3 ms·

I would like to see someone challenge ads and/or ad blocker blockers in court. They're a huge waste of resources especially on mobile: bandwidth, battery life,

by feld 11y ago

I would like to see someone challenge ads and/or ad blocker blockers in court. They're a huge waste of resources especially on mobile: bandwidth, battery life, etc. Bandwidth is very expensive on mobile especially outside the USA. This uninvited use of your resources is stealing. I think you could make the case that all of the resources wasted by visitors is more valuable than the website is generating via ads (or losing from being blocked). There would be many hurdles to cover especially due to all of the technical details (you requested a resource, they just served it) but I think you can argue that when you click a link to an article the user intends to request the article not the junk they're forcing you to have with it. It actually would be nice if Google ranked pages by page size or had some way to tell you what you were in for by clicking on a link in your search results...

cwyers 11y ago
It's not uninvited, you're requesting the website.
- gadrfgaesgysd 11y ago
  Perhaps some distinction between domains could be made. The law should/could be interpreted in a way so that a website belongs only on a certain domain. Then access outside of it would be uninvited?
  - cwyers 11y ago
    I mean, I feel like outlawing cross-domain site access in order to shut down online advertising is like burning the house down while you're still inside it to avoid taking out the trash.
    - gadrfgaesgysd 11y ago
      Hyperbole. Cookies were banned in European Union, e.i. only made available if the user agrees. Then it is up to the user to white/black list sites. The same could be made for external domains. Most blockers already support that. It is already happening. What we need is merely making it mandatory by law.
- feld 11y ago
  You're not reading what I said. I covered that: > you requested a resource, they just served it Again: If you tell me a link will take me to very specific content (eg, a news article) I expect to receive only that content. Surprising me with other content is not welcome. Maybe it would be easier for you to relate to if the unwelcome material I'm forcing you to download is porn, gore, or malicious? Ads are equally unwelcome and you shouldn't be allowed to force someone to receive them. This is why it would be great for search engines to analyze all of the elements on a page and rank those with less javascript and smaller page load higher than those with tons of junk...And if a website is entirely javascript it should go at the bottom of the bin, because so much can be hidden and we don't need to play cat and mouse games with search engines... When you have a 500MB data plan and a single news page loads 50MB of junk, that's 1/10th your allotted transfer for a few KB of text! THIS IS CRIMINAL. I'm getting the feeling nobody here has ever read RFC 1855? I think it's just as relevant now as back then when tailored towards mobile users and the current way we consume content. > Don't send large amounts of unsolicited information to people.
aroch 11y ago
They did in Germany, Adblockers won: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/27/german-broadcasters-adblock-rtl-prosiebensat1-eyeo http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/27/german-broadcas...

by feld 11y ago

cwyers 11y ago

It's not uninvited, you're requesting the website.

gadrfgaesgysd 11y ago
Perhaps some distinction between domains could be made. The law should/could be interpreted in a way so that a website belongs only on a certain domain. Then access outside of it would be uninvited?
- cwyers 11y ago
  I mean, I feel like outlawing cross-domain site access in order to shut down online advertising is like burning the house down while you're still inside it to avoid taking out the trash.
  - gadrfgaesgysd 11y ago
    Hyperbole. Cookies were banned in European Union, e.i. only made available if the user agrees. Then it is up to the user to white/black list sites. The same could be made for external domains. Most blockers already support that. It is already happening. What we need is merely making it mandatory by law.
feld 11y ago
You're not reading what I said. I covered that: > you requested a resource, they just served it Again: If you tell me a link will take me to very specific content (eg, a news article) I expect to receive only that content. Surprising me with other content is not welcome. Maybe it would be easier for you to relate to if the unwelcome material I'm forcing you to download is porn, gore, or malicious? Ads are equally unwelcome and you shouldn't be allowed to force someone to receive them. This is why it would be great for search engines to analyze all of the elements on a page and rank those with less javascript and smaller page load higher than those with tons of junk...And if a website is entirely javascript it should go at the bottom of the bin, because so much can be hidden and we don't need to play cat and mouse games with search engines... When you have a 500MB data plan and a single news page loads 50MB of junk, that's 1/10th your allotted transfer for a few KB of text! THIS IS CRIMINAL. I'm getting the feeling nobody here has ever read RFC 1855? I think it's just as relevant now as back then when tailored towards mobile users and the current way we consume content. > Don't send large amounts of unsolicited information to people.

aroch 11y ago

They did in Germany, Adblockers won: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/27/german-broadcasters-adblock-rtl-prosiebensat1-eyeo http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/27/german-broadcas...