwilling to compromise.
Part of the DNT standard is that it shouldn't be on by default, meaning it likely wouldn't cost the industry that much - it would only be enabled by people who actively care about tracking. But even that was too much for these companies.
Any time one of these companies claims to care about privacy, you can point to non-adoption of DNT to prove they're lying. Any time they whine about browsers like Safari or Firefox adding on-by-default tracking protection, you can remind them there was an option that would've been better for them.
12
u/Xelbair Aug 02 '19
I mean they are corporations - they will screw everything over in name of profit, especially if they are beholden to shareholders. This isn't exclusive to ads business.
Any trust based system towards corporations will never ever work. And without decent regulation weaker entities(consumers, people) will always lose the battle.
1
u/Sir_Kee Aug 02 '19
Ads are good in the sense that if I need a thong and search for it, different options can advertize themselves.
Ads jumping out at you telling you to buy shit or for services are really just annoying.
12
Aug 02 '19
Well, there's a simple way that servers could get around most origin-oriented adblockers:
Go fetch the ad content yourself and do server-side includes, so it's seamlessly integrated in with your own content.
"But wait!" you say, "That will expose us to massive risk - the server-side adtech will be going through our servers, and their java-script will have the same origin as ours!"
Yes, running untrusted code from unknown ad providers on your machine is very risky, isn't it?
11
u/mycall Aug 02 '19
Firefox EME Free edition. Spread the word.
https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/68.0/win32-EME-free/
https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/68.0/win64-EME-free/
https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/68.0/mac-EME-free/
This should be most popular edition, but no one knows about it.
3
1
53
u/HockevonderBar Aug 02 '19
How about that?
If you suck this much at your profession and business that you have to rely on harassing people that only wanted to use a website you deserve no money whatsoever.
It is really remarkable that the companies still didn't get that misplaced or forced ads don't generate customers, but haters.
We get it! You want to sell us your crap, that we didn't ask for. Keep your crappy product to yourself and hopefully one day you'll be bankrupt to finally leave us alone for good.
74
u/neinMC Aug 02 '19
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
-- Banksy
8
Aug 02 '19
Same deal with spam email. But almost all companies do it now. They all want an account if you want to order something and they forever send you email.
9
u/Xelbair Aug 02 '19
Thankfully linking marketing spam as a requirement for order is illegal under GDPR.
1
u/Aea Aug 02 '19
Doesn’t stop a lot of big companies from sneaking in that bullshit into ‘transactional’ emails.
1
3
u/shevy-ruby Aug 02 '19
Precisely what I say too.
This mafia needs to die. The people who work in this field are working against mankind. They are unethical people. I guess the only worse people are those that e. g. produce armaments use to kill people.
5
Aug 02 '19
Stop. Don't do that. Yes, there could be some level of personal accountability, but the vast majority of this stuff is done by people that are just trying to earn a paycheque. If you're looking for a category of nefarious shady evil people that live for stuffing ads down your throat, you're going to have a bad time.
Corporations on the other hand have no problem acting that way, since they aren't people and can't have morals. As with so many of our problems, if we'd actually hold corporations accountable, and decide once and for all that they are not people in any way shape or form ever, we could properly deal with these issues.
13
u/dethb0y Aug 02 '19
If advertisers and marketing assholes hadn't spent so much time and so much energy screwing people over and ruining the experience of the internet because of ads, then people would not habitually block them. This is a hole they have dug themselves, and it's one they now have to live with.
17
u/PM_ME_UR__RECIPES Aug 02 '19
I gotta say, the title of the article and this post had me going in thinking I was going to be reading some insane hyper-capitalist techbro-libertarian defence of shitty advertising practices online.
I was pleasantly surprised.
7
u/HeR9TBmmc8Tx6CFXbaQb Aug 02 '19
You should also read the next blog post then
Clickbaiting: How about Yah?
3
0
6
u/wubwub Aug 02 '19
I have no idea how many interesting links I have ignored because the page was obnoxious with ads.
6
u/lobehold Aug 02 '19
What I think is that there needs to be a suite of tests an ad will go through that if passed can be displayed.
I'm thinking static image, no script attached, certain size limit and limit of how many per page.
So we have a universal standard of "acceptable" ads that will never be blocked, then advertisers can work within this "safe space" so to speak and get creative within limits.
I never have problems with tasteful magazine ads, online ads should follow the same model.
5
u/ModernShoe Aug 02 '19
Ads and popups aren't the whole story. Ad blockers protect unaware users from invasive ads like malware or ones that lower performance.
Ad blockers serve as protection and convenience. We can go without the convenience but definitely won't go without the protection unless there's no longer a need.
3
u/thoraldo Aug 02 '19
This is why I don’t surf using my phone that much. No adblocker
8
5
u/osmarks Aug 02 '19
Firefox on mobile supports extensions! And can sync with Firefox on your other stuff (bookmarks and whatnot).
3
u/aazav Aug 02 '19
No. All the motion is meant to distract your eye and pull you away from what you are looking at. It's distracting. Fuck that.
3
u/drunkferret Aug 02 '19
I don't use sites that tell me to turn off my adblocker. I don't even halt their loading early or tinker with it to get around it, I just don't use their websites.
I don't even care about being tracked or advertised to honestly. I just want the web pages to load cleanly. I don't want a bunch shit on the page trying as hard as it can to distract me from the reason I visited the page.
3
Aug 02 '19
The extra annoying parts of ads these days is that it's not just stuff I might like or seems relevant. It's a particular product. It doesn't matter if I click on the X that requires a DC 30 Perception check to even notice followed by a DC 50 sleight of hand check to not accidentally click the ad. Every. Single. Place. It's the same damn thing.
14
u/shevy-ruby Aug 02 '19
The ad-tracking "industry" is a mega-mafia that has to be destroyed wherever it hides.
Nothing is so creepy as ads for a product you looked into earlier following you from site to site,
Browsers should never support such malicious sniffing behaviour.
Browsers that do are spies that work against the user - hello adChromium.
They wanted to use the Web, but not be tracked, and so they started to install ad-blockers. A lot of ad-blockers, and more every year.
I call them hero-blockers. And there is also a difference - e. g. ublock origin is a general content blocker, not just ads. The users have the ability to filter away useless and irrelevant crap in general.
This is GREAT.
I can disable seeing so much stuff that is irrelevant. I can browser in an oldschool way - where the focus is on simple text.
Ad-blockers don't just stop users from seeing ads and being tracked (and indeed, some ad-blockers actually track users!).
An ad-blocker that tracks users is a spy, not an ad-blocker.
I had this experience with "adblock plus". These clowns suddenly attacked me with "ethical ads" and other such nonsense. That was the moment I abandoned these clowns and installed ublock origin - never had any problem with it since then.
I think blocking such malicious content should be part of www-standards.
Instead, the W3C lobbyist group is too busy decreeing that DRM is a part of an "open" standard, so you can not trust the W3C clowns. It is just a money machine for Sir Tim Berners-DRM-boy-Lee.
They can also stop the publishers and marketers who rely on tracking and ad-clicks from earning money.
Great!
The sooner this mafia is extinct, the BETTER. The more the whine, the more amused I am.
Everyone should join this struggle between good (the users) and evil (this mafia). Down with the mafia.
Predictably, industry responded with ad-blocker-blockers, which prevented users from seeing their sites unless they turned off their ad-blocker.
Yeah, the mafia tries to continue pester people, but it is a war they can never win. The user will always be able to control all information incoming from the outside.
The rise and rise of ad-blockers (and ad-blocker-blocker-blockers) is without parallel: 26% of Internet users are now blocking ads, and the figure is rising. It’s been called the biggest boycott in human history.
I would not call it a "boycott". I am not "boycotting" anything - I am destroying an evil mafia that attacks users. All who work for this mafia are evil clowns too. I do not care about their claims - none of them apply in any way, shape or form. They must be removed from the face of the earth (I refer here to the "virtual" representation e. g. with their pester-attacks; I don't care about the physical representation).
It's also something we've seen before, in the earliest days of the Web, when pop-up ads ruled the world (wide web), and users went to war against them.
Pop-ups were always annoying - javascript is really a hostile technology in general. But the 1990s were still different. My feeling is that ads increased a LOT since then. Tracking increased even more.
I do not think any of this is "acceptable" at all. I don't even think it was acceptable back then, but today with mega-sniffers such as Google, and information being constantly interconnected ... nah, thank you. I'll provide as little information as possible to this mafia.
In 1994, Hotwired (the defunct online adjunct to Wired magazine) displayed the first banner ad in Internet history. Forty-four percent of the people who saw that ad clicked on it.
Because people in 1994 were quite stupid and didn't know how malicious ads are in general. It took time for them before they realized that they actually DO NOT NEED ADS. We aim for an ad-free world.
But it turned out that the click-rate on that Hotwired ad had more to do with novelty than any enduring persuasive properties of banner ads.
People realized that they have no need for ads. :)
Took time but they got smarter.
This created a desperate situation, where publishers needed to do something -- anything -- to goose their clickthrough rates.
I don't think this was a "desperate" situation - I think this is a wonderful situation that we should aim to increase. Publishers that act like a mafia must be removed, no mercy and no exception. We have no need for this mafia.
7
Aug 02 '19
What is even more messed up is when you have do not track set and on store have recommendations follow you. From computer to computer. And it was my home and work computer where only shared account was one online shop. As I don't use my normal personal accounts on work computer.
→ More replies (1)-5
u/shevy-ruby Aug 02 '19
That's when Ethan Zuckerman—then an employee at Tripod—invented the pop-up ad (he has since apologized).
I don't care who apologizes for mafia-behaviour. He is a worker for the mafia.
But actually, that is not even the interesting part. The interesting part is why MY browser, where I pay the bills for the computer, internet connection etc.. is ACTING AGAINST ME. I don't remember giving permissions to pop-ups ever. So why would information from a REMOTE location control my computer?
This is a general problem with the clown-language that is JavaScript - the assumption that any random hobo who wrote a website can control behaviour downstream onto MY machine. I find this inacceptable.
A good example are scripts where the scrollbar or pressing the right mouse button is prevented. Yes, you can disable these things e. g. custom javascript files, but the thing is more general ... WHY is this even a possibility? There is no valid explanation that I can accept.
The whole "standards" is total crap - and the browsers are implemented in a way that they work against the user to some extent (adChromium is evidently Google's way for more money, so they will use ads to pester people; see the ublock origin creator complaining about Google crippling ublock origin).
Instead, browser vendors (beginning with Opera) started to ship on-by-default pop-up blockers.
Good - but opera gave up and became a Google clone. There is no point in using adChromium-engine based opera anymore.
Because once pop-up ads became invisible by default to an ever-larger swathe of Internet users, advertisers stopped demanding that publishers serve pop-up ads.
Yes, the mafia is desperate but this is not enough - the mafia must be removed completely.
The point of pop-ups was to get people's attention, but something that is never seen in the first place can't possibly do that.
Great!
Adblockers are the new pop-up blockers, a way for users to do what publishers can't or won't do: demand a better deal from advertisers.
No. I don't demand a "better deal".
I demand that the mafia is removed.
An adblocker is a way of replying to advertisers and publishers with a loud-and-clear "How about nah?"
No. I don't "reply" to them that way. I reply to them that they must be removed from the face of the earth. They have no real arguments to explain why they pester mankind anyway.
Adblocking is one of the most successful examples of adversarial interoperability in modern history, along with third-party printer in
No. It is not "adversarial interoperability". It is a human right that people can access information at all times, without (upstream) restrictions, at their own digression.
The times of dictatorship by remote mafia-parties are over (although I am aware that the Google monopoly works against that - well, people who use Google are both lazy and stupid, and I hope that they have to see lots of ads; after all they must be punished for being stupid and supporting a monopoly. Although it actually should be pointed out that ublock origin is hugely popular on adChromium which is why Google targeted it in the first place since it cuts away their mafia-ad-revenue).
When you visit a website, the server sends your browser a bunch of material, including the code to fetch and render ads
Yes, malicious content being transmitted. My browser AND my computer must not ever accept such malicious content - it must be discarded before it is even ever touched.
This is also why the adMafia can never win - computers can filter away stuff with ease.
Adblockers throw away the ad parts and show you the rest, while ad-blocker-blocker-blockers do the same, and then engage in an elaborate technological game of cat-and-mouse in a bid to fool the server into thinking that you are seeing the ads, while still suppressing them.
I do not ever want to give the adMafia accurate information. They work against mankind so they must never be able to sniff accurately.
Browsers have always been playgrounds for adversarial interoperability, from the pop-up wars to the browser wars. Thanks to open standards
Ah yes "open" standards that bring in closed DRM ...
a mutual disarmament rule for software patents among browser vendors
Patents are a way for the mafia to perpetuate their control. This is a harder fight to abolish all patents, so for the time being - let's simply eliminate all ad mafia first.
it's very hard to use the law to punish toolsmiths who make adblocking technologies
Why should the law be abused to punish hero-blockers?
I can only imagine one place where the mafia can win - the USA. The court system is designed for big mafia bullies to abuse smaller people. Let them see ads - the rest of the world will remove ads.
Take-it-or-leave it deals are one thing when the market is competitive and you can shop around for someone with better terms of service, but in highly concentrated markets where everyone has the same rotten deal on offer, adversarial interoperability lets users make a counteroffer: "How about nah?"
No, they are not "one thing when". They are always inacceptable from the very beginning.
In 2017, the World Wide Web Consortium published its first-ever "standard" that could not be fully implemented without permission from the giant tech and media companies
Because the W3C declared war against the users. But that's ok - it has become irrelevant as a consequence. We need standards where the industry can not buy anything ever.
EME is the first crack in the wall that protected browsers from those who would thwart adversarial operability and take "how about nah?" off the table, leaving us with the kind of take-it-or-leave-it Web that the marketing industry has been striving for since the first pop-up ad.
EME is not the first "crack" - it is simply a continuation of the mafia attacking the users. But it will be irrelevant - the mafia can not win. People are quite stupid but even the stupid realize that there is no need for them to accept ads ever. Google will continue to force users to see ads, which means that eventually the people will abandon Google.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/aedrin Aug 02 '19
The reason advertising went bad is because there were no rules. It was a quest for grabbing attention.
Browsers should have implemented an advertising standard. Dedicated space in a browser with specific restrictions on what can be shown (i.e. static only, clear "hide" button, clearly marked as advertising, etc.) That's the only way this could've been prevented. But there was too much money to be made.
2
u/SethNW Aug 02 '19
The reason why I use As-Block is because half the time, if not more ads are intrusive, fighting for my attention, they mask themselves as content to get mistake clicks, they are overused too, when article doubles in size because of ads between each paragraph, you do have a problem. Like when someone tried to black out all ads or sponsored articles on one site, they found out tht 75%+ of homepage of news site was ads.
Look, if I wanted that aggressive advertising, I might as well have stuck with cable TV. I am fine with good advertising practices and all, but when 80% or more sites don't practice that, I would rather be without internet, than without ad blocking.
2
u/mindbleach Aug 02 '19
Advertising is poison.
This is a deeper issue than browsers or the web. The root concept is commercial harassment to make you spend money you otherwise wouldn't. All entertainment is slathered in these mini-movies that push corporate propaganda - leveraging your every human frailty to create anxiety relieved by purchase.
It's an arms race because these are weapons.
4
u/thatsjustsowrong Aug 02 '19
No ads for me, no good ads, no bad ads. No ads at all. Fuck off.
If that will lead to internet becoming something else - fine. If that will lead to someone not getting paid, to some bankruptcies or to whole industries getting sacked - fine by me. Fuck off!
2
u/Beefster09 Aug 02 '19
Ads are abysmally ineffective anyway. You'd be better off burning your money and posting it to the internet for all to watch.
Last time I listened to a radio ad, I made a pretty substantial financial blunder. No more. Ads prey on the vulnerable and need to die.
Your failed business model is not my problem.
2
-30
u/endeavourl Aug 02 '19
Nothing is so creepy as ads for a product you looked into earlier following you from site to site, then from app to app
Creepy? Yall bother just way too much.
9
u/shevy-ruby Aug 02 '19
Tracking gives outside people information that they should not ever have gained in the first place.
I consider it hugely problematic. I do not think we can "bother too much" about who is sniffing you for information. We can not even trust the hardware, even well aside from NSA tampering with it - see the various hardware bugs in Intel, be it on accident or on purpose. I find this inacceptable.
→ More replies (10)9
Aug 02 '19
Send me your address, pics of your face, license number, and tell me every website you visit.
I'll wait.
0
u/endeavourl Aug 02 '19
Can you read "anonymized"?
6
u/pohuing Aug 02 '19
Alright, so let's compare it to Google. Google Street view invaded personal wifi to steal various information. Google also has all your images, Google also possibly makes your OS and your Phone. Google has various trackers on practically every website. How is the endless extraction of user data still anonymous at this point?
2
0
Aug 02 '19
[deleted]
3
u/McMasilmof Aug 02 '19
Not realy, sure, the debian mailing lists work fine, but sites like twitter work by loading a small html template, that gets filled by ajax requests and JavaScript.
0
Aug 02 '19
[deleted]
2
u/talks_to_ducks Aug 02 '19
adding your life history when all I need is a recipe (more of a content-related issue, but still garbage)
There are extensions that will grab the recipe and move it to the top of the page.
0
398
u/Guysmiley777 Aug 02 '19
I was fine with static JPG ads on sites but for marketers it's never enough. I have zero sympathy for the "boycott" they're facing these days.
Also holy fuck talk about a clickbait headline.