12 ms·

Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to

by lopatin 10y ago

Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?

ultramancool 10y ago
> If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair? I think "they're welcome to try" is exactly the right response here. Nothing is "fair" or "unfair", at least not in a way that advertisers or ad blockers care about. No matter what they do it's entirely possible to trick their scripts into believing I'm displaying ads, because they run not on facebook's servers but on my computer. Where I get the control.
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  > No matter what they do it's entirely possible to trick their scripts into believing I'm displaying ads I hope this is true. I still think Facebook can do much more devious things like having posts on your news feeds from friends which look like posts but are ads. Kind of like native advertising.
- paulmd 10y ago
  I'm just waiting for the day when websites are rendering themselves inside a DRM-protected container in an HTML5 page. That's where I see all of this inevitably heading. DRM-protected media extensions are almost uniquely positioned for this. They're designed around the abilities to uniquely identify the user and resist tampering. The only thing that's missing right now is interactivity.
  - krstck 10y ago
    Ah yes, because who doesn't want to return to the days of AOL's "channels". I think you're completely right, btw. After AOL, it only took a few years for websites to become rapidly Flash-based. It looks like we're going back to that again (not Flash, but same thing - black boxed).
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
In my case, I use social media to keep up with people I know, not to look at advertisements. Ads make me not want to be there (and I hardly ever am). For the follow up, I assume I agree with the parent post by reiterating that what Facebook does on its own site is its own business, but if the company lobbied for legislation that required people to look at ads online, then that would be a problem. Besides, if Facebook made the experience so detestable that people were willing to leave for another social network, then Google and every other college freshman would leap at the opportunity to be the next big thing.
gramstrong 10y ago
Facebook already owns my personal data and any content that I publish. Why should I also have to look at ads?
- SolarUpNote 10y ago
  What good is your personal information if it's not to show you personalized ads?
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    They can sell it to third parties, who can in turn show ads on other sites.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- supster 10y ago
  That data and content is (near) worthless if they can't serve up ads against it.
  - creshal 10y ago
    That's facebook's problem, not the user's.
    - untog 10y ago
      And Facebook is acting on that problem.
      - fwn 10y ago
        I don't think that this was questioned here.
    - omginternets 10y ago
hodder 10y ago
"Serious question: Why do you block FB ads?" Because I dont like looking at ads.
- delta1 10y ago
  It seems so obvious
- omginternets 10y ago
  I've said it before and I'll say it again: "if you [Facebook] want me to consume ads, make ads I want to consume". The thing is, this already exists and it's called native advertising. The trick is to create advertisements that, while endorsing a product, have real value for me. A simple example: a tutorial on doing XYZ with Docker on Google Compute Engine might (A) be relevant to my interests and immediately useful, and (B) incite me to use GCE. Ad-blockers block the scummy, bottom-feeder, AIDS-of-the-internet ads.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    I actually run a local-interest blog for my small city, and whenever I talk to people about it they're amazed I don't have ads all over the place. "How do you make money", "why would you run this site without making money", "you should be getting something for it", etc. They don't immediately realize that 90% of the content on the site is advertising, and I actually am getting paid for it. I'll write an article about whatever I want, in whatever tone I want, for free. But sometimes businesses want to set their own tone, or want me to write about something that isn't immediately interesting to me. Sometimes they want me to run a story before I would otherwise do so. And they'll pay me for that. Not a lot, but it generally covers the cost of hosting at least. I have an entire section, accessible from any page, that goes into my advertising policy and how businesses can contact me. Ads don't have to look like ads. And ads can give value, too. Did the local tavern pay me to run a story talking about their new 1/2 off drinks special every Wednesday? They sure did. But people clicked on it and read the article and then visited the bar and took advantage of the promotion. Not because they were tricked into doing so, but because it was interesting to them and they got value from it. And those people will come back to the site again tomorrow and read the next one, because my advertising provides real value to them.
creshal 10y ago
Users running adblockers likely wouldn't click the ads anyway, so I don't really see the problem. That some advertisers think they should pay by impression and not by click is their own stupidity.
- untog 10y ago
  > That some advertisers think they should pay by impression and not by click is their own stupidity. It's not. Ads can be entirely successful without a click - sometimes it'll just be a reminder of the brand's name the next time you are shopping for their product. "Users running adblockers likely wouldn't click the ads anyway" is a pretty naive view of how the ad industry operates.
  - ionised 10y ago
    > sometimes it'll just be a reminder of the brand's name the next time you are shopping for their product. All it does is make me avoid the product out of spite.
    - untog 10y ago
      Assuming you're consciously aware of what's going on. Maybe you are, but you wouldn't know if you aren't. You can't really claim to be immune to subconscious tricks.
    - robryan 10y ago
      This isn't what usually happens though. If advertising drove negative value to a brand over time it just wouldn't be purchased. Not many companies can take off purely on the quality of their product, especially in boring industries. I can't think of an insurance company which I learned about outside of widespread advertising.
    - type0 10y ago
      The Mere Exposure Effect does work though, probably more effectively than you realize.
- 10y ago
natrius 10y ago
When you allow targeted ads into your life, you're putting changes in your behavior on the market each time you touch a device. Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid. The market will find every flaw in your psychology that can be used to take money from your pocket. These flaws exist: Las Vegas is built on them. Targeted ads are the Las Vegas of the mind.
- johndavidback 10y ago
  That's all well and good, but a key distinction here is that you are using Facebook for absolutely no out-of-pocket expenditure. Going to Vegas costs actual dollars. I suppose a stark, diametric alternative to being forced to view targeted ads would be Facebook as a paid subscription service. It's the age old issue of 'Someone has to pay for this party.'
  - natrius 10y ago
    Facebook's profitability is not your problem. It's their job to figure out how to get paid. It's your job to protect your mind. Targeted ads are worse than gambling. We made sure everyone's aware of the dangers of gambling, but everyone's in the dark about targeted ads. These companies know what they're doing. If people want to portray ad blocking as stealing, so be it. Steal from them. They deserve it.
    - hsod 10y ago
      > Facebook's profitability is not your problem. No, but acting with honesty and fairness is. Facebook is asking you not to use their service if you are going to block ads. I think it's obvious that the "right" thing to do is to respect their wishes, not sneeringly defy them while using their resources and giving nothing in return.
      - _RPM 10y ago
        > Giving them nothing in return. You're giving them a lot, even if you don't click on ads or see ads. Is it not clear that your data is valuable? You're giving them personal information. Not that people that aren't developers care.
CaptSpify 10y ago
Because they are annoying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5JdX_iQ2Hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5JdX_iQ2Hk tl;dw: Advertisers are untrustworthy and act in bad faith. Once we give them an inch, they take a mile. If you met a person like that, would you continue to socialize with them? I wouldn't
findK 10y ago
"If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?".. Besides scrolling through your feed, is there much you do on FB? It's just a news aggregation site now.

by lopatin 10y ago

ultramancool 10y ago

> If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair? I think "they're welcome to try" is exactly the right response here. Nothing is "fair" or "unfair", at least not in a way that advertisers or ad blockers care about. No matter what they do it's entirely possible to trick their scripts into believing I'm displaying ads, because they run not on facebook's servers but on my computer. Where I get the control.

denzil_correa 10y ago
> No matter what they do it's entirely possible to trick their scripts into believing I'm displaying ads I hope this is true. I still think Facebook can do much more devious things like having posts on your news feeds from friends which look like posts but are ads. Kind of like native advertising.
paulmd 10y ago
I'm just waiting for the day when websites are rendering themselves inside a DRM-protected container in an HTML5 page. That's where I see all of this inevitably heading. DRM-protected media extensions are almost uniquely positioned for this. They're designed around the abilities to uniquely identify the user and resist tampering. The only thing that's missing right now is interactivity.
- krstck 10y ago
  Ah yes, because who doesn't want to return to the days of AOL's "channels". I think you're completely right, btw. After AOL, it only took a few years for websites to become rapidly Flash-based. It looks like we're going back to that again (not Flash, but same thing - black boxed).

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

In my case, I use social media to keep up with people I know, not to look at advertisements. Ads make me not want to be there (and I hardly ever am). For the follow up, I assume I agree with the parent post by reiterating that what Facebook does on its own site is its own business, but if the company lobbied for legislation that required people to look at ads online, then that would be a problem. Besides, if Facebook made the experience so detestable that people were willing to leave for another social network, then Google and every other college freshman would leap at the opportunity to be the next big thing.

gramstrong 10y ago

Facebook already owns my personal data and any content that I publish. Why should I also have to look at ads?

SolarUpNote 10y ago
What good is your personal information if it's not to show you personalized ads?
- alkonaut 10y ago
  They can sell it to third parties, who can in turn show ads on other sites.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
supster 10y ago
That data and content is (near) worthless if they can't serve up ads against it.
- creshal 10y ago
  That's facebook's problem, not the user's.
  - untog 10y ago
    And Facebook is acting on that problem.
    - fwn 10y ago
      I don't think that this was questioned here.
  - omginternets 10y ago

hodder 10y ago

"Serious question: Why do you block FB ads?" Because I dont like looking at ads.

delta1 10y ago
It seems so obvious
omginternets 10y ago
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "if you [Facebook] want me to consume ads, make ads I want to consume". The thing is, this already exists and it's called native advertising. The trick is to create advertisements that, while endorsing a product, have real value for me. A simple example: a tutorial on doing XYZ with Docker on Google Compute Engine might (A) be relevant to my interests and immediately useful, and (B) incite me to use GCE. Ad-blockers block the scummy, bottom-feeder, AIDS-of-the-internet ads.
- freehunter 10y ago
  I actually run a local-interest blog for my small city, and whenever I talk to people about it they're amazed I don't have ads all over the place. "How do you make money", "why would you run this site without making money", "you should be getting something for it", etc. They don't immediately realize that 90% of the content on the site is advertising, and I actually am getting paid for it. I'll write an article about whatever I want, in whatever tone I want, for free. But sometimes businesses want to set their own tone, or want me to write about something that isn't immediately interesting to me. Sometimes they want me to run a story before I would otherwise do so. And they'll pay me for that. Not a lot, but it generally covers the cost of hosting at least. I have an entire section, accessible from any page, that goes into my advertising policy and how businesses can contact me. Ads don't have to look like ads. And ads can give value, too. Did the local tavern pay me to run a story talking about their new 1/2 off drinks special every Wednesday? They sure did. But people clicked on it and read the article and then visited the bar and took advantage of the promotion. Not because they were tricked into doing so, but because it was interesting to them and they got value from it. And those people will come back to the site again tomorrow and read the next one, because my advertising provides real value to them.

creshal 10y ago

Users running adblockers likely wouldn't click the ads anyway, so I don't really see the problem. That some advertisers think they should pay by impression and not by click is their own stupidity.

untog 10y ago
> That some advertisers think they should pay by impression and not by click is their own stupidity. It's not. Ads can be entirely successful without a click - sometimes it'll just be a reminder of the brand's name the next time you are shopping for their product. "Users running adblockers likely wouldn't click the ads anyway" is a pretty naive view of how the ad industry operates.
- ionised 10y ago
  > sometimes it'll just be a reminder of the brand's name the next time you are shopping for their product. All it does is make me avoid the product out of spite.
  - untog 10y ago
    Assuming you're consciously aware of what's going on. Maybe you are, but you wouldn't know if you aren't. You can't really claim to be immune to subconscious tricks.
  - robryan 10y ago
    This isn't what usually happens though. If advertising drove negative value to a brand over time it just wouldn't be purchased. Not many companies can take off purely on the quality of their product, especially in boring industries. I can't think of an insurance company which I learned about outside of widespread advertising.
  - type0 10y ago
    The Mere Exposure Effect does work though, probably more effectively than you realize.
10y ago

natrius 10y ago

When you allow targeted ads into your life, you're putting changes in your behavior on the market each time you touch a device. Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid. The market will find every flaw in your psychology that can be used to take money from your pocket. These flaws exist: Las Vegas is built on them. Targeted ads are the Las Vegas of the mind.

johndavidback 10y ago
That's all well and good, but a key distinction here is that you are using Facebook for absolutely no out-of-pocket expenditure. Going to Vegas costs actual dollars. I suppose a stark, diametric alternative to being forced to view targeted ads would be Facebook as a paid subscription service. It's the age old issue of 'Someone has to pay for this party.'
- natrius 10y ago
  Facebook's profitability is not your problem. It's their job to figure out how to get paid. It's your job to protect your mind. Targeted ads are worse than gambling. We made sure everyone's aware of the dangers of gambling, but everyone's in the dark about targeted ads. These companies know what they're doing. If people want to portray ad blocking as stealing, so be it. Steal from them. They deserve it.
  - hsod 10y ago
    > Facebook's profitability is not your problem. No, but acting with honesty and fairness is. Facebook is asking you not to use their service if you are going to block ads. I think it's obvious that the "right" thing to do is to respect their wishes, not sneeringly defy them while using their resources and giving nothing in return.
    - _RPM 10y ago
      > Giving them nothing in return. You're giving them a lot, even if you don't click on ads or see ads. Is it not clear that your data is valuable? You're giving them personal information. Not that people that aren't developers care.

CaptSpify 10y ago

Because they are annoying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5JdX_iQ2Hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5JdX_iQ2Hk tl;dw: Advertisers are untrustworthy and act in bad faith. Once we give them an inch, they take a mile. If you met a person like that, would you continue to socialize with them? I wouldn't

findK 10y ago

"If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?".. Besides scrolling through your feed, is there much you do on FB? It's just a news aggregation site now.