
Ad Blocking, Ad Networks, and Your IP Address - samsnelling
https://snelling.io/on-ad-blocking
======
jordigh
Amongst those four arguments, I again don't see mine:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10241380](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10241380)

I don't want ads because I don't want to be manipulated into buying things I
don't need. I especially don't want to allow this manipulation while I'm in
the middle of something else.

Even if ads were presented with speed, privacy, and safety, I still don't want
them.

~~~
danmaz74
Fair enough. So, you just have to not use websites that live off ads.

~~~
icebraining
Why does (s)he have to do that? Because the video makers don't want you to
watch it without seeing the ads is not a sufficient reason. Content producers
just have to accept the fact that they don't get to control how people see
their stuff once they put it out there, just like TV producers didn't get to
prevent you from flipping channels during an ad break.

If you disagree, as the copyright holder of my posts, I revoke your license to
download them. I guess you'll just have to read HN comments pages where I
haven't posted.

~~~
greggman
Why isn't it a sufficient reason? If they say "don't watch my video unless you
pay $5" are you okay with that or do you just think whatever they made you're
entitled to it, you never have to give what they ask in return? Isn't it up to
them to decide what they want to charge you (pay $$, watch this ad, etc.) and
for you to decide not to watch if you don't want to pay whatever they are
asking?

How is this any different than say GPL in that you can either pay the price
"make your modified version GPL too" or you can not modify the software. Do
you also think that's not for them to decide and that you should just use and
modify the software anyway?

PS: please don't turn this into a thread about the minutia of the GPL. That's
not the point. The point is whether or not the same concept that lets a
creator set a software license and choose the terms, whether that concept also
applies to other creations, videos, books, movies, games, magazines, articles,
etc..

~~~
icebraining
I hope you realized you've proved my point by replying to my copyrighted post,
in which I revoked your right to download it (which happens after you reply to
it).

When the demands of copyright holders are not reasonable, we are not ethically
required to comply. Your words say you disagree, but your actions show
otherwise.

~~~
tobltobs
Aren't you a bit childish today?

~~~
icebraining
Not just today :)

------
cddotdotslash
I know that iOS 9 is allowing ad-blocking, but a majority of the articles I've
seen on HN and elsewhere aren't saying anything new. Yes, we know what an IP
address can reveal, and we also have heard all the arguments behind blocking
ads or not. But nothing has really changed since iOS 9, besides the fact that
even more people are doing it.

------
signaler
If you think AD blocking alone is enough to protect your privacy, think again.
I think the real problem is fingerprinting. You are always going to be tracked
on the web, and one can tunnel their traffic through a hardware-based TOR
router, and surf with Lynx browser and still get tracked. Also blacklisting
entire classes of AD networks is not thorough enough as a lot of publishers
are doing 'roll your own' ADs. You can't block an 80x80 banner graphic with a
link yet (well you could if you block images, but we're not all neckbeards who
surf with Lynx). You could thwart low hanging fruit stuff like 1x1 pixel
beacons, but AD serving technology is ambiguous and also one of the many hard
problems of the web.

Shameless plug, I wrote about how to thwart browser fingerprinting here:
[http://blog.higg.im/2015/04/29/do-ad-blockers-and-anti-
track...](http://blog.higg.im/2015/04/29/do-ad-blockers-and-anti-tracking-
plugins-only-partially-solve-privacy-on-the-web/)

My current solution is use any number of things on privacytools.io and try not
to centralize browsing to one device and one network. A bit obvious, but you
would be surprised how many people just use their phone to navigate the web.

Like all hard problems, there is no sweeping silver bullet that will solve
this. You have to get smarter about your browsing. The 'mixing effect' of
cities is a great idea, and cheap $10.00 internet enabled burner devices for
surfing the web are awesome too

------
sandworm101
IP addresses can be geolocated. Big deal. This article seems a little out of
date when it comes to what an IP address means for home users. (For mobile
users, there are far easier means of tracking than via IP address.)

For instance.... "One important thing to note is that most consumers probably
have a “dynamic ip address” meaning that your internet service provider
probably rotates this ip address ever 24-48 hours. Your internet service
provider usually charges more money for static ip addresses which is where you
keep the same ip forever."

Really? Mine hasn't changes in over a year. My ISP could change it, but absent
any reason to do so they don't bother. Once upon a time they would assign new
IPs when boxes turned off and on, but security measures these days mean
neighbourhoods are assigned small pools of IPs. Turn off and on and you will
more often than not be assigned the same IP. Besides, nobody turns off
cable/DSL modems anymore anyway. Truly dynamic IP's disappeared with dialup.

And... "So each and every web request I make to any website, can find out my
city, state, zip code, internet service provider, time zone, average city
income, average population, and if I’m residential."

Nope. Mine is always wrong. All the geolocation services place my IP in the
wrong city. That's because my area is served by boxes one town over. So all
the info gathered via my IP address beyond which state/province I'm in would
be incorrect. These online IP databases are not the same as actually phoning
an IP for a street address. They are at best a good guess.

~~~
eli
MaxMind themselves only claims something like 80% accuracy on getting the
correct city with their commercial geoip database

------
callesgg
I would gladly pay a small fee to not have to see adds.

The issue is how to solve that, how could i pay that fee in a simple manner
where the cash only goes to the sites that i use.

~~~
aylons
Google has a proposal for this: Google Contributor [1]. Of course, only works
for Google ads, but this is a substantial portion of the web.

However, I don't like the current proposition: you pay for seeing less ads,
but there's no tier guaranteeing no ads. Even if they guarantee 99% less ads,
I still wouldn't sign for it.

Paying for seeing less ads does not change the incentives for tracking and
targeting, and may even worsen them: surely Google will start by cutting the
less targeted ads. The more I cut the ads, the more targeted the remaining ads
will be, and stronger will be the incentive to track me.

Only by a policy of no ads and no other revenue stream besides my money would
avoid the perverse incentives that are in place for tracking - and trying to
change - my behavior.

Of course, Google Contributor would still have to track the sites I visit, so
I wouldn't be able to prevent tracking with a technical tool if I signed for
it. This adds even more to the argument that Contributor is only an option if
no ads are allowed, so that he incentives for targeting and analysis are now
removed.

[1][https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/](https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/)

~~~
alecco
That does't solve Google tracking your every move around the internet. They
still get all your information.

They are only doing this to save face or to find an alternative path of
revenue.

I refuse to be tracked, specially by a corporation whose president is quite
against privacy and anonimity and has a lot of friends in the US government.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Privacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Privacy)

------
georgebarnett
Flogging a dead horse of a story certainly brings in the clicks, which in the
past has resulted in more advertising revenue.

I'm interested to see if this continues, or if it declines since there is a
reduced financial incentive.

I could imagine that in a world of paywalls, this is disincentivised, since
your users don't want to have the same crap thrown at them over and over (as
opposed to now, where publishers make as much controversy/noise as possible in
the hope of attracting new clicks).

Could it be that this change in model requires more thoughtful journalism?

------
sologoub
This is pretty low quality description of a very complicated industry:
[http://www.lumapartners.com/lumascapes/display-ad-tech-
lumas...](http://www.lumapartners.com/lumascapes/display-ad-tech-lumascape/)

And the best part, nothing is said about the fact that blocking inside apps is
not on the table, so Apple is simply driving more dollars to where they stand
to capture the most from them.

------
eva1984
The war of ad-blockers and anti-ad-blockers will be ugly, I suppose.

Say, if Youtube is going to enforce anti-ad-blocking across the site, and I
believe the could do that-their Chinese copycat, Youku, has already done this
long time ago, will you give up watching? That might be a hard question to
answer.

~~~
userbinator
The answer is that anti-anti-ad-blockers will start to exist. As long as users
still have control over the software they run on their devices, they will have
the advantage in this war. That control seems to be slowly disappearing,
unfortunately:

[http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html](http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html)

[http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html](http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html)

~~~
kuschku
Already existing.

After
[https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock](https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock)
was invented, and I got annoyed,

I reported
[https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock/issues/26](https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock/issues/26)

and wrote this solution to the issue
[https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock/issues/26#issuecomment...](https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock/issues/26#issuecomment-141711992)

~~~
anonred
How is it a moral issue? If it's immoral to block certain behavior on sites,
then it's just as if not _more_ immoral for users to block ads in the first
place. The usual argument is that sites with ads constitute an implicit
agreement, etc. If users have the prerogative (regardless of moral ambiguity)
to block content they don't like, sites have the same prerogative to block
unsavory visitors as they see fit. To say that using FuckAdBlock is forcing
anyone to accept content is complete and utter nonsense.

~~~
kuschku
No, I mean: I do not care about a website showing me an ad as plain <a
href="..."><img src="..."></a>.

I have no issues with those ads.

I have issues with ads running javascript, tracking me, and trying to abuse
holes in my browser to install malware.

And it is immoral to force people into running those ads.

~~~
anonred
No one is forcing anyone to whitelist the site and view the DRM'd content. The
site is simply offering an explicit choice to the user: go away or play by our
rules. Whether or not serving the ads in the first place is morally correct
simply does not matter—the price for admission could change to require the
user's car, their livelihood, their life, and the premise is the same. There's
an explicit acknowledgement of the cost and a conscious choice by the user.

An apt analogy would be a magazine on a table with a sign denoting the price.
Without FuckAdBlock, the sign reads "Price: ___". Taking the magazine and not
paying anything isn't immoral, it just shows you value yourself above others
(nothing wrong with that). With FuckAdBlock, the sign now reads "Price: Your
kidney". By taking the magazine and not paying, you're quite literally
stealing, regardless of the price now on the sign.

~~~
kuschku
No one can force me to watch or click ads either. I can just glue something
over my screen – or just mute the sound and watch some other video while an ad
is running.

Many people even are okay with watching TV 15min delayed, and instead having
their receiver automatically cut away the ad breaks.

You can’t force ads on users.

Now, with the web, we have ads that aren’t just annoying, but actively
malicious.

And while I’m the kind of person that often gives people money because they
need it – be it because they can’t afford a bus ticket, or whatever – or that
I often if I am at a place with a sign "pumpkins 2€" (where you can take
yourself, no one watches, etc) still pay more than those 2€.

So it’s not like I actually like doing this.

But advertising is not acceptable. And as long as someone can program
computers, I will not see interactive javascript ads. Image ads with a simple
image in a link? I even have a whitelist for such ad networks. Seriously.

~~~
anonred
I'm not arguing that ads are acceptable, merely that it's acceptable for sites
and users to come to an agreement where ads must be "unblocked" in order to
view content.

Whether it's the publisher's job to inform the users of the risks involved
with allowing ads to appear is questionable (should the publisher also inform
the user that staring at a monitor for extended periods of time can cause
adverse effects, or is this simply common knowledge and implied?).

If you want to discuss the morality of online advertising, that's another
story altogether. In my opinion, ads used to benefit the common good at the
expense of taxing individuals of time and attention are fine. Take Google for
example, the ads they show collectively benefit the public distribution of
knowledge (search, maps, books, entertainment, etc.) Just like with any
government, if you're unhappy with how taxed resources are managed (or the
amount you're taxed), you're free to leave society and live outside of
civilization.

------
euske
It's funny how both sides of the argument think that ads are something people
has to "put up with". If ads are really that good, not watching would cost you
(either money or a nice opportunity for good products). For now I don't really
see that much of benefit of seeing them (it's the absent of benefits so it's
really hard to measure though). I hope web ads companies one day start
producing ads that are actually pleasant to watch (some TV commercials are
doing a good job here). Until then, you can't really stop people blocking ads.

------
LargeCompanies
This is a war that will force websites to find workarounds ... from
redirecting you to a message saying sorry this content is blocked you are
running an adblocker to innovators creating work arounds that ad blockers
can't block and they are more annoying then the ads we have now.

The web has flourished and we all get to enjoy it for free because
advertising. Though the majority here seem to want all ads to be blocked...
does that mean the majority will then sign up and pay each site for their
content? Highly doubtful ... so what is the solution, people need to be paid
for the content we consume each day for free on the web!

~~~
georgebarnett
I certainly expect there will be a war - a highly asymmetric one. The cost of
developing 'anti-ad-block' tech will exceed the cost of updating filters for
some time.

It will also lead to more intrusive ads in a world where user expectations
have changed. Users will become used to a "quiet" web and might just prefer to
hit the back button.

Another point worth making. If your content is good enough for me to turn off
my ad blocker, it's probably good enough to paywall. If not, you have no
chance.

~~~
qopp
Not really, a site can just proxy ad content through their servers. How can an
ad-blocking service tell the difference between an image needed for the site
and an image that's an advertisement?

~~~
georgebarnett
It will be more challenging but not a big issue. Ads will still contain
signals they're an ad (I'm reminded of banner ads on the Web 20 years ago).

Back hauling traffic through the site may happen, however that's a huge
latency penalty and also will reduce the amount of data leakage. Networks will
no longer have carte Blanche access to end users. Also worth noting is that it
increases the complexity of the technical implementation from 'drop in this
code' to 'get your backend team to change your architecture in this way'.

------
JD557
A note about the IP addresses: Some ad networks/analytics software does not
store your IP address, but an anonymized version of it (eg. drop the last
octet[1] or an store only an hash). I believe that they must do this in order
to operate legally in certain countries.

They can still store the geoIP information without storing the IP, though.

[1]:
[https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2763052?hl=en](https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2763052?hl=en)

------
Animats
Where you are is only marginally useful to advertisers. What you've clicked on
is sort of useful. The really valuable information is what you've bought and
paid for.

That's what makes Amazon go. Other advertisers would like that info, but they
have to buy it from people who actually sell real stuff, and those sellers
don't sell it cheaply.

(Of course, Amazon's product recommendations would be more useful if they
stopped spamming them with ads for their failing mobile devices.)

------
tobltobs
As a publisher who depends on ads I do not have a problem with people using
adblockers. Those wouldn't click on an ad anyway, so no money lost. But those
guys running around and installing adblockers on every computer where they
have access to, even without asking the owner before, those guys suck.

