3 ms·

> which site operators would likely lose I keep hearing people say that, but I really don't think that's how it will turn out. Adblockers rely heavily on patt

by mmebane 11y ago

> which site operators would likely lose I keep hearing people say that, but I really don't think that's how it will turn out. Adblockers rely heavily on pattern-matching to work: scripts loaded from certain third-party domains, resources in particular subdirectories, markup structured with predictable element IDs/CSS classes, and the like. There are ways to break all of these: first-party ads, either by directly hosting them or by proxying your ad network; media served via embedded data: URIs or hash-based URIs; CSS which is minified, and randomized every few weeks; etc. These techniques may not be widespread yet, but I'm sure they will grow in popularity as the adblocking war rages on. But hey, maybe ads will get a bit less egregious in the process.

isomorphic 11y ago
I don't disagree; ad-blocking will get tougher. First-party ads won't be trusted by the advertising industry, since it's "easier" to commit click-fraud. First-party ads for the originating site itself were never really the target of ad-blockers in the first place. (I mean, if you're surfing Amazon, you probably want to hear what Amazon has to say about Amazon.) Third-party ads will always be easier to spot. Finally, at least until advertising becomes thoroughly intertwined with content, it should be possible to block ads based upon their position relative to main content blocks. I.e., switch to blocking ads based upon behavior, and not URI/DOM regex. Edit: I should clarify that, unless you're a major publisher, you won't have the skills necessary to participate in the ad-blocking war. There will be more developer mindshare given to the ad-blockers than your minor site can afford. Sure, there will be public or private anti-ad-blocking libraries--but which do you think is more likely to be up-to-date?
lewisl9029 11y ago
I was actually thinking about this a while ago, but I couldn't figure out how to get around community-reported, site-specific element-blocking using CSS selectors (structural selectors, not id/class selectors, which can be easily defeated by randomization). You'd have to periodically change the placement of your ads and/or the layout of your site, and that's not really viable as a long term solution.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by mmebane 11y ago

isomorphic 11y ago

I don't disagree; ad-blocking will get tougher. First-party ads won't be trusted by the advertising industry, since it's "easier" to commit click-fraud. First-party ads for the originating site itself were never really the target of ad-blockers in the first place. (I mean, if you're surfing Amazon, you probably want to hear what Amazon has to say about Amazon.) Third-party ads will always be easier to spot. Finally, at least until advertising becomes thoroughly intertwined with content, it should be possible to block ads based upon their position relative to main content blocks. I.e., switch to blocking ads based upon behavior, and not URI/DOM regex. Edit: I should clarify that, unless you're a major publisher, you won't have the skills necessary to participate in the ad-blocking war. There will be more developer mindshare given to the ad-blockers than your minor site can afford. Sure, there will be public or private anti-ad-blocking libraries--but which do you think is more likely to be up-to-date?

lewisl9029 11y ago

I was actually thinking about this a while ago, but I couldn't figure out how to get around community-reported, site-specific element-blocking using CSS selectors (structural selectors, not id/class selectors, which can be easily defeated by randomization). You'd have to periodically change the placement of your ads and/or the layout of your site, and that's not really viable as a long term solution.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]