6 ms·

In response to ads, people install ad blockers. In response to ad blockers, sites install ad blocker blockers. In response to ad blocker blockers, Reddit adds

by bemmu 10y ago

In response to ads, people install ad blockers. In response to ad blockers, sites install ad blocker blockers. In response to ad blocker blockers, Reddit adds ad blocker blocker blocker.

GhotiFish 10y ago
Personally, I place my bets that if enough content providers start deploying ad blocker blocking, then clients should be able to respond. I think in a war between ad's trying to assert a user has seen an ad, and clients trying to view content, so long as the client owns the computer, the client will win. That's why I hate walled gardens so much. I'm convinced it was a preemptive shot in this war.
- _lce0 10y ago
  > so long as the client owns the computer Is Moore law against this? A possible future scenario could be one were technology becomes so cheap that Apple/Google/Facebook .et all, starts "lending" their own hardware for free so people can access their _open_ walled-garden flavored internet. Projects like of RPi/Arduino bring me hope that this wont ever happen, at least to us.
jasonkostempski 10y ago
The first response should have been people install link removers to sites with invasive ads and paywalls. Ill-behaved sites would change a lot quicker if they knew lots of people weren't even seeing/posting links to them. Something like that would effectively remove junk from a users entire internet experience. A natural search result to wsj.com wouldn't appear, a link in a web based email reader wouldn't appear, a link in a web based RSS reader wouldn't appear. They would hate that.
- ultramancool 10y ago
  This would never work in practice though. Ad blocker users want the content, they just don't want the junk. They don't want to have to go out of their way to find content elsewhere. The point is to just get it done. I'm barely willing to exert extra effort to find content in a format I'd prefer and my less technical parents for example certainly aren't at all. If we didn't have ad blocking, they'd just be dealing with ads and I'd be dealing with a lot more malware infections. I'm not going to suggest someone use something that breaks so many common interactions. It's already at a point where I have to add Anti-Adblock Killer to prevent them from turning off ad blockers. Please don't ask to make it worse.
beachstartup 10y ago
sites will probably install ad blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker, i.e., prevent referrals from reddit. it's an arms race!
MoreTuple 10y ago
3 should be: In response to add blocker blockers, ad blockers install ad blocker blocker blockers. then onto your number 3 :)
thebaer 10y ago
At step 2 the site gets their JS disabled. :)

by bemmu 10y ago

In response to ads, people install ad blockers. In response to ad blockers, sites install ad blocker blockers. In response to ad blocker blockers, Reddit adds ad blocker blocker blocker.

GhotiFish 10y ago

Personally, I place my bets that if enough content providers start deploying ad blocker blocking, then clients should be able to respond. I think in a war between ad's trying to assert a user has seen an ad, and clients trying to view content, so long as the client owns the computer, the client will win. That's why I hate walled gardens so much. I'm convinced it was a preemptive shot in this war.

_lce0 10y ago
> so long as the client owns the computer Is Moore law against this? A possible future scenario could be one were technology becomes so cheap that Apple/Google/Facebook .et all, starts "lending" their own hardware for free so people can access their _open_ walled-garden flavored internet. Projects like of RPi/Arduino bring me hope that this wont ever happen, at least to us.

jasonkostempski 10y ago

The first response should have been people install link removers to sites with invasive ads and paywalls. Ill-behaved sites would change a lot quicker if they knew lots of people weren't even seeing/posting links to them. Something like that would effectively remove junk from a users entire internet experience. A natural search result to wsj.com wouldn't appear, a link in a web based email reader wouldn't appear, a link in a web based RSS reader wouldn't appear. They would hate that.

ultramancool 10y ago
This would never work in practice though. Ad blocker users want the content, they just don't want the junk. They don't want to have to go out of their way to find content elsewhere. The point is to just get it done. I'm barely willing to exert extra effort to find content in a format I'd prefer and my less technical parents for example certainly aren't at all. If we didn't have ad blocking, they'd just be dealing with ads and I'd be dealing with a lot more malware infections. I'm not going to suggest someone use something that breaks so many common interactions. It's already at a point where I have to add Anti-Adblock Killer to prevent them from turning off ad blockers. Please don't ask to make it worse.

beachstartup 10y ago

sites will probably install ad blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker, i.e., prevent referrals from reddit. it's an arms race!

MoreTuple 10y ago

3 should be: In response to add blocker blockers, ad blockers install ad blocker blocker blockers. then onto your number 3 :)

thebaer 10y ago

At step 2 the site gets their JS disabled. :)