www. O S N E W S .com
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
On ad-blocking
By Thom Holwerda on 2015-09-19 14:37:44

Let's talk ad-blocking.

With the arrival of iOS 9, ad-blocking is coming to mobile in a big way, and it's causing a lot of talk all over the web. It is highlighting the internal struggle some feel about the practice, but also the hypocrisy of some of its staunchest proponents. So far, it seems like the real 'bloodbath' isn't taking place where people thought it would be - namely, publishers - but among personalities.


Read more...
 Email a friend - Printer friendly - Related stories
.
Read Comments: 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-50 -- 51-60 -- 61-70 -- 71-71
.
The elephant in the room
By _dev_null on 2015-09-19 15:21:15
Why would anyone want someone else to see an AD, if they don't want to?

The objectives of Ads seems lost in all of this. Why should I look at Ads if I will never be persuaded by one to buy anything. Let those who rely on Ads for their decisions view them. I can understand the outrage only if a third party blocks the Ads without explicit consent. Like if an ISP blocks Ads to its subscribers or an OS blocks Ads to its users. But I find it silly when websites display messages saying "please view our Ads because we need the money", not unlike a TV station saying "please don't go to the wc, or turn off your TV for the next 30 seconds because we need the money".

If your primary business is making money off people viewing Ads, whether they buy the products or not, then find a way to incorporate them into your content, that can not be filtered. Those who love the content more than they hate the Ads will continue to come, the rest will find other sites and everyone will live happily ever after.

3rd parties should not interfere with my web experience without my explicit approval, and websites/content providers should not care what I do in my own home with content they've delivered to me.

The problem is not Ad-blocking.

Edited 2015-09-19 15:23 UTC
Permalink - Score: 4
.
RE: The elephant in the room
By kwan_e on 2015-09-19 15:33:48
> 3rd parties should not interfere with my web experience without my explicit approval

But your web experience won't exist if the people making the content can't get paid by the ads they serve. At this stage, unless a better solution can come along, ads are a necessary evil.

At this stage, I think the least that can be done is to stop making ads in Flash or in any way animated.
Permalink - Score: 4
.
My position on ads is simple
By BeamishBoy on 2015-09-19 15:40:41
I can't trust where ads come from due to ad-brokerage networks. And since I can't trust them to a degree acceptable to me, I choose to block all adverts.

I've only ever experienced two instances of malware in my twenty years or so of running Windows. Guess where they came from? Yes, that's right: third-party adverts running on websites that I visit every day.

It sucks that I have to block ads and deny these sites revenue, but I value my security and my time more than anybody else's business. Until that changes, I'll continue blocking every ad I can.

(The plague of "sponsored content" is of course an even more insidious one but that's a whole different post.)
Permalink - Score: 12
.
RE: The elephant in the room
By leos on 2015-09-19 15:41:55
> Why should I look at Ads if I will never be persuaded by one to buy anything. Let those who rely on Ads for their decisions view them.

That's the funny thing, no one thinks they are influenced by ads, and yet all the research shows that you are.

Face it, ads influence your decision making whether you are aware of it or not. Next time you are faced with a decision to buy something, you will be subconsciously drawn to the ones you've seen before in advertising.

Advertisers aren't idiots, they know exactly the value of showing you those ads.
Permalink - Score: 5
.
How to get around ad blockers
By cannikin on 2015-09-19 15:43:48
I'm surprised this hasn't happened already, but it seems like the ad networks could do two things to get around all ad blockers right now:

1) Have sites create CNAME records to the ad network image serving delivery networks. Now the ads are coming from cdn.theverge.com instead of adwords.doubleclick.net. So the ads themselves can't be blocked without blocking all other assets on The Verge. Ad networks can (and probably will) be able to upcharge for this.

2) Create server-side proxies for the tracking scripts. Rather than serving ga.js from Google's servers you serve a similar script from your own server. Rather than sending the analytics back to Google directly via the JS you send them to your own servers. The data that comes in then gets sent to GA via API calls. Tracking services, or third parties that make this software, will DEFINITELY upcharge for it, making them even more money. (Someone building this software right now and letting the big publishers know about it while they're most frightened is probably going to make a TON of money.)

So it seems like the web we all know and hate could be back in six months or less if the ad networks and tracking services took these steps. And there'll be no blocking them this time.

As a web developer this solutions seems pretty obvious to me...am I missing something? How come I'm not hearing this theory more often?
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE: My position on ads is simple
By dgoemans on 2015-09-19 15:48:41
Disable flash. This is what i did a few weeks back. Html5 ads cannot contain malware, since by design, Html/Javascript can't access anything on your pc/phone.

Edited 2015-09-19 15:55 UTC
Permalink - Score: 1
.
Comment by Luminair
By Luminair on 2015-09-19 15:48:47
> better ads are not a way to combat ad-blocking

THOM: If there were better ads that didn't fuck up my browsing experience, I wouldn't have gone out of my to find an ad blocker. Every time I install a new browser I just browse the web like normal. Then I get frustrated and need to install an ad blocker. AGAIN.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE: Comment by Luminair
By Thom_Holwerda on 2015-09-19 15:52:57
> > better ads are not a way to combat ad-blocking

THOM: If there were better ads that didn't f--k up my browsing experience, I wouldn't have gone out of my to find an ad blocker. Every time I install a new browser I just browse the web like normal. Then I get frustrated and need to install an ad blocker. AGAIN.


OSNews has moderate ads. We do our part.

Yet you still install ad blockers.

Because far too many others don't do their part.

My point, made.

Edited 2015-09-19 15:53 UTC
Permalink - Score: 5
.
RE: The elephant in the room
By Luminair on 2015-09-19 15:53:57
> The problem is not Ad-blocking.

Good point. These companies want to have their cake and eat it too while fucking you up the ass. I will stop using ad blockers when ads start being jpegs. I will not tolerate the exploitation of my own system to deliver neon fucking flashing lights to me. I will block it or I will use one of the other million sources for information that is not an obnoxious pile of garbage.

I think these companies should be getting paid directly by people in micro-transactions. That's fairly paying for work. But nobody will pay for a sleazy site that advertises unwanted crap. To get to the future where people pay for content, the content must be valuable.
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE[2]: My position on ads is simple
By Beta on 2015-09-19 15:58:22
> Disable flash. Html5 ads cannot contain malware, since by design, Html/Javascript can't access anything on your pc/phone.
Except when then can: exploiting browser security issues. tracking cookies. crashing your device from webgl exploits. poking holes through https→http. Writing large content to localStorage. etc.

The only way an advert avoids being malware is not needing to run code on your device.
Permalink - Score: 8

Read Comments 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-50 -- 51-60 -- 61-70 -- 71-71

No new comments are allowed for stories older than 10 days.
This story is now archived.

.
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
WAP site - RSS feed
© OSNews LLC 1997-2007. All Rights Reserved.
The readers' comments are owned and a responsibility of whoever posted them.
Prefer the desktop version of OSNews?