> I work for a major publisher. Ad-blockers are starting to hurt our revenue big time.
No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs. That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing.
> We're doing a redesign now. Manager says that we should just discourage the users of Firefox (not optimizing for Firefox, and poor UI) from visiting our website as they bring a loss.
But that'd just bring chrome users who use ad-block.
> Edit: They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium. And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too.
Just a datapoint: if you "discourage" my browser, I go away and don't come back. Same with EME - I will not need your efforts in my life.
I've yet to find a site so great that I'll disable security or switch browsers to use them. (Work is an exception; somehow there's always some crappy site with needy requirements. But that's my employer's browser/computer, and the sites aren't major publishers.)
So I hope your manager did their cost-benefit well. I don't know too many publishers in a position to be selective about their readers. But I suspect I know who you're talking about, and won't personally won't miss any of their properties.
Atlassian products such as Confluence and Jira are some of those tools where I need to disable uMatrix completely to not get a crazy redirect loop when I try to login. Luckily we're leaving Atlassian quite soon, their sites have been such a pain to use for many reasons.
I've also seen this behavior when trying to use Jira in Firefox. It's been a few months, but I was pretty certain it was because I had third-party cookies disabled.
Don't really know what's going on with this. Now when I just disable uMatrix and ublock origin, I still get that redirect loop and I'm just not able to use Jira/Confluence. Luckily I don't need to use these products that often, so when I read something I just use our Slack bot to see the ticket.
We use confluence for internal documentation that we wouldnt want public. Can that be done with Github or is your confluence used for public documentation?
Phabricator is a reasonable alternative for tasks, repos, CI, and a simple wiki. Not as polished on the wiki side as confluence but overall a good free alternative to Atlassian.
From the linked post: "I tried telling him that the people who use adblockers are likely to share more content, which brings in non-adblock users. However, that is also falling apart as adblock users are bringing other adblock users."
>So the site's owners and employees should work for you for free because you're giving them exposure.
Yes, they probably should. It works in the retail world. Shop owners are usually happy to have non-paying customers in their store, and restaurant owners usually happy to have low-paying customers (i.e. they don't buy very much), to make sure their establishment "looks busy". Having a store or eatery with few or no customers is bad: it "looks dead" and can either scare away customers, or just not bring as many in. People are social creatures; when they see a lot of people in a place, they think that it must be popular for a reason, so having some customers brings in more customers, and some fraction of those customers will pay (or pay a lot more than the average), making the establishment profitable overall.
Internet publishers need to figure out a better business model if they one they have isn't profitable enough for them. Other businesses have long recognized that not all customers are equally profitable, and some aren't profitable at all, but they figured out how to make things work.
Until internet publishers reach that conclusion themselves, is it OK to force a different business model on them? To be clear, that "business model" is "I don't like the form of payment this business is asking for, so I'll take the merchandise for free instead."
When a business has high prices or a poor experience, it's customary to shop elsewhere, not to raid the store.
Yes, it is OK. It's my computer, and I can run whatever code I want to on it. If I want to run an ad-blocker, that's my business.
If the store doesn't want to give merchandise away for free, then they should stop doing that. When I make an HTTP request, it's just that: a request. Their server can either respond with the page, or not (or a different page). It's my business what I do with the code that the server sends me.
>When a business has high prices or a poor experience, it's customary to shop elsewhere, not to raid the store.
Poor analogy. These websites aren't actually selling you stuff, they're giving away stuff for free, and hoping you'll look at the ads.
If I go into a store that's handing out free samples along with a stack of paper advertisements to look at, and I take some samples and decline to take the ads (or I promptly drop the ads into the trash can), that's the store's problem, not mine. I have no obligation to look at their ads. It's the business's responsibility to come up with a workable business model.
Amazon makes 1000€+ revenue from me bying stuff there and still shows ads and tries to sell me credit cards..
Do you mind if i hide all this shit while bying stuff on Amazon?
I use about 5 non-commercial services which may show ads (don't know whether they do or not and not gonna disable adblocker to check). I would happily pay 10€-15€ per month for this services, if there would be good save annonymes payment service. I don't want to send my utility bill to paypal or give away my credit card number. Maybe crypto would be a possibility.
This sort of exposure is not the same as "working for exposure" discussed for artists; the ad-blocking visitor is not taking sole possession of the work, though they are consuming some site resources to read it. The other comment's point about ad-blocked folks being ad-blocked is much tighter on the issues.
If, for a random example since it's the one coming to mind, Marco Arment runs with an ad blocker (which he almost certainly does because he developed an early one for iOS) do you want him linking your piece? Unless you are one of the biggest news sites, you probably do. You might even be happy even if he linked it entirely to savage it.
On the other hand, do you want me? Probably not, I don't have that much reach.
Problem is figuring out who you've got, and even whether they're likely to offer that.
It really depends on their marginal costs of serving single customer. I would guess that for text content producers, it's costly to produce content and cheap to show it. Then it makes sense to price discriminate (to show ads / ask for subscriptions as much as you can), but not refuse service to anyone able to bring any kind of revenue, even accounting second-order effects such as more exposure.
You can still see cases where publishers choose to not show stuff to anyone, but that's an artifact of imperfect ability of the publisher to discern between customers that would pay and the customer's that wouldn't -- they don't want to make a mistake to disincentivize someone able to pay from paying. You can see when they try and allow access from FB shares for example.
This makes it completely different from asking actual people for free work: person's price of time is expensive and it's rarely useful to give it away.
I think it's pretty easy to detect adblockers and hide content for users with adblockers. Some sites do so and I leave immediately. It's not like their content is valueable for me. Usually I got there by accident (clicking random link in SERPs). Actually, it would be a cool setting in search engines to hide sites which don't allow adblockers - better for everyone.
As mentioned, if they put up ads that aren’t “blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs” then they could have more traffic.
Even now with an ad blocker many videos autoplay. I bounce immediately once I see a video being loaded.
Are you sure? Just the other day there was a whole thread complaining about ad block plus permitting static ads with clickbait titles. No blinking. No autoplay. And people still we're pissed.
That's apparently the manager's goal. Another way of stating it is that the manager apparently believes browser choice is a good proxy for identifying "bad" cattle.
I have serious doubts that it works out that way, but hey, they are free to use whatever signal they want for whatever purpose they choose. And we don't know their identity - who knows, perhaps running a low-pass filter on their audience's technical sophistication actually makes sense for them.
Agreed. Spend big cash on your UI if you want. I visit most sites in a "Reader Mode" or using the Brave Browser.
User Experience Tip: When I go to a site to read your article, I want to read your article. Not the pop up to subscribe to your newsletter. Not the side bar of related click bait articles. Not the ads you've sprinkled in every other paragraph. If you do this, your UI is already poor & not optimized. That's why people are using other tools to fix your UI.
And not the floating ‘dickbar’ of social media sharing buttons that I have never, since the dawn of Facebook or Twitter, actually used.
And no, I don’t want to install your frakking app. I will NEVER install it, so please stop asking me on every visit.
User-hostile design pervades online media, and they wonder why people use ad blockers. Hell, ad blocking isn’t even enough. Most of the time, I end up manually hiding all the useless clutter on news sites to make them actually usable.
years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs
I put up with this for years because I do believe that websites need a way to support themselves. But then a Forbes ad tried to download a virus.. and then I got another ad like it on WashingtonPost. These are big, dull websites.. the last place I would expect that.
I've been on the internet since the 90s. The ads have never been so aggressive (autoplay videos, in particular) or dangerous. I disabled adblock 6 months ago temporarily, and some sites are so loaded down with ads, my browser was unresponsive at points.
I now recommend everyone install ad block. I consider it similar to antivirus software in Windows. What else can I do? I really feel forced to do it. But they refuse to police themselves. It's gotten completely out of hand.
I guess you never visited porn sites in the late 90s. I think their model of opening up 100s of new windows was slightly more annoying that flashing gifs :)
Thanks.. I forgot about the popup ads. I think that (100s) was a little more rare than common websites opening a handful of popups... by the end of the session, you have a screen full of popups to close.
... and then popup blockers were invented.
Which is a good point -- advertisers abused a privilege (ability to open a window), and internet users adapted, their business model adapted, and they survived it just fine.
The same thing needs to happen again. I really feel it's the advertisers/websites that have once again abused a privilege. If they can't make money, they should look at themselves. No one signs up for internet service to check out the latest ad blockers. Users install them because they have to (just like why they installed popup blockers).
Yep. And there was a shock-site run by GNAA called "Last Measure".
Long story short, it uses HTML5 and flash exploits to put a hundred popups of various porn shock images alongside blaring over the speakers "HEY EVERYBODY IM LOOKING AT GAY PORN"
Unless you: ban flash, ban popups, and ban Java; you are going to have a bad time, and necessitate in rebooting to get it to stop.
I consider it a good tool to check for client browser hardening. Just beware, if you do search for it, it's absolutely NSFW. (Will not provide links)
But what if this publisher never did that? Ad blockers are taking off because of Internet-wide abuses (malware, privacy, gross obnoxiousness). It's a tragedy of the commons. Publishers never got together to regulate themselves so users are now doing it for them.
Why can't we have content based ads that are non-intrusive like television and old print media? Yeah they still interject in the middle of content, but not with the same level of deceit as what some ads and sponsored links do on web media.
I would disable my adblocker for sites that have ad campaigns not based on "gross obnoxiousness", privacy intrusions, and disregard for if an advertising party is serving up malware. I even miss advertising because I'm not exposed to things I might otherwise be interested in, but I won't accept it in the current form.
Exactly. In the old days of the web, the ads were banners on sites that had related content. Just like newspapers. Clickable is actually good.
Google had the idea to monetize search based on the hypothesis that if people are searching then they're looking to buy something. That didn't really work out: conversion rates are super low, even for free stuff- apparently less than direct mail. So things got more and more intrusive. And spammy. It's time to stop. It's really really time to stop.
Ha ok that's true. Ad breaks are long, superimposed ads exist, and sponsored content is a thing. Maybe "less intrusive" or even "predictable" is better language. I'm thinking of moments where you're scrolling and you get a pop-up that you can barely figure out how to close. You go to click a link and the page moves, whether by accident or not, because of an ad loading there. Autoplay ads (and other videos) that make me instaclose, etc. TV is at least predictable.
Quantity can be excessive, but a TV commercial break still guarantees N minutes of harmless unimportant content you can ignore. It only wastes time, and not always.
Instead, a computer ad costs you money for bandwidth, can be intrinsically annoying (e.g. playing sounds or manipulating the browser), and poses a direct risk of serious harm (malware, subscriptions, snooping/tracking, etc.).
From my POV, it's a race to the bottom. One publisher offered video ads so other publishers felt pushed to do the same.
There was a medium post here a few days ago about the eponymous extension "Adblock". Adblock offered advertisers a paid program ("Acceptable Ads") where their ads would be vetted and whitelisted. The blog post focused on the ethical and legal quandry of double dipping income (users and advertisers) but what you're talking about isn't unheard of.
I get that it's a race to the bottom, but lets redefine the bottom I guess. I'm afraid that as publishers react to the public being anti ads, we'll all forget the reasons ads became such an issue. We'll get more paywalls where self regulated respectable advertising may suffice.
Maybe that model won't work for some reason, I'd like to see some publishers talking about it though! It's either full on the google/fb tracking train or expensive monthly paywall.
The thing is, a paywall isn’t going to work out for most publishers either, because they’re not worth the money. Most “content” out there is marginal at best, deceptive clickbait at worst. Putting up a paywall is more likely to just end in people calling that bluff.
I for one, wouldn’t pay $20 for a month of Bloomberg, never mind $40. I won’t really miss them either. If Buzzfeed puts up a paywall... ok that’s fine, good even! Of course this assumes that people don’t just rapidly figure out ways to pirate content, and they will. Try to track me, I’ll use uMatrix. Try to paywall me, and I’ll remember how little you’re worth. The NYT and FT can paywall, and a few others are worth the money... most aren’t. How many sites would you be willing to pay for rather than just forget exist in a week?
There’s always piracy lurking in the background, waiting for companies to be venal or stupid enough to make the hassle of pirating less onerous than the legal option.
Publishers never got together to regulate themselves so users are now doing it for them.
Unfortunately, that may also prove to be a tragedy of the commons. If everyone blocks ads aggressively, ad-funded resources will need to find new business models or they won't be available any more.
> And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too.
I mean noone, absolutely -noone-, foresaw this coming nor warned about the slippery slopes of letting stuff like this into the standard in the first place.
Nope. Absolutely noone. This was a genuine surprise to all of us.
I still don't see it happening, outside of silos. There's no precedent for DRM'd content outside of silos (like much of the digital publishing ecosystem, especially with ADEPT and whatever Amazon use), unlike with video and audio (through plugins like Flash).
Unlike EME, there's a far stronger argument of "the web has survived without this for 25 years" (and yes, for better or for worse, I consider a plugin with over 99% market penetration as part of the web), and I think that still holds weight.
Based on my (limited) experience in a few media companies, the problem is not malice, but just a complete lack of understanding of 'digital'. I've worked on multiple projects that were really fun and good right up until we had to add various tracking tools and ads. They rendered the end product borderline unusable (which of course none of us or our leaders were bothered by because of adblockers).
And the problem of all this wasn't just that the end product was ruined. It also played a significant role in the exodus of multiple skilled developers that were sick of toiling away at stuff that would end up ad- and tracker-riddled monstrosities. Just that struck me as reason enough to stop blindly doing all that.
I think this is an arms race which the publishers have no hope of winning. Worst case I'll just have my own personal blocklist for the publishers which have this DRM crap. I actually do have an extension which just filters out sites from the Google search listing...
> Edit: They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium. And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too.
That's why we need to educate users, just like we're doing now about Facebook. They need to understand that this is the worst scenario possible for the so-called "world-wide web".
> That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing.
So you are on board with Google's acceptable ads initiative then?
What I find frustrating is that people (in aggregate, not individually) keep moving goalposts. First, it's about annoying ads and how they will accept good ads. When presented with good ads, it becomes about tracking and how they will pay for the subscription. When subscription is available, how it is too heavy handed and they want something more flexible like micropayments. When you get micropayments, it is about how they introduce so much friction and mental overload.
I have came to realize that people (again, in aggregate and not individually) just want stuff as cheap as possible; other reasons just seem like excuses.
I count that as part of website usability, but you are not wrong to point out it is the most egregious offense of ads whether or not they're "intrusive"
And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too.
This is where I fear EME is going.
Getting it in at all was the first step -- the sharp end of the lever.
My concerns regarding "locking up" the Web:
- Security. Ad networks continue to shovel exploits as well as a panopticon of data mining that gets sold off to dark patterns, commercial and governmental.
- History. We already have disappearing news and other content that is leaving increasing holes in the historical record. Who would have thought with this ever-increasing capacity to record and store "everything", we are becoming more blinded to recent events and public conversation.
(This goes for commercial media, as well. Seminal TV shows no longer available in their original format (music "rights"). Movies no longer so available (just leave it the fuck alone, Lucas). What happens when all you consume comes from central, centrally-controlled servers that can be "revised" at the behest of central authorities?)
- Usability. The other problem I have with ads et al., is that they do their utmost to grab all the attention. I find them too distracting to actually or effectively consume the content.
I remember back the the "early days" of the Web, most ads were static in appearance, and I actually clicked on a fair amount of them. Yes, given the nature of the Web, then, they were more technical. They also described things I was actually interested in. I'd read the article, notice an interesting ad along the way, and click it when I was done -- or maybe immediately, if it was of higher interest than what I was reading.
Now, ads do everything they can to make me look a them. I can't even pay adequate attention to the page, until I scroll them out of the viewport or otherwise obscure them.
That makes for a miserable user experience.
(And all too often, they play a game to "intrigue" me, instead of just telling me what they're about and why I'd be interested in that.)
Every time I read something on Chrome for Android I cringe. The web on my laptop and the web on my cellphone are completely different universes. One is enjoyable and usable. The other is a nightmare of blinking GIFs and misleading layout-breaking ads. I'm reminded of this fact every time I try to read something while commuting to/from work. If I ever felt any guilt about using ad blockers (hint: I don't), this would help erase it forever.
This is why I use Firefox on mobile. You can install Ublock Origin, just as on the desktop. Plus it has reader mode, which is a godsend for some websites who don't optimize for mobile.
In reader mode, do videos still download in the background (but just not visible)? I hate it when my mobile data being used up on stupid autoplay videos.
It is absolutely worth using a different browser on mobile.
Firefox Focus makes a great "default browser" for opening random links from apps, as it's always in incognito mode, very lightweight, and supports content blocking. Only real downside for me is that you are still contributing to webkit dominance, as it's chromium-based. Full fat Firefox on android is great too, though.
As a fully featured browser which supports extensions and has a good UI, Samsung's browser is astonishingly good and I believe open for anyone to use now, though again chromium-derived. I fear at this point the battle may be lost for alternate rendering engines on mobile, though.
If you're on Android, try a firewall-based system-wide adblocker like Blokada (https://blokada.org/index.html). It's very effective at blocking ads, including on mobile Chrome, and it's grandma-friendly (doesn't need root, nothing to maintain)
There is a "Brave" browser which is chrome with ad-blocker. But I prefer firefox on all mine devices because of syncing passwords, history and ability to send tabs from desktop to mobile devices.
> They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium.
Anyone told them yet that Chromium is open-source, so distributions can just flip that bit in the code?
> No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs. That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing.
I don't know what you read, but blinking GIFs and misleading links are only on sketchy or adult-themed sites.
As for the auto-play videos, that was a direct response to the declining value of print ads. If they can get people to play the videos, they can sell video advertising.
How hard is it to sell a fixed <img /> tag or any block of text within an article? Sell it as "this content will stay there for as long as the page is published". The problem is that every major publisher has bought into centralized ad brokers.
Google and Facebooks of the world sell the idea that they can personalize ads better than content producers and so everyone relies on their trackers and javascripts to build content business online. Publishers should know their audience better than ad servers.
This is what is killing the business: content creators stopped caring about their audience.
>Google and Facebooks of the world sell the idea that they can personalize ads better than content producers and so everyone relies on their trackers and javascripts to build content business online. Publishers should know their audience better than ad servers.
Part of the problem is that Google and Facebook actually can know the audience better than the content creator. A content creator only knows that the reader is interested in, say, cooking. Facebook and Google know most everything the reader is interested in, and what sort of ads the reader actually interacts with. They can use all of that information to maximize the chance the reader will click on an ad.
The problem now is that because of how effective Google' and Facebook's ads are, a single click on an ad is basically worthless. Someone who's trying to sell a product isn't going to pay 100 times as much per click to use a smaller ad network, they're going to go with whoever can give them the most impact.
I'm honestly not sure how true this really is. I don't do anything intentionally to screw with advertisers, aside from standard ad blockers, and the targeted ads I get from things which aren't ad blocked are just... eh?
I give Google a tonne of data, they know everything I search for, they know where I live and where I shop, they know how long I spend in a shop before buying something through android pay, et cetera. My targeted ads are still just junk.
Ads for websites I've visited because I've done work for them, products I've already bought, and stuff that seems completely unrelated seems to make up 99% of it. I guess the first category works as a "let's remind people the things they've used exist" in a coke kind of way, but why have Google been able to trick people into believing that this is 'effective targeted advertising'?
Targeted ads always seem to trail my interests. I search for a product, buy it, and then see ads for that product for two weeks. If Facebook and google want to show relevant ads they’ve got to figure out a way to be ahead and not behind my interests.
If I buy a smartphone on amazon, guess what they try to sell to me next? I'm constantly disappointed by tech giants ability to do their job: selling things to me. They don't even need these fancy machine intelligence stuff. A "switch case" could make bettere recomendations than the state of the art. But the highlight in recomentdation business is still: buyers who bought x also looked into y.
> Google been able to trick people into believing that this is 'effective targeted advertising'?
Because there was nothing before Google (or if there was it was even worse shit than what G was peddling).
And the game is still that. G doesn't have to do much, just beat/buy the next one.
And that's how FB got them, sort of blindsided them by that one trick, Sergei and Larry now hate them! You won't believe which one! Google lost the walled garden social network game. Users spend a lot of time with other users instead with content directly, so the network effect dominated.
Also, you're probably not the lowest common denominator, you're not the target audience for the usual ads.
Why do you think this increases as value? Back before targeted advertising, if I saw an ad for a kitchen gizmo on a reputable publication, I would know that the maker of the gizmo was serious and cared about the publication. Now the the ads are targeted, all I know is that the maker paid a shady ad network a couple bucks and I got caught up in their profile.
Value hasn't really increased here; in fact, I'd say that ads now are a lot worse in quality than they used to be.
The difference with targeted ads is only that users are more likely to click on them. It's driven the cost per click down, and made advertising dirt cheap.
In the old model of advertising, the gizmo maker put out an ad in a reputable publication, spending quite a bit of money to do so, and got a small number of high-quality leads. With targeted advertising, the gizmo maker blasts their ad out everywhere, and, for a small amount of money, gets a large number of medium-quality leads. Overall, I'd expect they'd get more sales with the targeted advertising, simply due to casting a wider net.
I'd like to push back on "Google and Facebook actually can know the audience better than the content creator".
This is the idea that has powered online businesses in the last 10 years, but I'd argue that just because conceptually Google can know me better than NYTimes the raise in ad blockers has shown that the ad distribution ecosystem doesn't really know their users that well.
I must be living in a very different world from the one where "Google and Facebook ads are so effective" that no other strategy is possible.
I wouldn't attribute a rise in the use of ad blockers to Google or Facebook. It's more of a reaction to intrusive ads, the sort where a video expands to cover the content you're trying to view. Most people (that is, average users, rather than technologically-inclined ones) don't care that much about tracking.
As far as Google and Facebook pushing other advertising networks out of business, it's not that they're so effective that no other strategy is possible. It's more that they're effective enough, and so cheap that other networks can't compete.
Is there research on how effective the Google/FB model is compared to content based? I wonder if fine grained tracking is even all that more powerful. Regardless, there must be diminishing returns and I wouldn't be surprised if we're there now.
This is great in theory, but the potential never seems to have come to fruition in practice. Google tries to figure out what I'm interested in globally, but what it tends to end up with are ideas that are either irrelevant, outdated, or inappropriate for my mood at the moment. In the best case, Google has figured out that I'm currently in the market for a new smartphone, but right _now_ I'm looking at car reviews, and what I want to see are good deals for the cars I'm interested in, not the new Samsung Galaxy model.
Compare this to a popular car review site I use, which seems to manage their own ads. You know what ad I'm shown when reading a review for a car? A deal on purchasing or leasing that car. This is something I'm highly likely to be interested in _now_, and if the deal is good- there's a decent chance I'll click on the ad.
When I'm reading a magazine, ads are often not just NOT an annoyance, but are actually part of the experience, because they're advertising things that are really interesting to the target audience of the magazine. There is a very small handful of websites where I will even glance at the ads not by accident, and none of these are using Google's ad network...
I used to work in the marketing department for a big news site in Switzerland some years ago. I wasn't involved much in normal ads, but building interactive campaigns, contests and such.
What you say is being done. Mostly in form of "native advertising" these days. But those articles tend to be written with virality in mind, not necessarily usefulness.
In my opinion, most of the worst ads come from remnant space advertisement. A middle to upper management person discovers some unused white space while browsing the site and asks the marketing department to fill with something that makes money. Repeat until the site is completely plastered.
But because those ads bring in so little in isolation, it is not worth it to have your own sales people trying to sell them. That is why they get outsourced. The publishers I met back then, did not like Google/Facebook, because it their opinion they took to big a cut. But it is either that, or not monetizing the space at all.
Another big problem is, the advertisement agencies developers who build the things to be included in websites, tend to be junior/intern level under massive time pressure. Practically no QA and little to no thought put into consequences by any of the involved parties.
Natural Language Processing could definitely allow for some context-dependent ads within an article. When reading something on the new C# 7, I'm most likely not interested in some tupperware I decided not to buy on Amazon a couple of weeks ago, but I might be interested in a couple of books on C# and might find these ads acceptable. Don't track me, track and machine learn content people consume.
It's being done. The whole recommendation systems market/community is growing at an enormous rate.
There are a few basic types:
- new user (no cookie/session), lands on the main page: show the most popular stuff
- new user, lands on a concrete product page: item to item recommendation (others who bought this also bought this)
- user with active session: try to match to previous sessions, try to figure out what's next for this session (and optimize for time spent on site, or total cart value, or max clicks, or who knows)
And of course there are simple text based algorithms, like a full text search engine combined with scoring/ranking, and then there's the new fancy DNN stuff, and matrix factorization in between.
This only holds true for publications with a very specific audience though and even then, it's not going to be optimal.
Of course if you have a purely tech oriented blog, or even better, one focused on a specific technology, then surely you can get decent results by partnering with one specific advertiser specific to that niche, but as soon as your audience gets more diverse, like the audience of your average run of the mill newspaper would be, you will be loosing out on a ton of ad revenue if you don't try to target your ads.
So while this is a cute idea, I doubt it is practical for any publication of noteworthy size.
I don't know whether it is practical or not, my argument is: knowing your audience is a crucial point of the content business (specially if it's "free"). If I'm a writer, a publisher, etc I need to know my audience. Outsourcing ads to third-party means I don't care (enough) about my audience.
Companies simply get better leads with tracking. You don’t really know about your audience when you are online, because there are so much traffic and so many users.
I heard and even understand the truth in that argument, it even worked well in the past 10 years. But I think the content business has reached a point where it needs a new solutions. Paywalling is only one of them.
Only if its annoying enough for someone to write adblock rule for that particular website and push it into popular lists (EasyList, Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list, etc).
Personally I only do it when my Mum asks me ;-) and never block native (siglent banner on eevblog)/regional relevant (small town website with static ads for local businesses) ones.
Ad blockers will block images that are standard banner ad size. Maybe a text ad has "ad" somewhere in it's in CSS. We do only internally hosted ads and non-JS text sidebar ads and they're happily blocked by all major ad blockers. Doing everything "right" is no defense.
I'm not saying you can't make ads completely indistinguishable from content but I also don't think that's the solution that we want either.
Some people just don't want ads. Paradoxically, the sites I care most about are the ones I want to periodically visit, and enjoy without the ads. So the ad blocker will have filters fine tuned for those.
Is that a sustainable business model? Well, no. There's a direct donation on sites nowadays luckily.
CSS classes and IDs match certain criteria, like being prefixed with "ad" or suffixed with "banner" and having a rendered size that matches an ad box (eg: 600px by 100px).
Firefox is a standards-conforming web browser. If some nincompoop puts a web page out there and my browser can't render it, I'm not going back. I make an exception for restaurant websites, because I want to see the menu and they all seem to have been defrauded by the same bad designer.
The rule of thumb for restaurants is the poorer the website, the better the food. Restaurants with Flash-only pages that haven't been updated for 15 years are the best. Also, the cleaner the bathrooms, the cleaner the kitchen.
I don't think it is. I don't use ad blockers, but I also don't come back to websites where I've had a bad experience. If you do something hostile, like auto-play video, I'm gone and I'm not coming back. It makes for a fairly serene web browsing experience.
> Manager says that we should just discourage the users of Firefox (not optimizing for Firefox, and poor UI) from visiting our website as they bring a loss.
Ah, right you are. That's what I get for skimming. I suppose this is the same strategy as using all caps in 419 emails. Savvy users are a waste of effort, better to chase them off early.
No, because the parent comment here is incorrect. They stated that they are using feature detection, and specifically mention user-agent as something they don't use.
I also intend on quitting web development if the web turns into a big DRM mess. Life's too short to conform to all the wants of ad tech and IP lawyers.
> Extension cannot mimic everything. There are far too many features. NaCl, other css values. Also we use obfuscated js to resist reverse engineering. There are like 100 features, and more in future that'll be chrome specific. Average time to reverse engineer a 10mb obfuscated js file is like a 1 month. We're safe for 10 years. I'm against this shit tho.
Not to be dismissive, but this sounds like he's trolling. One thing is not actively supporting one browser because «it's at the bottom of the list» and another thing is actively trying to detect it.
Also I don't think he understands what obfuscated JS means, and is he seriously talking about having a 10MB JS file? Just for a major publisher? For comparison: NYT's home page is 1.6MB, the whole document. The thing that totally gives it's trolling away is the 10 years «safe thing».
One time he (or she) is against that, another time he acts cocky like saying they'll now sabotage opera too (after being told it has a built in ad blocker) or bringing up existing DRM in a tone that is less like being sad those ideas are getting into web and more like he wants the same in html.
It also starts reasonably with just focusing on chrome and then goes to asking google for a html drm, asking google to help sabotage chromium users, blocking firefox using obfuscated 10 mb js even though the site works well on ie8, vague threats of html drm coming soon to end ad blocking in an accusatory tone, saying they do all this to cut costs because each page they send is 3 megs and ff users are freeloaders, etc.
Plus the weird title ('should we support' vs. 'we sabotage'), going with this to reddit instead of anonymously tipping fsf, eff or mozilla off (if he's already willing to leak that info and the fact he works there, the latter could remain hidden if he tipped these orgs off), etc.
Edit: oh, and since css and images are loaded via js (on which he also comments by saying that people using no script 'ironically make their job easier') wouldn't that 10 mb one cause a flicker (fast internet) or a broken website for several seconds (slow internet) during at least the first load uncached load? And 2-3 megs of content for the few freeloading ff users is too much or can't be cdn'd but pushing that 10 meg js to everyone and taking up time of web devs and business-y people (for lobbying for drm at google or wherever) is fine and cheaper?
Display ads are dead. They have been dying for over a decade. Video ads have picked up some slack but they too are being commoditized. These days, publishers are turning to the paygate model and commerce.
Anyone who thinks that ads can pay for publishing are fooling themselves into believing they are part of the top percentile of publishers for whom this works due to sheer impression volume.
There is also the opposite end of the spectrum where advertising works - niche publications by small teams.
In the Apple ecosystem there is Daring Fireball. John Gruber charges $6500 a week for one ad that appears on Monday on both the website and RSS Feed and a thank you post at the end of the week.
He also charges $5500 for three ads in each podcast.
It works for some, there is no doubt. I would believe that industry publications (transportation, forestry, etc.), and popular blogs, still make decent coin on selling print ads or sponsorships on the web.
It's different to the original post's comments. They are looking at a public audience with ad blockers.
Podcasts are a different affair altogether. I would love to see the numbers for those as I'm never in front of my computer when I listen to a podcast and I don't remember the ads long enough to followup even when I'm interested in the product.
Also, thanks for sharing that Gruber has a podcast!
I would love to see the numbers for those as I'm never in front of my computer when I listen to a podcast and I don't remember the ads long enough to followup even when I'm interested in the product.
It's not always about direct action, it's often about brand awareness. If you listen to a lot of podcasts, you'll know the first company you think about when you are in the market for:
- Mattresses
- Eyeglasses
- Creating a website quickly
- online backup
- shaving products.
- Mesh networking devices
It's an old joke that the definition of a podcast is "two or more white guys talking about tech sponsored by Squarespace".
Whether you act right then, when someone asks you to build them a website, your first thought is going to be to point them at SquareSpace.
Since the same sponsors keep buying ads on podcast and most of them have coupon codes to tell them where their customers came from, they have metrics that tell them the return on investment.
Oh jeez, don't tell podcast advertisers, but I read your list, recognized that I've heard ads for every one of those products repeatedly across multiple podcasts, but I couldn't remember any of the brand names except for shaving—and I think that's only because I recently got annoyed when a YouTuber I subscribe to started to advertise for Dollar Shave Club (I assume that's who you refer to) at the beginning and end of his videos.
But maybe advertisers are happy enough if I remember their name when I eventually go looking for, say, eyeglasses and recognize their name in the search results.
> Since the same sponsors keep buying ads on podcast and most of them have coupon codes to tell them where their customers came from, they have metrics that tell them the return on investment.
This is a good point and I would love to see the value of advertising on podcasts on the direct (custom links) and indirect (awareness) outcome.
Yes, and the recommendations are semi meaningful, even. Google and Facebook have no incentive to actually show you ads for good products, just ads you are likely to click.
> Ad reinsertion solutions exist for Chrome, but they also dont support Firefox.
"Ad reinsertion". You're trying to bypass the user's self-determination on the web. Good luck, bozo.
> They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium.
And now we see the real question: "Is there some way to lock our users into browsers that give more control to us than the users?"
By "Ad reinsertion", they mean the paid advertisement inclusion programmes of Adblock and Adblock Plus, which is opt-out and pretty shady in the first place.
They think that Adblock and Adblock Plus don't exist on Firefox, and that people who use uBlock Origin on Firefox will not use uBlock Origin on Chrome too if they were somehow forced to use Chrome.
No, they are talking about services such as Instart. Javascript that runs on the page, detects the advertisements are being blocked, does a redirect through Instart's proxy to insert hard coded advertisements, and redirects back. Instart only works on Chrome.
Firefox isn't to blame. Users that are proactive about their web browsing (hopefully a rapidly growing number) often choose Firefox because it offers the most control. These aren't the types of users that are going to switch to a different browser to render a random site, they'll just ignore the site. If that's what the manager wants, I think they're on the right path. Seems shortsighted to me, but they're still in the online publishing business, playing the same old cat-and-mouse game, trying to live off antiquated ad-tech, so I'm guessing they're not very forward-thinking.
Yes, it's worth "supporting" Firefox. Just like it's worth it to "support" a standards compatible web browser. I swear we're going backwards in time to IE6 days when everyone built for just one browser and forgot that others existed.
Do you really want Google to dictate how the web works? I don't. When Microsoft did this we lost _years_ of meaningful improvements and just recently got the ability to vertically center in CSS.
"I swear we're going backwards in time to IE6 days when everyone built for just one browser and forgot that others existed."
It's even worse than that. The Internet grew in the hands of engineers who cared about functionality and compatibility first, then about profitability. About two decades ago the industry started turning tables (and later the smartphone boom helped to achieve that goal even more). Now every big player is looking to build its own proprietary environment to get the most users on so that they're forced to use that player resources; this is precisely the mindset the world wide web openness fought against.
Sadly they're now fighting back: if yesterday a browser could help to surf 10 sites, today you need 10 apps, each one closed source and doing who knows what under the hood. And this monstrosity is slowly sneaking into the non mobile world hidden behind catchy buzzwords and fancy graphics. Using "the cloud" to store documents and important data seems so cool, but is not that different from going back to the 60s world of dumb terminals and big mainframes where the mainframe owner decided if, how and when the user could access to his/her own data.
Both engineers and users are losing control and quite frankly I have no idea of what to do.
As long as Google keeps pushing forward new useful features with Chrome, people won't care. Even more so if those new features get standardized within a few years. MS dropped the ball by resting on their laurels with IE6+ActiveX (plus the antitrust stuff scared them quite a bit) while the rest of the browser ecosystem innovated and standardized. If MS had instead kept leading the way, things could have played out differently. Instead I feel like we've gone back to IE6 days where there's one browser holding everyone else back, in this case mobile safari (and sometimes desktop safari) causes the most problems in things I work on. IE11 is more tolerable to support for me.
I still fight the good fight every now and again on respecting standards, though I get sad when it seems even the standards compliant browsers implement 99.99% of various standards but then each differ on the leftover .01%, leading to shims or workarounds for everyone. It's definitely better than it once was though -- http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/ is one of my favorite sites.
The biggest irony for me is the fact the new Reddit doesn't fully work for me in Firefox (all plugins / extensions disabled) there seems to be completely missing the ability to toggle / collapse comments from Firefox. Works on Chrome. Not sure who QAd those new changes but they missed one of the features I use most on HN and Reddit...
Reddit broke for me on Firefox whenever they moved to ssl permanently, hitting the back button always reloads the page rather then going back to the cached state it was in so comments show uncollapsed. HN doesn't seem to have this problem.
I think it is a reddit thing. I’m pretty sure I observed the same behavior when I used chrome (thought this was almost a year ago) and this still happens on my iPad using safari.
You can use old.reddit.com to load the old design or can also change it in your settings (if you are logged in). I have found their new design quite confusing so I reverted back to the old one for now.
Tbh I sometimes wish there was a website which uses reddit’s API to display all articles/images using HN design. No clutter, minimal JS and no random scrolling when going back/reloading.
Some friends and I have http://f6oclock.com (open-office mode: http://www.f6oclock.com/#ninja) for reading r/politics (a guilty pleasure). I like minimal UIs. Showing Reddit in an HN skin is a pretty funny idea so I might give it a shot tonight.
(It's named f6oclock because there was f5oclock but they made it suck...)
If that's what that is, I'm not a huge fan of that change. But it's hard to tell, I tried it from Firefox under Linux from different machines and get the same result.
> And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads
Good luck with that. You could render an article into a DRM'd video, and utterly destroy SEO, accessibility, readability, and the website's whole reputation.
"DRM for news articles" makes zero sense. Movie DRM works because HDCP decrypts the video on the display. ("works" - pirates got the private keys anyway :D) You can't DRM software on a general purpose computer. You can try, and it would be cracked soon. Even the best attempts (Denuvo) get cracked.
And after it is encrypted again "for" the display, the display decrypts it, closing the loop, and allowing the DRM to be at least more than trivially functional.
This is obviously pretty weird and stupid on many levels, but there is one interesting fact hidden in one of the authors responses. They ended up in this (really just incredibly stupid) situation because they use feature detection and non-standard features only available in Chrome (or WebKit maybe).
The Web works because no single vendor has absolute control over the platform, and the competing browsers can keep each other in check. Hell of a thing to watch people in such a hurry to throw that all away. No one would ever abuse a platform monopoly, would they?
(For disclosure, I work for Mozilla. But I wouldn't want us to control the Web, either: competition and open standards are key.)
Note that this is exactly why Firefox has resisted shipping with adblock on by default for years now. It's not just about websites deciding not to support Firefox, it's about websites like this one deciding to go out of their way to break on Firefox.
> Also we and some other publishers are even approaching google for full page html drm standard. This means adblock will have a hard time, as they cant modify the requests. Full page drm means that extensions cannot interfere with the page.
This is one of the problems with making decisions based on "data".
Obviously, the benefit of having users is not only in the profit from ads, but rather from having your site be popular, recommended to friends, posted in links in discussions, training Google's algorithms by people clicking on their search results, having people willing to subscribe to future paid services or buy future products, etc.
But since those things aren't measurable in the short term, they get completely discounted by naive businesspeople, with bad results like this.
It's worse than that, if you read more comments, they're actively breaking Firefox (reader mode, etc). It's not the IE era of benign neglect.
Some of the comments are helpful in building in a better business case, such as this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/8hha0r/is_it_worth_... . In summary /u/wedragon says that users have multiple environments and even multiple browsers. Damaging or disabling Firefox on the desktop may lose the profitable mobile side where the user may have Safari or Chrome.
The bigger problem is that publishers are loosing control over their advertisers. The reason why I block ads is that they turn great websites into horrible experiences.
Remember, the way ads work today is that the web site is delivered to your browser, and then ad networks' Javscript comes in and mangles the page to insert ads wherever the ad network pleases.
In the days of paper, editors laid out where the ads went in newspapers and magazines. There weren't obnoxious blinking ads that would move the text around while you were reading it. Now, publishers hand control over where ads go to the advertisers themselves. The publishers are in denial about the problem they created.
> The bigger problem is that publishers are loosing control over their advertisers.
I've never understood this. There are a lot of magazines that clearly spend considerable resources making their printed page look exactly how they want. Then when they publish that same content online, they apparently don't care at all about the presentation.
Matthew Butterick's great article Bomb in the Garden makes this point very well. It's from 5 years ago but I think it is more relevant today than ever.
> There weren't obnoxious blinking ads that would move the text around while you were reading it.
No, instead newspapers went for screaming headlines (big text, celebrities in bikinis) and ads went for whatever caught the attention most.
Don't idealize newspapers or newspaper ads, they're in the exact same market and were trying to optimize for maximum exposure and revenue just as much as websites are.
Computer savvy users are never going to accept the web flashing, blinking, popping, interrupting, lagging.... And there will only be more of us in the future when the new generation grows up.
Your revenue model is dying and you are trying to save it by making the web even worse. Its a race to the bottom.
That doesn't look to be the case. While the "net native" generation is more likely to turn to digital content than other media, studies show that computer literacy, in the sense of understanding the basic workings of a computer, is on the decline.
This isn't 2002. If you're writing a standards-compliant web page, you're already supporting Firefox (and all other browsers). Why go out of your way, investing the extra effort needed into not supporting a browser?
Here's the reality: Most people won't pay for most sites. I get that. I'm the same. I have subscriptions to a handful of high value sites (e.g., NYT), but most sites just don't deliver enough value to make that viable.
I could live with advertising if it were unobtrusive, useful, and didn't try to track me. Very little advertising is like that, so I block it. Yep, that means marginal sites will die. I can live with that.
It is still possible to sell magazines and other media. No one was promised that the web would be a perfect was to sell media. If it's only a good way to exchange information (for free), that is not a bad thing.
I don't think it is a tragedy if sites collapse that cannot find a viable way to serve me. I don't give a rat's ass about serving advertisers.
The real question for media publishers (one I've already experienced at a large sports agency): "is it worth supporting the web".
It is worth it, there's still a lot of traffic, but it's a different model and elegant, interactive browser experiences aren't the target.
Minutes spent, repeat, and quality traffic continues to move toward native apps. GDPR and ad-blocking represent increasing risk + decreasing revenue with the status-quo media web experience.
So the status-quo is becoming prioritizing search engines, social scrapers, and a well-designed URL funnel that pushes traffic toward your native app where you can still monetize with display ads, reliably autoplay video with client-side video ads, and push notifications that result in actual traffic.
There are strategies for monetizing on the web (server-side ad stitching, integrated marketing, pay-gates, hell - just buy traffic to your site that you know doesn't have ad-blockers) but sometimes it's counterintuitive to funneling traffic to native.
Ultimately it requires investment in Product/Creative/UX/Dev to define and sell-through a vision/strategy for web to decision-makers when those decision-makers are seeing numbers that suggest even the investment to define the web strategy is a poor investment - let alone investment in developing and maintaining it.
There's a bunch fo websites (Atlantic being notable) that tell me I'm using an ad-blocker and ask me to turn it off. I'm not. I'm using stock Firefox.
So, I guess their conversation goes:
> We block Firefox (but don't know that we do so)
> We don't see many Firefox users
> Why do we optimise for Firefox?
It's mildly frustrating that they block users for dumb reasons. (Again, I'm not blocking ads). But it's only a mild frustration - there are a gajillion places to get news that are better than Atlantic.
It's only enabled by default in Private Browsing. And it doesn't actively block cookies (they obviously do get cleared at the end of your Private Browsing session, though).
When ads stop tracking me, serving malware, and showing fake download buttons, I'll turn off my ad-blocker. Usually if there's a site I visit frequently, I try turning it off to support them. But if the ads are abrasive or misleading, I turn it right back on.
Here's an example of a non-skeezy ad provider which would not cause me to turn my ad-blocker back on.
https://www.buysellads.com
It can also push _paying_ customers away. There was a site I paid to use for a few years until one of their sister sites (which I only used infrequently so didn't have a paid membership for) started showing large auto-playing video ads in a way that was deliberately hard to block (div ids were 30-odd random characters). I ended up canceling my subscription soon after.
I don't use an ad blocker. I have JS turned off, thus don't see ads. When I encounter a website that's interesting enough to browse even though it does not work w/o JS (rare), I open it up in Chromium (which I actually keep around to use a couple web apps that I have to use). And every time I do that I realise what a huge piece of shit online publishing has become. Almost all websites that publish professionally are just overengineered crapware, viable only because the bubble that's the ads business. Luckily there's a sane subset of the internet that I can use without thouching all this crap most of the time. If their business model is failing due to us not turning around and bending over, let it be so. Who cares, apart from them?
This discussion makes me wonder why I haven't seen more server side ad solutions that render ads into a page in a way that's harder to detect or block. Of course, advertisers could find ways to abuse that too and then adblockers would have to up their game. I think the best strategy is to render a fallback into your page that looks like an image related to your content and then replace that image on they fly with unobtrusive ads that respect the user experience. If people block the adds they'll see the fallback which is an opportunity to plead your case to users and ask for donations, subscriptions or permission to show respectful ads.
Because that generally implies removing control from the ad networks. Those like to inject the JS so they control what is put in there; the view is put up for auction and whoever wins will get the ad. Second, some longer-living pages like to rotate ads over time.
But yeah, I don't get why things like ads and analytics aren't served via the host server.
A problem I can see with that approach is that code that is served from the content server would have to do browser fingerprinting before ads can be auctioned by the ad network.
In the current setup with third part tracking cookies, the ad network sees individual users. If you route everything through the content providers servers, then the ad network may have to work a lot harder to figure out who is who. And the ad networks have no incentive to do so (at the moment)
There have been attempts to render ads with the page. For example, Facebook and some news sites do it. It's just that it is bad UX to not clearly mark ads as ads. When Facebook launched sponsored ads and posts embedded in its feed, it was only a short while before DOM-manipulating ad blockers could block it because Facebook had to mark those "posts" as "sponsored".
That's a good point. But I think there are some ways around that which aren't too intrusive. If you just render a fallback on the server side with a message asking users to support you in some way, and then replace that fallback with your ads, you can mark the ads as sponsored without having to mark the fallback. And if you have image based ads, you could mark the image itself using server-side processing to add some sort of watermark rather than a DOM-based marker.
It strikes me in a weird way that power users are brought up in one of the comments as the main users of Firefox. It's obviously a major stretch to argue the counter-argument, that Chrome and others must be mostly used by casual users, but the idea that those people are somehow more accepting of bullshit UX is, well, just wrong. They are either even more frustrated, not knowing how to deal with it, or have already developed habits to sieve the noise out, definitely not bringing any additional advertisement revenue.
I recently switched from uBlock origin to using a hosts file (there are several going around; I got mine from http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/). This seems to work better, overall, although uBlock origin was quite good. Less fuss, smaller resource usage. I'm happy to view self-hosted ads, but don't feel bad about blocking connections to a list of sites that track, invade privacy, or worse.
Like in a Comic, 'seeking minimising differences'-user:
But buying/downloading runs in browsers - so the browser is like a shopping mall and the net-effect (of internet shopping) is: 'dying inner city shops, franchise shops, empty shopping malls...-but wait it happens in your community, hey! - abstract yourself (-;
I agree with the comment above. Most of the sites that exist to drive revenue from traffic (content farms and such) are essentially dispensable. If they don’t work I won’t be back. If it’s a service, there will always be a competitor. The only one getting screwed here is the business not taking care to support all would be customers.
A lot of the comments on the article remind me of the time people put those little gifs on their homepage to note that "optimised for Netscape Navigator" or "optimised for IE". Nice to see that Chrome is today's IE.
This is a totalitarian publisher's wet dream, to strongarm users to pay them or look at they ads whether they like it or not. If somebody's using adblockers, they're not going to be converted by your ads either way. If you introduce bothersome mechanisms preventing me from interacting with your website on my terms, I'm just going to leave and never come back.
This is exactly why we need Firefox and other browsers, so that Google can't dictate what the web has to look like. They'd like to ideally introduce a tracking id in everything you ever do everywhere, it's up to us to stop them.
Anyway, no matter what kind of mechanism is introduced, there will be an equal and proportionate response to mitigate it within a week. You can't force people to watch ads they don't care about, and that's it. The sooner you accept it, the smaller losses you'll incur.
No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs. That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing.
> We're doing a redesign now. Manager says that we should just discourage the users of Firefox (not optimizing for Firefox, and poor UI) from visiting our website as they bring a loss.
But that'd just bring chrome users who use ad-block.
> Edit: They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium. And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too.
Going to be fun :/.