
Ping pong with Facebook - okket
https://adblockplus.org/blog/ping-pong-with-facebook
======
patmcguire
Since this is inevitably going to turn into the usual back and forth about
adblocking, I'll just throw this out there: I would definitely use an
adblocker that only applied to video.

Video ads are a unique brand of terrible. Lose the connection, player gets
funky, have to reload? Boom, another 30 seconds of preroll ad. Ad stutters,
plays a second then stops for four to buffer another second? Guess what, the
ad is still at 0:29 left, because the ad doesn't end when thirty seconds pass,
it ends when their shitty server plays thirty seconds of video. And the ambush
ads: fifteen minutes of leaving a tab in the background and it starts
autoplaying a new video.

I keep turning Adblock Plus off out of a sense of obligation and then end up
turning it on again because it is such a frustrating experience to try to
watch a video with it off.

------
t0mas88
Adblock Plus is doing a marketing stunt: Claiming to have "the community" on
their side and making hand-wavy arguments on FTC regulations that are based on
nothing at all. While their only goal still is to make Facebook pay them just
like Google does, because the minute Facebook pays up they will start
unblocking their ads.

So can we please just decide for once and for all that Adblock Plus is a
commercial, mafia like, practice extorting publishers and quit the grassroots
bullshit?

------
gourou
AdBlock doesn't block Microsoft, Amazon & Google ads because they get paid
from them. I don't believe in this David vs Goliath narrative.

[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/80a8ce54-a61d-11e4-9bd3-00144feab7...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/80a8ce54-a61d-11e4-9bd3-00144feab7de.html)

~~~
aleem
Came here to say just that. AdBlock relies heavily on SEO to grow it's install
base. If you search "ad blocking" they rank highest, because of their name
alone. This story will probably win them a huge boost and am hoping uBlock or
similar take the lead on this one.

At a publisher conference, I recently saw PageFair take stage and sell their
solution as an anti-ad-blocking ad-serving network. Turns out they pay AdBlock
to get unblocked and their entire budget seems to be spent on SEO and trade
fairs. I found this on their FAQ very amusing:

> Q: I tested my installation by activating the uBlock Chrome extension and
> the PageFair script did not load

> A: The adblock community maintains a number of different "block lists" of
> domains and resources that should be blocked from loading. One particular
> list (Easylist) is used by the most popular extensions AdblockPlus and
> Adblock. This list does not block PageFair's analytics from loading. There
> is an additional list called EasyPrivacy which is not used by default in
> AdblockPlus or Adblock, but is used by default in uBlock. Our analytics (as
> well as most other analytics tools like Google Analytics) are blocked by the
> EasyPrivacy list.

> You should be able to try out a different extension to verify this.

[https://support.pagefair.com/support/solutions/articles/5000...](https://support.pagefair.com/support/solutions/articles/5000614219-i-tested-
my-installation-by-activating-the-ublock-chrome-extension-and-the-pagefair-
script-did-not-lo)

------
kristianc
The argument that Facebook is somehow flouting FTC regulations is disingenuous
- all of Facebook's organic ad posts are marked as 'Sponsored' in feed.

What AdBlock want is for Facebook to put a marker in the DOM so they can block
the ad, but I'm guessing this is not where most people go looking to find out
if a post is sponsored.

Anyway, the argument is academic as long as Facebook usage continues to shift
to mobile apps. Adblocking will continue to do what it's always done -
depriving revenue from small publishers while having no impact on larger
players who have the mindshare to serve content through their own native apps,
or simply pay to have their ads seen.

------
ravenstine
I don't think this is a problem that generalized ad blockers should be
attempting to solve, as it's a completely different breed of advertisement.
Maybe there could be a separate project for tackling disguised ads on big
sites, but otherwise trying to solve a very nuanced problem using a broad
approach is going to be an endless headache and perhaps futile.

I have no reservations about blocking disguised ads. Advertisers have abused
their position for far too long, and it's pretty clear that disguised ads are
only going to make the web more of a mess of infotainment or advertainment.

I ended up writing my own Chrome extension to remove Facebook's suggested
posts, as it actually isn't that complicated if you simply crawl the DOM on
element inserts. There's probably a performance hit, but not enough for me to
really notice.

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/suggest-me-
not/cel...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/suggest-me-
not/celncnbpemidpjiclomdcioffkfkpkec)

------
brianbreslin
This opinion might be unpopular here, but I don't really empathize with
adblock plus's arguments with why they have to be able to block ads
(journalistic integrity?). This is how facebook and others need to fund their
product costs. If you can't be bothered to sell your attention to them for the
ads, then put up money instead; but we all know how unlikely people are to pay
for content online once it was "free".

Nothing is free online. If you aren't paying for a product, you are the
product. (said someone way smarter than me years ago)

~~~
MOARDONGZPLZ
And I think the standard rebuttal is that, if ads were unobtrusive that would
be one thing, but many times leaving ads unblocked leads to malware and
extreme system slowdowns. I personally would not mind keeping adblocker off if
ads were just minor ads in the text of documents, but from what I've seen on
the rare occasions where I've been on a computer without adblock, the non-
adblocked internet is pretty disgusting.

~~~
Flimm
That argument doesn't apply to Facebook who don't serve ads from third-party
servers or with third-party code. You're just as likely to find a security
flaw in Facebook's ads as in Facebook's organic posts.

~~~
xcombelle
except that facebook can make ad for malware independently of flaw in facebook
code

------
haney
I wish Facebook would offer an option to pay to remove ads / reduce tracking.
I understand that they have to operate a business, and if I don't want to pay
they should be able to show me ads. If I do want to pay it would be nice to be
able to remove the tracking/ads. It looks like facebook only pulls in about
$10 per user[1], I'd happily pay a few dollars a month for an ad free service

1\. [http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-average-revenue-
per-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-average-revenue-per-user-is-
up-sharply-2015-11)

~~~
phn
An argument against that I have seen in other threads and I find particularly
interesting is that by providing an option to pay to block ads, you'd be
greatly diminishing the strength of the ad network since the people that would
see ads are not the ones that are willing to pay for their stuff.

~~~
haney
That makes a ton of sense, I was being blinded by the average revenue not
thinking about that fact that their revenue probably has an 80/20
distribution. I wonder if you assumed that there was a pareto distribution of
their users what you'd need to do to compute how much the top 10/20% are
spending per year (I'm kind of stumped on that one).

------
manigandham
I work in adtech. We all use adblockers, and the rise in their use is a good
thing. Digital ads (especially video) are out of control and blocking is
necessary to combat the terrible user experience and security risks.

However, ads also sustain all the services and content we consume for free and
there are clearly common sense standards we can agree to: fast, non-intrusive,
secure, static, etc. Any ad vendor that meets these guidelines should be let
through (after a transparent vetting process and routine checkups).

Blocking everything just because it's an ad takes away any moral high ground
from adblockers and doesn't do anything but hurt the entire ecosystem. A more
nuanced approach would let good vendors through which would in turn start to
encourage those behaviors by publishers and advertisers, creating progress all
through the industry while letting companies stay in business.

It's not advertising we hate, it's the ad experience. Improving that
experience is the ultimate goal, not engaging in endless war.

~~~
mercutio2
I don't think we can agree to this.

Ads do not sustain the free services I use; I object to advertising, full
stop.

You are welcome to think your free services are essential, I will disagree
with you in most of the cases that are ad supported.

~~~
manigandham
What free services are you using that aren't ad supported? You don't use
Facebook or visit any major site (without a subscription)?

And value isn't determined by whether you think it's essential or not but your
actions in using it. If you're consuming content/services, then you're getting
value.

~~~
mercutio2
I loathe facebook with a flaming passion. That it has captured identity on the
internet, and chained it to advertising, is a disgrace. I feel similarly about
Google, fortunately there are alternative search engines.

~~~
icebraining
Which alternative search engine do you use that doesn't have ads and/or pull
results from Google?

------
RodericDay
Just to counterbalance all the posts trying to make equivalences or complain
about ad-blockers, some of them even portraying it as "poor little guy":

I am fully in support of any and all ad-blocking initiatives. Thank you very
much to everyone working against Facebook on this!

------
MarkMc
When you sign up to use Facebook and click 'I agree' you are making a promise
not to block their ads. It seems to me that to break that promise because the
ads are annoying is morally wrong, but many people don't see it that way.

I sell software as a service. If a customer doesn't like some aspect of my
software I expect him to cancel his subscription. If he continues to use my
software without paying for it he is breaking his promise to me, and most
people would see it as wrong.

What's the difference?

------
muse900
Do we hate the ad's or the ad experience?

The other day I was walking down the street.

Few people approached me offering stuff, magazines, religion leaflets, food
coupons and whatever. While I appreciate that those people are trying to feed
themselves, I find it way too intrusive for them trying to approach me and me
having to say no to every single thing.

On the other hand I saw a small free magazine stand. I checked it myself and I
liked it so I took it.

The kind of advertising we have on the web is the first one I mentioned, the
one that they are trying to force the ad on you.

Why can't we have ad's that are like those small corner free magazine stands
that you'll pick the item when you really want to.

My point is while I don't use adblockplus, facebook should stop playing around
and find a way to serve better ad's.

Also noone mentioned the fact that a lot of facebook ad's are not filtered e.g
fake products all over the place.

------
siliconc0w
As a human on this planet with fundamental rights I get to control what goes
into my brain. I'm #sorrynotsorry if that is inconvenient for your business
model.

~~~
haney
Couldn't the argument be made that if you don't want their ads to go into your
brain that you shouldn't visit their site? It's sort of a case of "their house
their rules" right? I tend to agree that it'd be nice to be able to avoid the
ads, but they have to earn operating revenue somehow.

~~~
siliconc0w
I don't think so - again if we're agreed I have full sovereignty of my body
and therefore have the right to control which photons reach my brain. This
ought to apply - like all fundamental rights - in all circumstances and
contexts.

~~~
haney
If we follow that argument out wouldn't that mean that you would have the
right to control what anyone said or wore in public? If I'm wearing a purple
shirt in the park and you go to the park you don't have the right to stop me
from wearing my purple shirt just because it annoys you.

Btw, since comment sections make it hard for the reader to discern tone I'm
simply trying to explore this argument, please don't take offense to the
continued questioning.

~~~
siliconc0w
Right - these rights don't let me stop you from wearing a particular shirt,
but I think they reasonably let me control what I am able to see or hear(given
a mechanism available to do that). For example I think a reasonable
interpretation is that I ought to be entitled to wear headphones that filter
out words I might find offensive.

------
stincity
I haven't gone recently but how does uBlock Origin fair in all of this?

~~~
Viper007Bond
It uses EasyList as well, the shared block list.

------
hokkos
I wait for when Facebook will make the "sponsored content" indication a
canvas, present in every content but only filled-in on those sponsored
content. Facebook control the DOM, they can use every technique to make the
detection harder to the end where we will need AI classifier.

~~~
ravenstine
Their problem is they'd have to contradict their own UI despite doing things
like that. Let's say that they removed the "Suggested Post" indicator from
their ads entirely, and the ads essentially appear identical to something you
are already following; unless you had followed the page before, it should
display a Like button like any other post and it would not say something like
"You liked/followed this page" at the top of the post in the feed, so it would
be a safe assumption to clear out anything that wasn't specifically liked by
you or a friend. But, if they were to not display a Like button or elements
telling you whether or not you have followed the post before, that's yet
another indication that it's not a genuine post. I wouldn't mind never seeing
anything that's "suggested" and would rather find content through friends(you
know, that whole social networking thing). I don't see how they can ever get
around ad blocking in the long term without making their site unpleasant to
use.

------
jsjohnst
Personally, I hate ads in general, but I can't help noticing the double
standard with folks who use Adblock. Most of the same folks watch TV, listen
to the radio, buy newspapers/magazines, or walk/drive in public. Ads are even
more pervasive in all these avenues. Where is the outcry on user choice there?
In many of those cases, you're paying to use those services (unlike FB for
example), and yet you still see/hear ads. Why the Internet and not there too?

I think one major difference on the Internet is ad tracking. I firmly believe
you should have the right to not be tracked. I think the blocking apps should
focus on preventing you from being tracked, not from the ad displaying. If the
site uses intrusive ads that consume the page, do as I do and not go back!
There's almost always another source for that information!

~~~
forthefuture
"Most" is kind of a meaningless word. Most people I know use Netflix / HBO Go,
Spotify / Youtube / Soundcloud, do not buy newspapers / magazines (they still
make these?) and are on their phones the whole time they're walking / driving
in public.

If a company wants to force people to see ads, they can do what Forbes does.
It's inconsistent to allow people to see content and complain that they don't
see the ads. It's like a Halloween candy bowl with a "please take one" sign.
If you don't enforce your ideals you cannot represent yourself as holding them
strongly. Facebook _allows_ people to use adblockers, and they don't have to.
They choose to because they know that not seeing ads is more valuable to users
than the service Facebook provides.

------
xcombelle
since when adblock plus is open source ?

~~~
predakanga
As far as I'm aware, it always has been. They link to their source code from
the footer of their homepage, licensed as GPLv3:
[https://adblockplus.org/en/source](https://adblockplus.org/en/source)

~~~
xcombelle
I was confused with their acceptable ad policy. You looks right, adblock plus
seemps open source since ever

~~~
pricechild
They're also open about what they allow. Follow this link to find the filters
etc: [https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-
ads#list](https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#list)

~~~
manigandham
Except that their paid whitelisting is anything but open... it's all backdoor
deals that are just a profiteering scheme, not about consumer rights or
encouraging change.

Plenty of good adtech vendors meet their "standards" but are only allowed
through if they pay up. It's all about the money.

~~~
pricechild
They explain when advertisers must pay here:
[https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization](https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization)

Is that inaccurate?

