
Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures - ytNumbers
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/27/thousands-of-major-sites-are-taking-silent-anti-ad-blocking-measures/
======
gorhill
In the paper, this excerpt:

> We choose Adblock as it is one of the most popular. It is also possible to
> use Adblock Plus or uBlock, as the way they operate is exactly the same —
> HTTP filters and HTML element hiding.

AdBlock in the Chrome store uses Adblock Plus filtering engine[1], so to say
the way these two "operate is exactly the same" makes sense.

However uBlock Origin uses its own code base, and is far better equipped than
AdBlock/Adblock Plus to deal with anti-blockers, so to say that the way uBO
operates is "exactly the same" is a stretch.

* * *

[1] Since version 3.0:
[https://help.getadblock.com/support/discussions/topics/60000...](https://help.getadblock.com/support/discussions/topics/6000038686)
\-- it's not explicitly stated in the announcement but this code repo mirror
shows it:
[https://github.com/kzar/watchadblock/blob/c5f5b7f535182d6774...](https://github.com/kzar/watchadblock/blob/c5f5b7f535182d677462463591bd2f8e059c771e/src/lib/adblockplus.js)

~~~
zzleeper
What would you recommend for mobile? Browsing on Android with Chrome is a
nightmare, and the last time I tried FF it was a bit sluggish (although it did
allowed me to install extensions!)

~~~
shandor
Firefox for Android is wonderful after Quantum. uBlock Origin works fine with
it, and you can even use the custom filters to purge the scourge of the so
called "dickbars" from your browsing experience. It's not as streamlined to
use as with a mouse, but never having to see those Medium banners again makes
my Internet life so much better.

~~~
abhishek0318
Though Firefox on Android has improved a lot with the recent quantum update,
you can still feel it's a little laggy as compared to Chrome.

Specifically, scrolling on Firefox feels very laggy. Also, Firefox doesn't
play videos on same tab. That becomes very frustrating.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Are you sure you're using Quantum? Quantum isn't in Firefox 57 for mobile, you
need the beta 58 for Quantum.

~~~
distances
Huh, I didn't know this. I felt Firefox 56 -> 57 was a major improvement in
Android too, and was sure this was due to Quantum. I wonder now if that was
just placebo.

~~~
bryanlarsen
It wasn't just placebo, some parts of Quantum made it in to 57 mobile, just
not everything.

------
RandomInteger4
I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable.

Maybe if (1) fewer ads pumped up CPU and memory usage for a page, and (2)
companies didn't give their non-technical asshole free reign over placing
scripts on the page, then maybe many of these sites wouldn't be so bad to
visit without an ad blocker.

~~~
paulcole
>I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable.

This is extremely hyperbolic. Why not just, you know, not visit those websites
if their business model is so abhorrent to you?

Do you feel entitled to something for nothing?

~~~
themistocle
When reading we’re free to skip and skim. Vinyl, VHS, Cassette, CD, and DVD
allow us to seek or rewind as we like. When I buy a PC, I can install any
software I choose to. When browsing the web, I can accept or reject any served
content.

That’s not entitlement. Entitlement is the sentiment that users somehow owe
advertising or web firms anything.

~~~
predakanga
Not seeking to invalidate your point, but DVDs and Blurays can stop you from
fast forwarding, most famously for the FBI anti-copying warning.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_operation_prohibition](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_operation_prohibition)

~~~
Simon_says
Thanks for the blast from the past. I haven't watched any non-pirated media
for 10 years. It's a superior experience.

------
jancsika
Some adtech startup should just quit playing games and go full creeper mode:

* simple text-only ads

* give the advertisers the tools to generate text content that is minimally distracting, maximally invasive, maximally creepy, and maximally personally-identifying

"$35,000 in debt, unemployed, recently dumped and insecure about your male
sexual identity? You deserve this special price on Axe Body Spray..."

The buzz alone would get people to turn off their ad-blockers just to see what
content gets generated for them.

~~~
kilroy123
It's that pretty much Google ads?

~~~
jancsika
No, because Google advises their advertisers _not_ to creep out their
potential customers.

AFAICT an ad from Google is chosen based on the reams of data Google has about
me, but the content of the ad seems generic (or at least seems like it's meant
to come off as generic so as not to creep me out).

The hypothetical adtech I'm describing would of course choose the ad based
similarly on reams of data about me, but the content of the ad would itself
also be worded using invasive data about me.

Google ad: "get some cheap technical degree"

Creeperville Ad: "climb out of your 35,000+ debt with a technical degree"

There are even more convincing examples wrt pornography but I'd rather not go
down that rabbit hole.

------
nickjj
I've been using uBlock since it came out and I just immediately leave those
sites that don't function unless I disable it. Whatever content they have,
someone else likely has a "good enough" alternative.

I also happen to run a blog (no where near a major website) but my thought
process is, you should write because you want to spread what you've learned
with others, not create a platform for the sole purpose of making money.

To me, having a visitor on your site is a privilege. Why would you go out of
your way to interrupt and attempt to manipulate them, yet that's what so many
large sites do. There's other ways to make money rather than tormenting your
users.

~~~
hutzlibu
But you are not writing for a living, so it is easy to say, just doing it for
the joy and not for money. But there are people which profession is writing -
and they need to get money.

The normal way, unfortunately is with ads, even though nobody likes them.

My preferred solution of voluntarily pay what you want ... probably takes a
bit more time, to become established.

~~~
nickjj
I do write for a living, but instead of basing my business model around
selling ads I went with a different approach (doing freelance work and
training).

I know that's not applicable to every writing industry, but those other
industries have different ways to generate income too.

------
nerdponx
I've started noticing this from Google, among others. Tracking scripts are no
longer explicitly named as such, or they're prefixed with some slug or GUID
alongside the legitimate "functional" scripts.

It's getting to a point where you need to actively monitor every network
request the site makes. It's despicable and I have nothing but ill will for
the data scientists, software engineers, and product managers who participate
in this.

~~~
rc_bhg
.. I mean, they would not have jobs if they did not participate in it.

~~~
nojvek
Google + FB, the worlds largest online advertising companies lose probably
billions to ad blockers.

I’m sure quite a number of people got nice bonuses and promos for bringing
some of that revenue back.

~~~
stewbrew
They don't lose billions because some people hide annoying stuff that makes
their pages esesstially unusable and have no extra benefit because ... I
personally don't think this kind of online marketing actually works. I cannot
imagine someone actually buying something because of some meaningless text
snippet, a stupid blinking image or a video clip.

~~~
edanm
Do you really trust your personal opinion on this, versus literally an entire
billion dollar industry which has an enormous incentive to get this right, and
which thinks this as business DOES work?

~~~
stewbrew
The point is, they don't lose anything because of me hiding their ads.

There are other ways for advertisers to sneak into my world, but this kind of
online advertisement is not one of them.

------
orbitingpluto
Okay, here's a crazy idea for advertisers.

Tie the advertisement to the type of content that the user is already there to
read about. Then you can serve ads from the content web server and make it
indistinguishable from content, completely unobtrusive, completely
noninvasive, and maybe even welcome.

~~~
etatoby
This.

As a positive example, I like how many YouTube channels take 30 seconds out of
a 10 minute video to talk about some company's product that might be of
interest to their audience.

Not an annoying video ad that has nothing to do with what I'm reading /
watching, just the host talking about a product or service that their audience
has a chance to be interested in.

~~~
Improvotter
I completely agree. I cannot stand some random YouTube ad that YouTube itself
plays before videos because it's not relevant and I do not trust the people
that are marketing it.

When I see someone I trust on YouTube recommend a product in a pre-roll ad or
the like, then I don't really skip it and I do really keep those companies in
mind in case I ever am looking for a product that they might offer.

~~~
pdkl95
_If-and-only-if_ the sponsorship or product recommendation is properly
_disclosed as a paid promotion_ [1], this is a great way to handle product
promotion.

> trust

This is the key feature. The advertiser risks trusting that the promoter will
show their product in a positive light. The promoter risks their own
reputation on the quality of their endorsements.

This element of risk hopefully serves as an incentive to maintain a high
quality of both the product and the endorsement. Bad manufacturers and poor
quality (or scandalous) services should lose access to trustworthy endorsers
with (hopefully) large audiences. Good manufacturers and high quality services
won't want to associate with cheap shills.

The only problem I see is that places like YouTube are not optimizing for
quality endorsers. Their focus on engagement is driving away people that try
to create quality; may have already left. Those that remain are becoming
increasingly formulaic, uninspired, risk-adverse, and "advertiser safe".

[1] Which is required by law![2] This _probably_ also means disclosing if you
got a free copy for review purposes[3] of a product that would otherwise cost
money or have a non-monetary value. The disclosure must also be "clear and
conspicuous"[4].

[2] [https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2017/04/ftc-s...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2017/04/ftc-staff-reminds-influencers-brands-clearly-disclose)

[3] [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftc...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#ftcactapply)

[4] [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftc...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#disclose)

------
godzillabrennus
I was reading the news with Safari on iOS 11.2 with a new iPhone X recently.
As I was browsing different sites I noticed I was getting redirected to those
scammy "You've won a cruise" style websites. I had no idea ads were so out of
control. I've been using ad blocking technology for 10+ years and never see it
first hand. It's pretty crazy that website operators have to create such a
terrible user experience to survive these days.

~~~
kstrauser
I've been using 1Blocker on iOS for ages now and can't tolerate the mobile web
without it. There are several other good blockers, too, including Firefox
Focus. I highly, highly recommend using one.

------
Sir_Cmpwn
Advertisers need to fuck off. Ads are never going to work on the web - the ad
bubble needs to pop already! Advertising on the web is a horrifying web of
fraud, psuedoscience, and invasive tracking and sensitive data hoarding.
Frankly, it should have been outlawed by now.

~~~
raguuu
While everything that is going on with ads is horrible, it does work. This is
very wrong side to hope for things get better. There is fraud but companies
pay premium for ads because of it and in the end customers.

------
lousken
Disabling javascript is the best anti-anti-adblock solution. I wish chrome
added an option for tampermonkey scripts to be run with disabled js, that
would make this solution perfect.

~~~
severine
Maybe you can test this extension [1] in Chrome? Works great in Firefox, where
bookmarklets are tricky sometimes due to some CSP voodoo.

[1] [https://github.com/mems/bookmarklets-context-
menu](https://github.com/mems/bookmarklets-context-menu)

~~~
Groxx
Yup. It's a long-standing issue. Join in the fun:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=866522](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=866522)

~~~
severine
:) Guess where I found the extension?

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=866522#c83](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=866522#c83)

------
nimbius
Ads are inherently psychologically abusive, targeting your insecurities and
exploiting sex and basic instinct to move product. There needs to be a
fundamental shift from the old tv and radio model of advertisers targeting
everyone through inescapable ham fisted and manipulative ads, to a system that
is all but dormant until I query it for a service.

Show me nothing, nothing at all, until I make the effort to ask the question
"what products are available for $need?"

If I'm on a website and begin searching, give the site the ad revenue.

~~~
tylerhou
> Ads are inherently psychologically abusive, targeting your insecurities and
> exploiting sex and basic instinct to move product.

This is a pretty wild claim. Most ads I see are relatively tame (like the
“Build on AWS” and iPhone X ads I see around San Francisco), and I don’t see
them “exploiting sex or basic instinct.”

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Ads targeted at women almost universally target their vulnerabilities in
subtle ways, many of which are culturally cultivated and manipulated by
marketers. Consider how the food industry plays on weight anxiety: "light",
"guilt free" (why should anyone feel guilt over eating?), "sinful",
"temptation", "fear X". All the foods are "out to kill you" or at least make
you "fat and undesirable". It's all manufactured, alarmist fear-mongering
designed to sell stuff. It works. Very few people see through this game.

This then extends to other industries. Chocolate is heavily marketed to women
as a "decadent" "indulgence" for those times you want to let loose the
strictures of life. So the diamond industry cooks up a way to sell crap brown
diamonds specifically to women as a way to treat themselves with "chocolate"
ice. No man required so you can express your feminism in full force. Go girl
power!

This changes the very language we use. Decadent no longer has its original
meaning of severe depravity any more because advertisers co-opted it in the
mid-70's to apply whenever you eat a candy bar. Now it's just a bon mot
women's pulp lit. sprinkles in every few paragraphs regardless of the topic.

[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=decadent+choco...](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=decadent+chocolate&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1940&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cdecadent%20chocolate%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdecadent%20chocolate%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDecadent%20Chocolate%3B%2Cc0)

~~~
true_religion
Firstly, none of those examples are subtle. I'm not sure when the actual words
fear, temptation, sin and guilt were redefined to be 'subtle' manipulation,
and these words are literally used in the advertisements.

Secondly, the indulgence food industry doesn't care about cultural
inclinations in the way you argue. They didn't set up a culture of considering
fatty or carb rich food bad for one's health, or sinful. They'd be happy if
everyone considered eating cake to be a wonderful thing, that rich, famous,
inspirational people do in great quantities.

> Decadent no longer has its original meaning of severe depravity any more
> because advertisers co-opted it in the mid-70's to apply whenever you eat a
> candy bar.

Sin based language has been fading in intensity for generations. We have a
show on the Disney channel celebrating "evil" during Christmas.

However the association of candy bars and decadence didn't come from
advertisers originally. Gluttony is a _deadly_ sin, and for puritan American
settlers indulging in such pleasures of the flesh outside of special holy days
would have been seen as downright decadent.

~~~
musage
> Firstly, none of those examples are subtle.

Who mentioned subtle? That's not even moving a goalpost, that's conjuring one
out of thin air.

> However the association of candy bars and decadence didn't come from
> advertisers originally.

Again: so? The point is they _use_ it. The point of many ads being "inherently
psychologically abusive" stands, and I count the space wasted on sophistry to
try and wriggle out of that as further damage caused by it.

~~~
mort96
> Ads targeted at women almost universally target their vulnerabilities in
> subtle ways

That's who mentioned subtle.

------
jcrawfordor
When I worked as an intrusion analyst, I worked on a lot of content to detect
domain generation algorithms (DGA) that are sometimes used by botnets and
other malware for more robust command and control. Over the last couple of
years this has become increasingly frustrated by a lot of websites using
algorithmically generated domain names in order to evade adblocker blocklists.
Domains like "djbvueiabjqkna.com" are increasingly just some major news
website delivering their banner ads.

------
doesnt_know
I'd be happy to install an extension that blocks all sites/content that
consider viewing ads a prerequisite for accessing their content.

I run an ad/analytic blocker, and I will never turn it off. I also understand
that content creation and hosting costs money. If you're not a company that I
already give money to (bank, insurance, other meat space service) then I
accept the ad-for-content relationship and choose not to view the content.

The biggest problems are that I can't scale randomly adding domains to a host
file, and it's difficult to know the intent of content creators/owners
regarding ads.

It would be nice to have a signal, maybe a html tag in the header or something
to state the intent regarding ads. I would set my browser/an extension to
honor it and block access to content instead of accepting ads.

~~~
Matheus28
Honorable, but 99% of the people don't care. They just want their free content
with no ads.

(numbers completely made up on the spot)

------
makecheck
Interesting how the response of sites with terrible user experiences caused by
ad tech is not to say “oh, how can we change our ads so people will accept
them?” but rather to find ways to make their user experiences even more
horrible, e.g. popping up _new_ unwanted interruptions accusing you of having
an ad-blocker.

Hey big web sites, here is the solution, and I won’t even charge you for it:
_stop making terrible user experiences_. I am _not trying to block your ad_ ;
I am _blocking your carelessly-written malware-laden code_ , your _obnoxious
pop-ups_ , your _auto-playing videos_ , your _shove-in-my-face-at-the-worst-
time messages_ , your _unreasonable consumption of my mobile data_ , and
_everything that is making a simple article difficult to load_.

I’ll even tell you how to fix this: make more simple text ads, or images that
are not animated and not peppered with distracting colors. Make the first
paragraph of every article a nice little blurb telling me more about a company
that pays you to advertise for them. Put some cute ads in muted colors inline
with the content. Create a couple simple links to things that cost money that
could support you (apps, T-shirts or whatever). In short, don’t be a complete
jerk to the people you apparently “need” to help maintain the costs of your
site.

~~~
danso
> _“oh, how can we change our ads so people will accept them?”_

If a single website -- say, your local or regional news site -- overhauled its
ad experience to become more user-friendly, how would you even notice, if
their ad server was added to your ad blocker's blacklist?

~~~
wetpaws
Maybe not use 3rd party banner systems infected with cancer and malware code.
Adblock systems are not an AI, they just operate on a database of known,
obnoxious and annoying shit.

~~~
nol13
Or privacy badger that does behavior based blocking. Somehow all the ads are
still blocked though. :/

(or is that what this article is about? fiine i'll read tfa)

------
dhimes
As I've said many times I don't mind ads, but I block trackers. What these
websites need to understand is that this is the market in action. We can
bemoan trackers. We can legislate against them (at least in principle). But if
WEBSITES were to LOSE MONEY if as a result of using trackers and therefore NOT
USE THEM then the companies hoarding our data would have to find another
business model or go out of business.

Using ad/tracking blockers is the morally correct choice if you want the
market to handle this.

~~~
rplnt
> As I've said many times I don't mind ads

Have you seen the web without an ad blocker though?

~~~
dhimes
I definitely agree that some sites are better than others. I guess I should
clarify- in _principle_ I don't mind the concept of showing me ads to pay for
a site. I _do_ mind the concept of tracking me.

In my view site-related ads have a higher probability of being relevant to me
than search-engine ads.

~~~
dhimes
Came back to add: For the first time ever, I was watching a youtube vid that
was _interrupted_ to play an ad.

Ugh. I hope it doesn't go that way. I don't even know what the ad was for.

------
aaronchall
In the beginning, I tried to avoid ad-blockers in the beginning out of
consideration for the sustainability of the content providers.

It took one site for me to start using ad-blockers.

Facebook: they persistently were showing me ads for online MBA programs when I
already had completed a better brick-and-mortar one.

I recall that I tried complaining and got no response. For some psychological
reason, that did it. I installed an ad-blocker on my and my wife's laptops and
never looked back.

If the big sites had been more conscientious about their ad strategy (and
specifically allowing people more control over what shows up on their screens)
we might not be in an escalating technological war over ads.

~~~
dhimes
I've actually tried telling the company that purchased a useless ad that it's
wasting its money- to no avail. I still see ads for something I won't re-
purchase for five years or so.

------
leeoniya
the irony on full display (at the linked article) in chrome devtools / record
perf timeline and network log.

incognito: 4.4mb, 7000ms scripting, 365 requests, onload: 7600ms

with uMatrix (no third party shit): 612kb, 190ms of scripting, 56 requests,
onload: 500ms

this is on a 300MBit connection

~~~
PhantomGremlin
The linked article is highly readable and loads very quickly simply by
disabling all JavaScript on the site. Which I do by default. Thank you
NoScript.

~~~
freedomben
This is the only way to live. Been doing it for years and while I do end up
whitelisting a lot (especially on a new browser) it is so much easier and less
annoying than dealing with the ads and crappy scripts.

------
ravenstine
Y'know, you _could_ not force multiple tracker scripts and obtrusive ads on
me.

Stupid bastards.

The sad part is that anti-adblocking may work in their favor because the
average person isn't going to go as far as to stop using certain websites or
turn off JavaScript. It may get to that point with me, though. I already
refuse to use most websites that try to block my ad blocker, autoplay videos,
open modals too early, etc.

It's not about ads, but the types of ads that are presented. There would be
backlash if the types of ads we see on the internet were equally as plastered
everywhere in real life, but for some reason we've just got to deal with it on
the web.

I generally don't disdain people for doing things for a living, but I'd openly
thumb my nose at developers and anyone else involved in thwarting adblockers
and tracking blockers. Talk about a sisyphean job that helps nobody except one
of the slimiest industries to exist.

A lot of people would be willing to pay for web content; Patreon and the
wealth of content on YouTube are a testament to this. But websites that let
you pay to remove ads have a problem, and it's that they don't use a unified
system to manage subscriptions. The user is somehow supposed to manage what
sites they're subscribed to. It'd make more sense if news sites, for example,
could integrate with a service where you could manage your subscriptions to
these sites as well as more content.

------
wdn
Without adblocking, the web is unusable for most sites. Full page ads, video
ads that follow you while you scrolling, popup, malwares, bitcoin mining,
tracking, etc...

TBH, the only solution is browser makers put out an ad acceptable standard.
However, with Google's revenue base on ads, I doubt there will be any change
to it until someone come along and disrupted the browsers.

~~~
belorn
Its like email. Email without spam filters is unusable for most people. Scams,
fraud, malware, targeting of vulnerable people in society. At some point
people have enough and the market falls into even further decay. The web is
where email were before 2000, still somewhat usable without a blocker but has
reached the breaking point for a lot of users.

The major difference between email and web advertisement is that the web has
so much more money invested into the system, so the browsers and the biggest
advertisement system that exist is trying to save the market by ad acceptable
standard. Will be interesting to see if they can do what email advertisement
could not. Personally I doubt it, as email, scam, and fraud is remains
something which the publishers refuse to take responsibility when
distributing. Practically every country in the world has advertisement laws,
except that none of them is followed on the web.

------
donatj
HN in the same breath:

\- We miss the old internet of independent creators.

\- We love ad blockers.

The rise of the second has in no small part injured the first. Money is a big
incentive for independent creators, and removing it from the equation has a
chilling effect.

------
borplk
I recently saw one site that said "It looks like you are using an ad-blocker.
So you must wait 10 seconds.".

And had an overlay with a countdown.

~~~
eeereerews
Maybe they're getting paid per unit of user suffering.

~~~
Ajedi32
Or maybe they were using a cryptocurrency miner during those 10 seconds as a
substitute for ads.

~~~
borplk
That kind of setup doesn't work.

They will keep it honest for the first 24 hours of rolling it out.

Then it will creep from "during those 10 seconds" to "the entire time".

------
_ph_
I wish, instead of fighting Ad Blockers, they would try as hard to fix they
way they run ads. Not to mention the sites, which only exist to display ads
and practically don't have their own content except for clickbait headlines.

A side comment: while blocking ads might reduce revenue for sites, it also
means the advertiser has to pay for views by people who wouldn't click on the
ads anyway.

~~~
tdb7893
The thing is that ad blockers don't often don't discriminate between
acceptable ads and unacceptable ads and just block everything. Even if you put
a lot of effort to make your ads better most people will just block them
regardless.

~~~
_ph_
Yes, that is the collateral damage inflicted by participating at the current
ad model far to long. However, for sites who really want to change, this isn't
a real problem. First of all, if you don't serve ads via "ad networks" but as
part of your hostet content, I don't think the ads are getting blocked by
default. Also, if a site with true content and regular readers has a proper ad
model, they can just ask their readers to whitelist their site. If you don't
just ask because you don't want to get your ads blocked, but at the same time
can tell your readers why this won't be a problem for them, I think many would
whitelist the site - if whitelisting is needed at all.

~~~
tcd
Yeah, any site that pops-up "pls whitelist us!!" gets an instant X on the tab
from me. It sucks, but I will never tolerate ads of any kind, no matter how
good or bad. To me, they are done, along with tracking on the web (including
mobile).

Oh, and before you scream at me, what about people that simply disable JS,
which is basically how all of this works anyway.

I'm not entitled to a free web, I get that, but ads are a failing revenue
model due to years of sustained abuse, and that damage is not going to be
reversed ant time soon.

~~~
_ph_
I would accept ads as the price of a web without paywalls, if they behaved
like printed ads: being static, without user tracking, just selected by the
relevance of the content they are placed in. Then ads might not only bring
revenue to the publication but might be genuinely interesting to me.

------
marban
I'm not opposed to ads per se but simply the extra workload it puts on the
browser. What baffles me though is the across the board negativity and Robin
Hood-like mentality here from people who are, to a large part, directly or
indirectly monetizing their work by means of advertising.

------
threatofrain
I find that ad blocking is a must for older relatives, and I think anyone
managing technological access for the elderly ought to also be installing ad
block.

Advertisers love to scare old people in every way, and then peddling them scam
solutions and pills.

------
LeoPanthera
Oh, the irony.
[https://i.imgur.com/uplpnxv.png](https://i.imgur.com/uplpnxv.png)

~~~
antimatter
Can someone explain to me why they want to show you the ad even when they
don't care if you look at it, let alone click on it? Are advertisers still
paying for just showing the ad?

~~~
betterunix2
Yes, because just seeing the ad is effective in many cases; for example, brand
advertising.

(Edit: note that even though you may not look at it directly, it is still
effective)

------
lainon
Discussion of said paper:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16012403](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16012403)

------
strooper
While these anti ad blockers may succeed confusing pattern matching ad
blockers, how are they going to work against domain/IP list based (i.e. hosts
file) ones?

------
tinus_hn
If they would go back to ads hosted on their own servers they likely wouldn’t
get blocked. That means the ad network doesn’t get to track the users though.

------
minikites
Given that banner ads are a major malware vector, I'll disable my ad-blocker
when sites take responsibility and reimburse me for the time and money spent
repairing computers affected by the malware they inevitably end up serving.

------
Overtonwindow
And I will continue to deploy anti-anti-adblock measures.

------
leeoniya
> It turns out that many ad providers are offering anti-blocking tech in the
> form of scripts that produce a variety of “bait” content that’s ad-like —
> for instance, images or elements named and tagged in such a way that they
> will trigger ad blockers, tipping the site off.

you don't need a provider to help detect ad blocking in most cases. just serve
a script from your server called `ads.js` that modifies some global js
variable or does an ajax post to some endpoint indicating it was served....or
"pixel.gif".

------
sixtypoundhound
If you're in a niche with decent prospects for contextual advertising, there's
an easy way around most ad-blockers.

Set up a small piece of editorial content and embed some affiliate links into
it.

~~~
jasonkostempski
If I came to a site, liked what it was about, noticed it didn't get any hits
by uBO and saw an affiliate link with text (no images hosted elsewhere) like
"Do you need AAA batteries and would like to support our site? Click Here",
it's very likely I would click the link if I will need the thing any time
soon. It doesn't have to be related to the content of the page or fit the
genre of the site, it doesn't need to try and guess exactly what I need at
this very second or prey on my insecurities. Just links to basic necessities.

~~~
user5994461
To be fair, some contextual amazon recommendations would probably fare better
than most stupid ads.

~~~
jasonkostempski
Thats exactly the edge of the cliff everyone jumped off so many years ago.
Even if they don't have to drop in a third-party JS snippet on their site to
get that feature, now you have to question the motives of the author.

------
globcal
I have always been against ads and misguiding Internet users. Ads should be
strictly regulated and the Internet should be completely free and open, it is
that simple.

~~~
nsebban
>Ads should be strictly regulated and the Internet should be completely free
and open

While I completely agree with you on both points, I'm afraid both things that
are mutually exclusive :(

------
reacharavindh
I wonder why the major websites are not going for the old way of "self-hosted"
ads where the ad networks buy a space in the website and the website shows it
at that space from their own domain and it is harmless.. That I'd consider
allowing in my laptop.

It's not the ads themselves that make me run to the blockers. It's their
creepiness and tracking. If they're just images shown same to everybody, then
I'm okay.

~~~
InternetUser
But the millions of people working at news websites and at ad companies need
to feed themselves and their families. What do you have to say to them?

~~~
reacharavindh
I think I was not clear. I meant to say that instead of hitting the users with
creepy ads that the users block anyway or have developed a "mental ignore",

May be the ad companies can sell harmless image ads that content publishers
can serve from the same domain as the content is. No tracking, no user
customizations. The user knows what they click. Why would millions of people
working at ad companies go out of business in the above scenario?

The ines that are writing creepy user tracking code will have to go. But, I
don't sympathize with them. They will find some Tyler's meaningful to do with
their skills.

Imho, just because millions are doing/depending on the creepy stuff doesn't
justify their presence.

------
dingo_bat
I'm also taking silent ad-blocking measures. So I think it's fair.

------
williamstein
I wish I could view a version of Hacker News in which ALL links to articles
that are behind a paywall are just hidden from me. I would just rather not see
them at all.

------
mikequinlan
Ad blocking seems like a possible application for machine learning, to
distinguish between ads and content.

Anti-ad blocking also seems like a possible application for machine learning,
to distinguish clients that are blocking ads and those that are not.

In a battle between the two it seems like the anti-ad blocking side will win.
They have resources (big companies with lots of money and server farms, versus
small developers and browser-adons) and incentive (earning money versus
improving my web experience).

I use an ad-blocker but I am not optimistic about the future of ad-blockers.

~~~
aethertron
If anti-ad-blocking countermeasures compel ads to become undetectable as ads,
then they would, it seems, become non-popups, non-animated, silent, and not
mess with webpage layouts. So, less annoying. That outcome looks like a
significant victory to me.

I am still optimistic about ad-blocking. Because the client system has the
final say for how websites are displayed.

------
smashingfiasco
I use an ad-blocker and have since 2011. To get around broken/hidden content,
I just copy/paste the link into Terminal after $lynx. Works almost every time.

~~~
dhimes
I do this too for some sites.

------
uallo
This article got me thinking. There should be an ad company without any
tracking. And the only company that I would actually trust with this is
Mozilla.

------
sharpercoder
I wish content suppliers would listen more to clients. Clients want more
content without ads, so why not invest more into offering content without ads?

~~~
ISL
Content suppliers would like to eat. Many clients don't want to pay for
content, and nobody has yet figured out how to make micropayments blossom.

~~~
imgabe
Here's a hint: if nobody wants to pay for what you're selling, sell something
else.

~~~
Thorncorona
If anybody listened to your advice then search engines, stack overflow, web
forums, news agencies, and Reddit would simply disappear.

~~~
executesorder66
Or be replaced by open source alternatives.

And if you are wondering why they haven't already, it's because
google/stackoverflow/reddit etc. are already providing the service for 'free'.
So as soon as they shut down, someone else will make an alternative.

~~~
IronKettle
> So as soon as they shut down, someone else will make an alternative.

They exist already. They're mostly horrible.

I pretty religiously use DDG, but even then I probably use the !g operator
every third search or so.

Reddit's already almost entirely open-source IIRC. People have used it to make
alternatives. Check out Voat, you can see the alternative in action (you might
not like what you find, though).

~~~
executesorder66
They're horrible becuase not a lot of effort goes into them. If there's no
alternative, then they will drastically improve.

Voat is bad becuase of the users. Not becuase it is an alternative to Reddit.
If all Reddit users switched to coat, it would have a pretty similar culture
and content, becuase it will have the same users.

I also use ddg but I haven't used a !g in over a year.

~~~
IronKettle
> They're horrible becuase not a lot of effort goes into them.

And not a lot of effort goes into them because there's no money to be made off
e.g. a Reddit clone without doing the same things Reddit is doing. A vicious
cycle.

> If there's no alternative, then they will drastically improve.

Ah yes, monopolies (virtual or otherwise) are well-known for drastically
improving their products.

> Voat is bad becuase of the users. Not becuase it is an alternative to
> Reddit.

Alternatives are often created by people with strong viewpoints, e.g. Voat.

> If all Reddit users switched to coat, it would have a pretty similar culture
> and content

This makes a lot of assumptions, namely that the admins of Voat wouldn't quash
that (and there's little reason to believe they wouldn't).

------
nkrisc
At this point use of an ad-blocker for me is no longer a question about ethics
or business models or the like, but about security.

I use an ad blocker because ad networks serve malware. I'm sure they don't
mean to, but they do, so I block them. I'm no longer concerned with their
intent, but concerned with what is actually happening.

------
yilugurlu
IAB is already providing a tool to detect adblockers.
[https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/AdBlockDetec...](https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/AdBlockDetection)

~~~
dawnerd
Cool so my adblocker will detect their script and block it too.

------
forgotmypw
All the more reason to use NoScript and close the tab if the site doesn't
render.

------
jakeogh
starting at the DNS level makes things much smoother:
[https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsgate](https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsgate)

------
dpedu
When a site asks me to turn off my ad blocker, I read this as "please trust us
not to serve annoying or unsafe ads, and pay for us to do so."

Trust? Me pay for it? Pass.

------
snarfy
I use uBlock. When I get a page that pops up "We see you are using an ad
blocker...", I hit Q and edit the page until it works again.

~~~
cbcoutinho
How does this work? I'm not in webdev so I don't know the ins and outs of
browser editing, is it really possible to only accept a portion of a website
and get around those things? Wouldn't this also be useful for getting around
pay-to-view sites as well?

~~~
iaml
Those types of limitations can be implemented either client or server -side.
When it's clientside, removing overlays from DOM can easily circumvent
paywalls and such, but when it's server side, there's nothing you can do.

~~~
snarfy
They usually don't send you the content for a paywall without a login. But
adblock detection is another story. They need to render the ad to detect that
it's being blocked. They could use some js to do this before downloading the
rest of the content, but they usually don't.

------
paulie_a
So i now have two choices: mentally blacklist these websites and when I
forget, actively make sure to click every stupid ad possible.

------
danjoc
The solution is to use an ad block that clicks all the ads, like Ad Nauseum.
Then I'm happy and the publisher is happy.

