5 ms·

Why don't more publishers try to detect the ad blockers with stuff like this? https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock And t

Why don't more publishers try to detect the ad blockers with stuff like this? https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock And then they could throw up a page that says "Sorry, AdBlock must be disabled to view this content"

eru 11y ago
Ad blockers could become smarter in return.
- mtgentry 11y ago
  I see, so as long as the code can be looked at, it can be circumvented?
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    No. So long the code is executing on an uncontrolled device, then you cannot guarantee it'll execute how you intended. So if you make a device, like an iPad, seal it to prevent hardware tampering, and ensure no user-triggerable bugs exist, you're all set. There's also remote attestation, like Intel SGX might start to bring. But on existing general-compute devices like PCs, it's a hopeless battle.
    - eru 11y ago
      And even on a sealed iPad, a user could just use a piece of cardboard to cover the portion of the screen showing the ad.
  - gregmac 11y ago
    In a way. An extreme could be not loading content until the ad is loaded, and there is some type of check to verify that it did actually load (not blocked). If someone is determined enough, they could simulate the ad being loaded (eg, maybe it actually IS even loaded, but the DOM element is hidden in one of dozen different ways which the ad-loaded-verification code doesn't check for). Essentially the problem boils down to running code (HTML, Javascript, CSS, and even Flash) in an untrusted environment (the user's browser). The site sends the user bits of data to be displayed, but there's ultimately no way to know if the user's browser ACTUALLY displays those in the browser window, let alone to the user's eyeballs. As a content provider, you can get very, very clever, but you can never get to 100%, and there will always be a motivated user to work on an adblocker that circumvents everything. It's really not any different from DRM (as someone else in thread pointed out). The movie/music/TV/games industry has spent billions of dollars coming up with various schemes of DRM, yet you can still download basically anything (stripped of its DRM, of course) within days of release, if not earlier.
executesorder66 11y ago
Because you can block adblock killers with adblock. So what's the point?
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Additionally, anything more aggressive than DuckDuckGo's "Please turn off your ad blocker, or tell others about us, thanks!" will really upset the people who use ad blockers.
chrisfosterelli 11y ago
It's a cat and mouse problem, almost in the same nature as DRM. You create an ad-block detector, and someone will create an adblock that can evade it.
pinaceae 11y ago
because then readership will go down, with less chances of link sharing, positive word of mouth. see your readers as hostile and well, you get what you deserve. daringfireball, kottke, reddit - all fine with ads. other sites are completely unusable, especially on mobile. good riddance.

eru 11y ago

Ad blockers could become smarter in return.

mtgentry 11y ago
I see, so as long as the code can be looked at, it can be circumvented?
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  No. So long the code is executing on an uncontrolled device, then you cannot guarantee it'll execute how you intended. So if you make a device, like an iPad, seal it to prevent hardware tampering, and ensure no user-triggerable bugs exist, you're all set. There's also remote attestation, like Intel SGX might start to bring. But on existing general-compute devices like PCs, it's a hopeless battle.
  - eru 11y ago
    And even on a sealed iPad, a user could just use a piece of cardboard to cover the portion of the screen showing the ad.
- gregmac 11y ago
  In a way. An extreme could be not loading content until the ad is loaded, and there is some type of check to verify that it did actually load (not blocked). If someone is determined enough, they could simulate the ad being loaded (eg, maybe it actually IS even loaded, but the DOM element is hidden in one of dozen different ways which the ad-loaded-verification code doesn't check for). Essentially the problem boils down to running code (HTML, Javascript, CSS, and even Flash) in an untrusted environment (the user's browser). The site sends the user bits of data to be displayed, but there's ultimately no way to know if the user's browser ACTUALLY displays those in the browser window, let alone to the user's eyeballs. As a content provider, you can get very, very clever, but you can never get to 100%, and there will always be a motivated user to work on an adblocker that circumvents everything. It's really not any different from DRM (as someone else in thread pointed out). The movie/music/TV/games industry has spent billions of dollars coming up with various schemes of DRM, yet you can still download basically anything (stripped of its DRM, of course) within days of release, if not earlier.

executesorder66 11y ago

Because you can block adblock killers with adblock. So what's the point?

nitrogen 11y ago
Additionally, anything more aggressive than DuckDuckGo's "Please turn off your ad blocker, or tell others about us, thanks!" will really upset the people who use ad blockers.

chrisfosterelli 11y ago

It's a cat and mouse problem, almost in the same nature as DRM. You create an ad-block detector, and someone will create an adblock that can evade it.

pinaceae 11y ago

because then readership will go down, with less chances of link sharing, positive word of mouth. see your readers as hostile and well, you get what you deserve. daringfireball, kottke, reddit - all fine with ads. other sites are completely unusable, especially on mobile. good riddance.