5 ms·

From the comments: > Peter Dahlberg > we, the publishers, get the full blame from our readers. That's because you are to blame. As far as I know nobdoy forces

by a3n 10y ago

From the comments: > Peter Dahlberg > we, the publishers, get the full blame from our readers. That's because you are to blame. As far as I know nobdoy forces you to use those shitty ad networks. Look for a honest way to finance your business and don't whine. That actually makes a lot of sense. As long as Google et al. are making money from this, they have no incentive to change. Google, the automated rainbow monolith, in particular doesn't have any incentive to even listen. But if publishers take the apparently extremely inconvenient step of using other networks, this sort of shit might get cleaned up. EDIT: Perhaps I should have said "other buyers;" these problems seem closely associated with the nature of ad networks. The problem for me as a user, is how would I know the difference that such a site has, and then know that I can whitelist it?

kbart 10y ago
"The problem for me as a user, is how would I know the difference that such a site has, and then know that I can whitelist it?" Simple. Write that in big, bold letters at the top of your site. You know, the same place where that autoplay video ad usually goes.
- makomk 10y ago
  A site I sometimes frequent has a big, bold banner at the top asking people to disable adblock and claiming it doesn't use audio ads and other annoying ads. It's also the site whose video ads that autoplayed with sound finally prompted me to install an adblocker after that last upgrade. The problem with claims like these is that they're not trustworthy anymore.
  - kbart 10y ago
    If you don't trust a publisher, there's no reason to whitelist it anyway. Dealing with any business entity always involves some amount of trust: a trust that your order will be fulfilled, your card details won't be misused, your news stories are real, milk from a local market is not spoiled etc. A business that abuses this trust doesn't stay long.
volatilitish 10y ago
One of the problems there, is Google has locked this down. Chrome and Firefox warn users if they visit "deceptive websites", and disallow it. It's touted as part of their "safe browsing feature". What it means in practice though, is that if you use another ad network, and that ad network has an advert that Google dislike, they will block your website on Chrome,Firefox and Safari also uses it now I believe. They won't just block the advert, they will block your whole website. Getting unblocked takes ages, and is a complete pain, because google will not tell you which advert it objects to. So it's not a simple case of "Use other networks", because Google have thought about that, and locked it down. It's a big risk to use another ad network, because Google might just decide to block your website. The fact that Google now controls what websites users are allowed to visit, should ring alarm bells with everyone. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be reported on.
- mercer 10y ago
  > What it means in practice though, is that if you use another ad network, and that ad network has an advert that Google dislike, they will block your website on Chrome,Firefox and Safari also uses it now I believe. They won't just block the advert, they will block your whole website. Getting unblocked takes ages, and is a complete pain, because google will not tell you which advert it objects to. Does this actually happen? And if so, what about the advert does Google dislike? And if there is no good reason for this, how does Google get away with it?
  - Tyr42 10y ago
    It's usually a legitimately harmful ad. Malware, adware or other bad stuff. But these slip through quality control of ad networks, even when they don't want them.
    - volatilitish 10y ago
      It's worse than that IMHO. They dislike "deceptive" adverts. So for example, if it's an image, saying "download" then Google will block your website. Who knows, maybe in the future they'll start banning websites that advertise gambling or other things they dislike. Now I do think that adverts like that are irritating, and deceptive, but should the website that happens to be using an ad-network, that allowed an advertiser to upload an image that says "download", be blocked so that users cannot access it from Chrome and firefox? Of course not. Censorship in browsers is just not a good thing going forward. And pretty much every ad-network (Even adsense) has problems keeping out bad adverts. I don't see why Google should penalise website owners for an advertising-industry-wide problem. IMHO It should be investigated by governments, as it's a clear case of using their muscle to retain their absolute monopoly of online advertising.
marcosdumay 10y ago
> and then know that I can whitelist it? Don't bother. Your ad-blocking software does not block inline ads anyway, and this is a requirement for them being non-harmfull.

by a3n 10y ago

kbart 10y ago

"The problem for me as a user, is how would I know the difference that such a site has, and then know that I can whitelist it?" Simple. Write that in big, bold letters at the top of your site. You know, the same place where that autoplay video ad usually goes.

makomk 10y ago
A site I sometimes frequent has a big, bold banner at the top asking people to disable adblock and claiming it doesn't use audio ads and other annoying ads. It's also the site whose video ads that autoplayed with sound finally prompted me to install an adblocker after that last upgrade. The problem with claims like these is that they're not trustworthy anymore.
- kbart 10y ago
  If you don't trust a publisher, there's no reason to whitelist it anyway. Dealing with any business entity always involves some amount of trust: a trust that your order will be fulfilled, your card details won't be misused, your news stories are real, milk from a local market is not spoiled etc. A business that abuses this trust doesn't stay long.

volatilitish 10y ago

One of the problems there, is Google has locked this down. Chrome and Firefox warn users if they visit "deceptive websites", and disallow it. It's touted as part of their "safe browsing feature". What it means in practice though, is that if you use another ad network, and that ad network has an advert that Google dislike, they will block your website on Chrome,Firefox and Safari also uses it now I believe. They won't just block the advert, they will block your whole website. Getting unblocked takes ages, and is a complete pain, because google will not tell you which advert it objects to. So it's not a simple case of "Use other networks", because Google have thought about that, and locked it down. It's a big risk to use another ad network, because Google might just decide to block your website. The fact that Google now controls what websites users are allowed to visit, should ring alarm bells with everyone. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be reported on.

mercer 10y ago
> What it means in practice though, is that if you use another ad network, and that ad network has an advert that Google dislike, they will block your website on Chrome,Firefox and Safari also uses it now I believe. They won't just block the advert, they will block your whole website. Getting unblocked takes ages, and is a complete pain, because google will not tell you which advert it objects to. Does this actually happen? And if so, what about the advert does Google dislike? And if there is no good reason for this, how does Google get away with it?
- Tyr42 10y ago
  It's usually a legitimately harmful ad. Malware, adware or other bad stuff. But these slip through quality control of ad networks, even when they don't want them.
  - volatilitish 10y ago
    It's worse than that IMHO. They dislike "deceptive" adverts. So for example, if it's an image, saying "download" then Google will block your website. Who knows, maybe in the future they'll start banning websites that advertise gambling or other things they dislike. Now I do think that adverts like that are irritating, and deceptive, but should the website that happens to be using an ad-network, that allowed an advertiser to upload an image that says "download", be blocked so that users cannot access it from Chrome and firefox? Of course not. Censorship in browsers is just not a good thing going forward. And pretty much every ad-network (Even adsense) has problems keeping out bad adverts. I don't see why Google should penalise website owners for an advertising-industry-wide problem. IMHO It should be investigated by governments, as it's a clear case of using their muscle to retain their absolute monopoly of online advertising.

marcosdumay 10y ago

> and then know that I can whitelist it? Don't bother. Your ad-blocking software does not block inline ads anyway, and this is a requirement for them being non-harmfull.