
Facebook Blocks Ad Blockers, but It Strives to Make Ads More Relevant - ricardolopes
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/technology/facebook-ad-blockers.html?_r=1
======
simbalion
This is a hostile action against their users. When someone installs software
on their computer specifically to block ads from being downloaded, presented,
or seen.. and then some corporation goes to extreme lengths to bypass that
software, that is a hostile action. I wouldn't be surprised if it's illegal.

But regardless of legality, I think it's a sign of how much contempt these
companies have toward their users, and it's a good window for someone to take
a bite out of their market share.

~~~
codeddesign
Against their users? How do their users think they pay to run the site in the
first place? Would it be better on their users to require everyone to pay for
use? People need to stop acting like Google and Facebook owes them something.
All the free stuff is only available if someone pays. My thoughts...there are
a lot of bad ad companies out there and unknowing websites place their ads up.
But, to place an ad blocker on a well known established company and then use
their services without paying is flat out stealing.

~~~
Analemma_
I call this the social contract theory of online advertising: that by viewing
a free website's content you have implicitly agreed to view the ads that pay
for it. I actually think this theory has more merit than a lot of Hacker News
gives credit for, but I also recognize that someone who has installed an ad
blocker has clearly already rejected it, so trying to debate with them on
these grounds isn't likely to get far. I would try to reframe your argument.

~~~
chrismcb
Are you also saying by listening to the radio you agree to listen to the ads?
Watching TV requires you to watch the commercials? What about newspapers and
magazines that are heavily subsidized by ads, are you implicitly agreeing to
read the ads by buying them? I don't think there is any implicit agreement to
vivid, or listen to ads given with free items. The Web isn't any different

~~~
Analemma_
To me it seems like a pretty straightforward application of the categorical
imperative ("act as though your principles will become universal law"): if
everyone blocked ads, we'd have no free content. I want free content. Hence, I
don't block ads. You don't have to agree with me on this, but I don't think
I'm coming from nutty principles.

~~~
dpc_pw
> if everyone blocked ads, we'd have no free content.

That's right! If people did not pay for using software, there would be no...
oh wait... I am writing from Linux, using Firefox... and have a github tab
open...

But if people did not pay for encyclopedias... oh wait...

In fact, if companies could not monetize on ads, less clicbaiting, useless and
worthless crap would be created. Sure there would be much less content
overall. But most of it is useless anyway. Quality content would be behind
membership payments, or just free, published by entusiasts.

The web was thriving before pay-per-view ad-fueled-cancer has consumed it with
masses of ignorant clickers, so interested in Kim Kardashian meals.

Sure... things progressed somewhat, fuelled by all that money. But let's make
it clear - it had it's price, changing a vision of free medium of sharing
knowledge and communicating, into a centralized shopping mall, tracking your
every move.

~~~
simbalion
There was a period of time, after the bubble and before ad-blockers, when the
world wide web was a parasitic minefield of flashing imagines and clickbait
and malware.

Then someone invented AdBlock and the web was suddenly fun to use again.

People who've grown up in an ad-block era have no idea how bad it used to be.
They didn't have to watch this amazing new "internet" being destroyed by
greedy crooks who themselves barely understood the technology.

~~~
codeddesign
ad-block era??? This is relatively new. There is no era yet ;) It's like
saying "The Pokemon Go Era"

------
JimLaheyMD
If I hadn't already deleted my Facebook, this would probably make me do it.

------
phantom_oracle
> "For blockers to get around these changes, Facebook said they would have to
> begin analyzing the content of the ads themselves, a costly and laborious
> process."

I don't think anybody at NYT has ever come across 1 of the longest digital
battles since the internet became a thing, otherwise known as: P2P

Where there is a will, there will be a way. For every piece of software that
will hide ads, someone out there will likely begin to write software to block
this, simply cause some shitty ad ruined his/her Mafia Wars/Farmville
experience.

------
johnward
I'm more curious to see how this plays out with technology than I am over the
economic and privacy arguments. Facebook obviously has the resources to find
new ways around these ad blockers. Can these small ad blocker developers keep
up?

Facebook still renders fine with adblock and ublock origin running.

------
SnacksOnAPlane
How about allowing us to pay to not see ads? I still enjoy using Facebook but
I hate seeing ads. I'd pay a couple bucks a month to avoid them.

~~~
johnward
I personally don't think it would go over well but I'd like to see a site with
as much pull as Facebook try it. I've seen articles claiming facebook is
making $10 per user per quarter [1]. That seems high to me but if true I don't
see anyone paying $10 per month for memes and political rants.

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

------
rezashirazian
The cat and mouse game between advertisers and adblockers is about to enter a
new era. I'm surprised it took this long.

------
jbverschoor
How about doing something about spam ads and links?

~~~
nicky0
They are: [https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/04/facebook-
clickbait/](https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/04/facebook-clickbait/)

