
Can Facebook really make ads unblockable? - Irishsteve
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/can-facebook-really-make-ads-unblockable/
======
fossuser
One thing I find annoying about their rhetoric is this rationalization that
people want advertising to teach them about new interests and things they
might be interested in. People do want to learn more about what they're
interested in, but I can't think of a less honest source than an advertiser.

I'll grant that targeted advertising is better than untargeted advertising,
but no advertising is still strongly preferred (I'd even pay a couple bucks a
month for it). This is why tons of users use adblockers - it's just a better
experience.

I understand advertising is what funds Facebook and I get why they care about
it, but don't also try and tell me why advertising is something the users
_want_. Users don't want it and the experience would be better without it (and
without all the tons of engineers dedicated to making it better instead of
working on the core product).

~~~
seanwilson
> People do want to learn more about what they're interested in, but I can't
> think of a less honest source than an advertiser.

The opposite side of this is people that think ads are the worst things ever.
I really don't understand what the big deal is. It's not like a random ad is
going to brainwash me into buying something I never wanted in the first place.
Ads being too distracting (e.g. flashing, videos) and a malware source is a
different story though.

~~~
dingaling
> It's not like a random ad is going to brainwash me into buying something I
> never wanted in the first place

Absolutely they do, that's their entire purpose. It has various names such as
'acquired need', a prime example that gained universal acceptance being fabric
conditioner.

Sugared water is another prime example, I'm sure you can name some brands and
mentally picture their bottles lying in a bed of ice cubes.

~~~
sosborn
You are right that this is there intention, but it is not always the effect.
Think about SPAM. Have you ever fallen for any of those emails?

~~~
falcolas
People fall for them _all the time._ Most of the more poorly worded ones are
actually trying to filter out intelligent users, since they will end up being
a waste of the spammer's time.

~~~
sosborn
Yes, some people do. That doesn't mean that everyone does, which was the point
that seanwilson was making.

------
cm3
And meanwhile Axel Springer won an interim injunction to have Eyeo (makers of
Adblock Plus) stop accidentally filtering tweets and other live content on
their "news" sites. Ignoring Eyeo's whitelisting business model for a moment,
Eyeo's laywers are right in explaining that the filters accidentally block
non-ads because sites deliberately make the actual content fit into ads'
patterns, which then requires updated filters.

The interesting part is that Axel Springer's lawyers argue that filtering
content undermines freedom of press. IANAL, but that's like saying if I put
headphones on because I don't want to hear the public radio at a train
station, then I'm filtering content and restricting freedom of press. The
judge accepted the argument, but it doesn't make sense logically and goes
against another pillar of contemporary societies: informational self-
determination. If we don't fight this, we might actually end up in a world as
depicted in that one Black Mirror episode[1].

Sorry, couldn't find anything in English:
[http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Adblock-Plus-Axel-
Spr...](http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Adblock-Plus-Axel-Springer-
erwirkt-Einstweilige-Verfuegung-wegen-Overblocking-3294993.html)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits)

~~~
zeta0134
I mean, I'm going out of my way to try to stop my computer from running code I
don't like. (In this case, advertising and tracking code.) There are tonnes of
alternatives I could try, but I think the easiest way for me to block Facebook
ads is just to stop visiting Facebook.

Ads are more than just annoying. They take away my valuable time and
resources. I don't care what business model you think I'm destroying, my
attention is mine and mine alone, and I will not have it wrenched away from me
by dancing bottles of soap accompanied by the whir of my computers fans as it
struggles to play yet another poorly coded flash applet. (I realize Facebook
ads very rarely use flash, but they are still distracting in the worst way.)

Facebook can try to do a lot of things here, but they can never win my trust
back after all these years, and I consequently refuse to trust their
advertising platform more than any other. It's an intruder into my system, I
will not allow it to run, and they may kindly deal with it and move on. I run
my life ad free, I stopped watching television for similar reasons because I
didn't feel like paying money for a service that seemed engineered to waste my
time with product placement. If your business model does not agree with my
preferences, too bad. I'm still not letting you run your code on my computer.

~~~
cm3
I don't go to the movies anymore. You have to sit through ads in the
beginning, then they pause to sell snacks, and all the while you have to cope
with people's disruptions. On top of that, you cannot temporarily enable
subtitles or seek back to rewatch a moment. And let's not forget how expensive
it is for a single showing. I suppose if you treat it like a real theater or a
concert, then it's fine, but it's not comparable to watching a movie yourself
or with two friends.

~~~
icebraining
That's why I like living in a (relatively) large city. Here we have enough
audience to sustain a couple of "weirder" theaters without concessions, ads or
interruptions which show older and/or more independent films.

------
SilasX
Very interesting! I had earlier proposed[1] that FB would have to start this
arms race, of making ads that look different to human users, but not to
computers.

The article points out that FB seems to be in a losing position since they
need their ads to say "suggested post" and give those posts special options --
so ad blockers can always just look for that.

I think they can be a little more devious though -- say, make the CSS really
complex so that the letters for "suggested post" only appear in the right
positions for legit adds, and then have it load the options for the element
from somewhere else. But that comes with a major code-complexity/debugging
cost.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12255612](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12255612)

~~~
ArchReaper
Even that is a losing battle, as you would then just identify the class(es)
that result in the 'correct' position of letters.

Ultimately it is an unwinnable battle, but one they can fight as long as they
want.

~~~
scottmf
I disagree. I don't see how it can be unwinnable.

Even if it were an endless game of whack-a-mole, _free adblock plugins_ don't
have a fraction of the resources of Facebook.

Publishers became greedy, ads became intrusive, and users reacted by flocking
to adblockers.

Now the users have taken it too far and publishers are forced to respond.

No one is owed an ad-free experience.

~~~
ArchReaper
The cost to deliver 'unblocked' ads is exponentially more expensive than the
cost to block ads. Ads also have to be properly identified to avoid CAN-SPAM
issues, so unless they ignore those laws, it will always be relatively 'easy'
to programmatically identify ads.

------
AWildDHHAppears
I'd be happy if all ads became served from the same domain, an integral part
of the page (no popovers, popups, focus stealers, etc) and not-dynamic. That
would remove 90% of my objections to them.

Third party ads with javascript can and have been used to introduce malware,
through deception or zero-day/drive-by exploits, even on otherwise reputable
sites. It is for that reason that I block ads.

~~~
oxide
I now whitelist javascript and use an adblocker after being hit by a drive-by
javascript exploit that installed a bitcoin miner.

After taking these precautions, I haven't had an issue with malware since.

------
downandout
IMO it's certainly possible to make ads unblockable. Right now they just
aren't trying very hard. It's all about the footprints. This article claims
that laws requiring ads to be marked as such would preclude them from removing
these footprints, but that isn't necessarily true. For example, Facebook could
have two images of identical size, one that says the word "sponsored" and one
that is blank, stored on their servers. Every post - sponsored or not - could
reference the image like "/image.png?postid=123" and the server would decide
based on the post ID which image to actually serve. Unless adblockers could
implement machine vision, they wouldn't be able to distinguish this.

Facebook could also go the hostile route - when they detect an ad blocker,
just display a blank overlay saying that you can't use Facebook with an ad
blocker enabled. Ads are here to stay.

~~~
ArchReaper
I believe this would violate ease-of-access rules - screen readers would have
to be able to tell a user, so if an image is used, the alt/title tag would be
set to 'sponsored'.

~~~
downandout
I suppose, but that's not a legal issue, that's a usability issue. There's no
law that says I have to use alt/title tags.

~~~
falcolas
The ADA might want to disagree with you:

"The Department is currently developing regulations specifically addressing
the accessibility of goods and services offered via the web by entities
covered by the ADA. The fact that the regulatory process is not yet complete
in no way indicates that web services are not already covered by title III." —
Statement of Interest of the United States Department of Justice in NAD v.
Netflix (page 10)

~~~
downandout
_> by entities covered by the ADA_

Is Facebook covered by the ADA? I can't imagine that they are, as it is not an
essential service. According to [1]:

 _" The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, if the government entities
receive federal funding, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 generally require that
state and local governments provide qualified individuals with disabilities
equal access to their programs, services, or activities unless doing so would
fundamentally alter the nature of their programs, services, or activities or
would impose an undue burden"._

But that has _nothing_ to do with private organizations that are not receiving
federal funding or providing access to government funded services.

[1]
[https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm](https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm)

~~~
falcolas
You may notice that the quote in my original post is from the DoJ to
_Netflix_. If Netflix is subject, why wouldn't Facebook be?

The ADA also applies to privately owned stores as well, so there is certainly
precedent. Ever wonder why your office building has a certain number of
handicapped parking spots in its parking lot? The ADA is why.

~~~
downandout
What you're referring to is not a court ruling, but rather an opinion letter
penned by the DOJ in a case to which it was not even a party. It holds _no_
legal weight.

~~~
falcolas
That courts are current split on whether it applies or not indicates that
there is some weight to the DOJ's opinion. That Netflix decided to ultimately
settle instead of forcing the issue does not speak well of their confidence in
succeeding (or their willingness to bear the costs of getting to a decision).

However it ends up finally playing out in the courts, if Facebook were to fail
to properly label sponsored content in tags, you can bet someone will take
them to court over it.

------
sago
Can King Cnut turn back the tide?

If your users rebel against your business model, it's a brave (foolish? short-
term?) business decision to fight your users.

Fine for companies who can only generate value from a user by ads (don't like
ads? Goodbye, good riddance), but FB gets immeasurable value from network
effects and user data. An interesting strategy, then.

------
jasonkostempski
I bet they won't get around my advanced uBlock filter:

facebook.com

------
kolme
It could be feasible to circumvent this "attack" by drawing posts and ads in
canvas elements.

But then again, the blocker could "look at the pixels".

Basically, if a human can tell the difference, a piece of software will
eventually be able too.

With DRM we had the "if you can see it, you can copy" law. Here might apply
the corollary "If you can tell it apart, you can filter it out".

~~~
ArchReaper
It wouldn't even need to 'look at the pixels', it would only have to identify
the appropriate canvas elements.

~~~
kolme
I was thinking of canvas elements with no differences between them. Same size,
same properties, random id.

In such scenario you'd have to "look at the pixels". The contents are
programatically rendered and they're not subject to DOM inspecting.

~~~
ArchReaper
If it became prevalent enough, then theoretically you could update the *block
extensions to identify the javascript (or libraries) that are used to render
the ads and nullify them.

My guess is that actually implementing this kind of thing would not be worth
the cost.

------
meira
It's a very contraditory move to bet high in AI and block-Adblock tech at the
same time.

~~~
ArchReaper
I get the feeling that the future-business side of Facebook and the in-app
advertising side of Facebook are not very connected.

~~~
meira
And this is a huge business opportunity.

------
Apocryphon
One day, a company is going to find a way to disrupt ads, as in creating a
viable way for websites and mobile apps to easily make money from free
products that doesn't involve inserting ads, and it will usher in the next Web
X.0

~~~
st3v3r
I wouldn't quite hold my breath on that one. Anything like that is going to
have to both get users to open their wallets, and do so at a rate which
matches or exceeds the current levels of revenue gained by ads.

The closest thing we have now might be Patreon, and while it's successful for
solo artists and small groups, I doubt a Patreon like model is going to be
funding the New York Times.

------
overcast
I really don't have an issue with ads, I have a problem with shitty ads. If
Facebook put a quarter of those adblock blocking resources into getting
appropriate ads, none of this would be an issue. That goes for the rest of the
internet. People use adblockers because it's completely intrusive and awful to
see.

~~~
seanp2k2
The latest rash of them have been grotesque "one weird trick" type ones. I'm
not sure why they're even selling spots to whatever idiots are making these,
because it's undoubtedly driving users away and pushing people to install ad
blockers to not look at that nasty garbage.

~~~
overcast
Because they are probably making more money accepting them, than they are
losing money from getting blocked.

------
golemotron
> Can Facebook really make ads unblockable?

Of course they can. It's called product placement.

------
sharkjacobs
anyone can make ads unblockable, just host them yourself and don't use a lot
of javascipt

<a href="www.advertiser.com/adlandingpage.html"><img src="ads/ad.jpg"></a>

~~~
krapp
That will only be unblockable until someone submits a filter for it, and then
every ad blocker will block it.

~~~
dividuum
Not only that, but that exact example is already blocked by default in
Easylist by this rule:

Static filter /ads/ad. found in: EasyList

