4 ms·

I think you're making some assumptions here. The logical end-game is that FB writes their own rendering engine in javascript and targets a single canvas elemen

I think you're making some assumptions here. The logical end-game is that FB writes their own rendering engine in javascript and targets a single canvas element, handling all the interaction events themselves. In fact, I think it can go significantly further than that. Ad blockers will need to get much fancier to deal with that kind of weaponized ad delivery.

ncallaway 10y ago
Ah, yes, the 'ol abandon all forms of screen readers and accessibility in order to serve ads gambit.
JulianMorrison 10y ago
If FB tries this, the awful performance of their site will start putting a drag on their business. But also, adblockers will keep up. If they have to use canned deep-learning neural nets to catch and crush advertising based on how it looks rendered, they will.
- fratlas 10y ago
  I love the human condition. Managers struggle to motivate for simple coding tasks, but ads? We'll be damned if they intrude our lives.
  - nzp 10y ago
    That's quite optimistic when you think about it. Most simple coding tasks are pure drudgery with no consequence to positive human values (other than “I have to do this to not starve”). Defeating most online advertising, on the other hand, is a noble community service to your fellow humans.
hajile 10y ago
As long as greasemonkey is available, it won't be possible. If it gets too bad, then a custom jscodeshift script could manually edit the functions in question. Ultimately, there isn't a good way to dictate what a user does when you're in a sandbox.
Retric 10y ago
Facebook is large enough for add blockers to specifically target them. So, at best this is going to cost a lot and drive away users for zero net gain.
swang 10y ago
Facebook is such a big target that it won't matter what they do. People will write an adblocker for it because it's Facebook. If there was a viable path, they would have already done it. I think Facebook has enough engineers there where they know going down some obfuscation path is futile.
alkonaut 10y ago
Couldn't Facebook just stop serving ads on their own site, and instead only use FB to collect data which is sold to third parties? They have a goldmine for data that should be easy to monetize without having to show ads themselves. FB is a too simple target for ad-blocking so FB should just admit defeat and sell the info for use in advertising elsewhere. (I have no idea of whether it's economically comparable as a business model compared to in-FB ads though of course).
- awad 10y ago
  Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter to a lesser extent, command a large portion of the digital ad market due in no small part to the fact that they are also some of the largest publishers. In other words, they make a ton of money selling ads on their own properties. Their publisher products (Adsense, DFA, Audience Network, Audience Platform) extend their reach to third parties certainly, but AFAIK each of them still make more money from their own inventory.
flukus 10y ago
And someone will write their own rendering engine that removes the ads. The data still has to come over the wire.
hokkos 10y ago
Or they can already do dom obfuscation like react-armor, it can make cryptographically unpredictable class name, tree structure and tag name obfuscation. https://github.com/elierotenberg/react-armor https://github.com/elierotenberg/react-armor https://youtu.be/n63XXHY4A7I https://youtu.be/n63XXHY4A7I
visarga 10y ago
Ingenious, but let me try to counter that with another step up in ad blocking: Run the page in a sandbox, then classify the pixels as ad/non-ad with a neural net and only present the non-ads to the eyes of the user. It would also be possible to reflow the page to fit to a different screen size if the words are clearly identified by their containing rectangles. User interactions would be sent back and forth to the sandbox. Of course, best would be to drop FB altogether. Being a member on FB, even an ad-blocking one, creates an incentive for other users to remain on FB as well.

ncallaway 10y ago

Ah, yes, the 'ol abandon all forms of screen readers and accessibility in order to serve ads gambit.

JulianMorrison 10y ago

If FB tries this, the awful performance of their site will start putting a drag on their business. But also, adblockers will keep up. If they have to use canned deep-learning neural nets to catch and crush advertising based on how it looks rendered, they will.

fratlas 10y ago
I love the human condition. Managers struggle to motivate for simple coding tasks, but ads? We'll be damned if they intrude our lives.
- nzp 10y ago
  That's quite optimistic when you think about it. Most simple coding tasks are pure drudgery with no consequence to positive human values (other than “I have to do this to not starve”). Defeating most online advertising, on the other hand, is a noble community service to your fellow humans.

hajile 10y ago

As long as greasemonkey is available, it won't be possible. If it gets too bad, then a custom jscodeshift script could manually edit the functions in question. Ultimately, there isn't a good way to dictate what a user does when you're in a sandbox.

Retric 10y ago

Facebook is large enough for add blockers to specifically target them. So, at best this is going to cost a lot and drive away users for zero net gain.

swang 10y ago

Facebook is such a big target that it won't matter what they do. People will write an adblocker for it because it's Facebook. If there was a viable path, they would have already done it. I think Facebook has enough engineers there where they know going down some obfuscation path is futile.

alkonaut 10y ago

Couldn't Facebook just stop serving ads on their own site, and instead only use FB to collect data which is sold to third parties? They have a goldmine for data that should be easy to monetize without having to show ads themselves. FB is a too simple target for ad-blocking so FB should just admit defeat and sell the info for use in advertising elsewhere. (I have no idea of whether it's economically comparable as a business model compared to in-FB ads though of course).

awad 10y ago
Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter to a lesser extent, command a large portion of the digital ad market due in no small part to the fact that they are also some of the largest publishers. In other words, they make a ton of money selling ads on their own properties. Their publisher products (Adsense, DFA, Audience Network, Audience Platform) extend their reach to third parties certainly, but AFAIK each of them still make more money from their own inventory.

flukus 10y ago

And someone will write their own rendering engine that removes the ads. The data still has to come over the wire.

hokkos 10y ago

Or they can already do dom obfuscation like react-armor, it can make cryptographically unpredictable class name, tree structure and tag name obfuscation. https://github.com/elierotenberg/react-armor https://github.com/elierotenberg/react-armor https://youtu.be/n63XXHY4A7I https://youtu.be/n63XXHY4A7I

visarga 10y ago

Ingenious, but let me try to counter that with another step up in ad blocking: Run the page in a sandbox, then classify the pixels as ad/non-ad with a neural net and only present the non-ads to the eyes of the user. It would also be possible to reflow the page to fit to a different screen size if the words are clearly identified by their containing rectangles. User interactions would be sent back and forth to the sandbox. Of course, best would be to drop FB altogether. Being a member on FB, even an ad-blocking one, creates an incentive for other users to remain on FB as well.