
Show HN: AdBlock detection by abusing the streaming parser - mechazawa
https://pixel.shodan.me/streaming
======
Nadya
This has been done and thought of before. I'll go over why you don't see
anyone using it. :)

Now obviously the "2 seconds" would need to be tweaked to be _slower_.
Throttling my internet to 'GPRS' in Chrome results in the site thinking I'm
using an ad blocker (for this demonstration, I disabled it). It took 2.10s
before my browser tried to download adv.css which resulted in me being flagged
for using an ad blocker.

You'll want to serve your site to users quickly or you'll raise your bounce
rate (and possibly get less ad impressions as a result). But now you're
looking at a 3s~ delay just to serve an image. Imagine if you had a site, more
images, some javascript, etc? Would users even attempt to browse your site if
every page load took 3-5 seconds to read the content because you were waiting
to serve content while detecting if they are using an ad blocker?

If AdBlockers hurt you so much that having a 3-5s delay to serve your website
is a realistic alternative you're better off shutting up shop or dealing with
the fact your site is simply not profitable.

~~~
mechazawa
I saw it more as a way to require users to disable their adblock without
having "easy" ways to get around it. If you get bounced because you didn't
disable adblock then no revenue is lost. A system can be put in place to only
do this check every so often instead of every page load. I understand the
issues with this method. This is a very aggressive way of checking for
adblockers but highly effective.

------
pawadu
Interesting concept, but do we really need to make web sites even slower to
load?

\---

START OF RANT

If you block ad-blockers (like forbes.com just did to me), I will only share
your articles via archive.is .

Sure, your children may starve to death, your wife may leave you but don't
blame me because in the end you did all this to yourself. I was happy to use
your site when it had a couple of non-intrusive text ads to pay the bills but
then you went to fill 60% of the screen with flashing images, autoplaying
videos and malware installing flash ads.

END OF RANT

~~~
ffggvv
Why do people feel so entitled? Don't like the ads on forbes? Pay them or
don't visit them at all.

~~~
Nadya
Is it entitlement to not want malware? Or are we really so quick to forget:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbe...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbes-
site-after-begging-you-turn-off-adblocker-serves-up-steaming-pile-malware-
ads.shtml)

I don't block ads to prevent companies from getting ad revenue. I block ads
for _my own safety_ and malware prevention.

~~~
detaro
The parent post is not saying anything against adblocking, it says something
against copying content to other sites to access it despite the site owner not
wanting you to.

~~~
Nadya
Given the context of the grandparent quote - I do not believe you are correct
but I can see the ambiguity. I see it as them using the argument of "if you
don't like the ads, don't visit the website" which has been argued ad nauseum
(pun intended) in nearly every discussion on HN that involves ads and ad
blockers.

They aren't visiting the site if they read it via archive.is links. So "Don't
like the ads on forbes? Pay them or don't visit them at all." is out of place
there if _not_ talking about ad blockers but actually talking about the
practice of using archive.is links.

And giving people you know archive.is links, since you may not know if they
run an ad blocker or not, _also_ serves to protect them from malware. So my
point stands - except I'm protecting my friends/family from malware instead of
myself.

Get rid of the user-tracking, Javascript-enabled/Flash-enabled/3rd-party ads
that can serve malware and maybe they could convince the security/privacy
concerned users (I'm purposefully excluding users who block ads to block ads
from my list) to whitelist their advertisements.

------
Nyubis
Interesting concept, but I don't expect it to be used commercially anytime
soon, because of how slow it makes the page load.

Then again, maybe your site being annoyingly slow for people who block ads is
a feature rather than a bug.

~~~
mechazawa
The page will remain slow until you disable your adBlock of course. Which is
some extra stimulation to disable your adBlock.

~~~
lisivka
LOL. It's extra stimulation to develop better adblock. I already turned on
blocking of adblock blockers, because they are annoying.

------
ffggvv
I love it. Great idea! If people don't want to see ads on my website they
souldn't consume my bandwidth.

~~~
probably_wrong
I think a lot more people than you think would be behind this point of view.

The problem is: right now we are in a weird middle, in which media companies
want the text to be fully available (so you can arrive to it via Google and/or
social media) while, simultaneously, only visible to those who don't use an ad
blocker.

This is of course impossible, but that's how we got stuck in this strange
position of "I put it online for free, but I didn't mean free for _you_ ".

IMHO, a full all-or-nothing approach would be well received. Whether it would
be economically successful, that's another story.

~~~
Declanomous
The stupid thing is that the content of most websites is mostly ads, at least
from my perspective as a user. (I don't care about the nuances of who is
serving the ads) On top of that, a lot of websites waste bandwidth on what I
consider dumb shit, like megabytes of javascript needed to make a reactive
layout. Said layout is pretty much guaranteed to be so annoying I will disable
mobile viewing on my phone.

I work in marketing, and I think the issue is that advertising is a disaster.
It's the tragedy of the commons. Highly annoying or misleading ads (CLICK HERE
TO DOWNLOAD) get way more clicks and impressions. Don't even get me started on
autoplaying videos. The worst offenders are traditional media companies, who
are both the reason why I'm using an ad blockers and also the most likely to
block me for using an ad blocker.

I don't particularly feel bad about blocking ads, but I think ads are a good
way to support websites. There are very few sites I trust enough to unblock
ads on though, and it's because their ads are both unobtrusive and relevant to
the content.

Just for example, the Chicago Tribune's print ads are fine. Their website ads
are almost entirely link to fake news articles that make the National Enquirer
look like the New York Times.

------
tenryuu
BEAR CHIPS

