4 ms·

Facebook Blocks Ad Blockers, but It Strives to Make Ads More Relevant

20 points by ricardolopes 10y ago

rezashirazian 10y ago
The cat and mouse game between advertisers and adblockers is about to enter a new era. I'm surprised it took this long.
JimLaheyMD 10y ago
If I hadn't already deleted my Facebook, this would probably make me do it.
phantom_oracle 10y ago
> "For blockers to get around these changes, Facebook said they would have to begin analyzing the content of the ads themselves, a costly and laborious process." I don't think anybody at NYT has ever come across 1 of the longest digital battles since the internet became a thing, otherwise known as: P2P Where there is a will, there will be a way. For every piece of software that will hide ads, someone out there will likely begin to write software to block this, simply cause some shitty ad ruined his/her Mafia Wars/Farmville experience.
simbalion 10y ago
This is a hostile action against their users. When someone installs software on their computer specifically to block ads from being downloaded, presented, or seen.. and then some corporation goes to extreme lengths to bypass that software, that is a hostile action. I wouldn't be surprised if it's illegal. But regardless of legality, I think it's a sign of how much contempt these companies have toward their users, and it's a good window for someone to take a bite out of their market share.
- codeddesign 10y ago
  Against their users? How do their users think they pay to run the site in the first place? Would it be better on their users to require everyone to pay for use? People need to stop acting like Google and Facebook owes them something. All the free stuff is only available if someone pays. My thoughts...there are a lot of bad ad companies out there and unknowing websites place their ads up. But, to place an ad blocker on a well known established company and then use their services without paying is flat out stealing.
  - Analemma_ 10y ago
    I call this the social contract theory of online advertising: that by viewing a free website's content you have implicitly agreed to view the ads that pay for it. I actually think this theory has more merit than a lot of Hacker News gives credit for, but I also recognize that someone who has installed an ad blocker has clearly already rejected it, so trying to debate with them on these grounds isn't likely to get far. I would try to reframe your argument.
    - chrismcb 10y ago
      Are you also saying by listening to the radio you agree to listen to the ads? Watching TV requires you to watch the commercials? What about newspapers and magazines that are heavily subsidized by ads, are you implicitly agreeing to read the ads by buying them? I don't think there is any implicit agreement to vivid, or listen to ads given with free items. The Web isn't any different
      - Analemma_ 10y ago
        To me it seems like a pretty straightforward application of the categorical imperative ("act as though your principles will become universal law"): if everyone blocked ads, we'd have no free content. I want free content. Hence, I don't block ads. You don't have to agree with me on this, but I don't think I'm coming from nutty principles.
        dpc_pw 10y ago
        > if everyone blocked ads, we'd have no free content. That's right! If people did not pay for using software, there would be no... oh wait... I am writing from Linux, using Firefox... and have a github tab open... But if people did not pay for encyclopedias... oh wait... In fact, if companies could not monetize on ads, less clicbaiting, useless and worthless crap would be created. Sure there would be much less content overall. But most of it is useless anyway. Quality content would be behind membership payments, or just free, published by entusiasts. The web was thriving before pay-per-view ad-fueled-cancer has consumed it with masses of ignorant clickers, so interested in Kim Kardashian meals. Sure... things progressed somewhat, fuelled by all that money. But let's make it clear - it had it's price, changing a vision of free medium of sharing knowledge and communicating, into a centralized shopping mall, tracking your every move.
jbverschoor 10y ago
How about doing something about spam ads and links?
- nicky0 10y ago
  They are: https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/04/facebook-clickbait/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/04/facebook-clickbait/
SnacksOnAPlane 10y ago
How about allowing us to pay to not see ads? I still enjoy using Facebook but I hate seeing ads. I'd pay a couple bucks a month to avoid them.
- johnward 10y ago
  I personally don't think it would go over well but I'd like to see a site with as much pull as Facebook try it. I've seen articles claiming facebook is making $10 per user per quarter [1]. That seems high to me but if true I don't see anyone paying $10 per month for memes and political rants. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-average-revenue-per-user-is-up-sharply-2015-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-average-revenue-per-...
johnward 10y ago
I'm more curious to see how this plays out with technology than I am over the economic and privacy arguments. Facebook obviously has the resources to find new ways around these ad blockers. Can these small ad blocker developers keep up? Facebook still renders fine with adblock and ublock origin running.

20 points by ricardolopes 10y ago

rezashirazian 10y ago

The cat and mouse game between advertisers and adblockers is about to enter a new era. I'm surprised it took this long.

JimLaheyMD 10y ago

If I hadn't already deleted my Facebook, this would probably make me do it.

phantom_oracle 10y ago

> "For blockers to get around these changes, Facebook said they would have to begin analyzing the content of the ads themselves, a costly and laborious process." I don't think anybody at NYT has ever come across 1 of the longest digital battles since the internet became a thing, otherwise known as: P2P Where there is a will, there will be a way. For every piece of software that will hide ads, someone out there will likely begin to write software to block this, simply cause some shitty ad ruined his/her Mafia Wars/Farmville experience.

simbalion 10y ago

This is a hostile action against their users. When someone installs software on their computer specifically to block ads from being downloaded, presented, or seen.. and then some corporation goes to extreme lengths to bypass that software, that is a hostile action. I wouldn't be surprised if it's illegal. But regardless of legality, I think it's a sign of how much contempt these companies have toward their users, and it's a good window for someone to take a bite out of their market share.

codeddesign 10y ago
Against their users? How do their users think they pay to run the site in the first place? Would it be better on their users to require everyone to pay for use? People need to stop acting like Google and Facebook owes them something. All the free stuff is only available if someone pays. My thoughts...there are a lot of bad ad companies out there and unknowing websites place their ads up. But, to place an ad blocker on a well known established company and then use their services without paying is flat out stealing.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  I call this the social contract theory of online advertising: that by viewing a free website's content you have implicitly agreed to view the ads that pay for it. I actually think this theory has more merit than a lot of Hacker News gives credit for, but I also recognize that someone who has installed an ad blocker has clearly already rejected it, so trying to debate with them on these grounds isn't likely to get far. I would try to reframe your argument.
  - chrismcb 10y ago
    Are you also saying by listening to the radio you agree to listen to the ads? Watching TV requires you to watch the commercials? What about newspapers and magazines that are heavily subsidized by ads, are you implicitly agreeing to read the ads by buying them? I don't think there is any implicit agreement to vivid, or listen to ads given with free items. The Web isn't any different
    - Analemma_ 10y ago
      To me it seems like a pretty straightforward application of the categorical imperative ("act as though your principles will become universal law"): if everyone blocked ads, we'd have no free content. I want free content. Hence, I don't block ads. You don't have to agree with me on this, but I don't think I'm coming from nutty principles.
      - dpc_pw 10y ago
        > if everyone blocked ads, we'd have no free content. That's right! If people did not pay for using software, there would be no... oh wait... I am writing from Linux, using Firefox... and have a github tab open... But if people did not pay for encyclopedias... oh wait... In fact, if companies could not monetize on ads, less clicbaiting, useless and worthless crap would be created. Sure there would be much less content overall. But most of it is useless anyway. Quality content would be behind membership payments, or just free, published by entusiasts. The web was thriving before pay-per-view ad-fueled-cancer has consumed it with masses of ignorant clickers, so interested in Kim Kardashian meals. Sure... things progressed somewhat, fuelled by all that money. But let's make it clear - it had it's price, changing a vision of free medium of sharing knowledge and communicating, into a centralized shopping mall, tracking your every move.

jbverschoor 10y ago

How about doing something about spam ads and links?

nicky0 10y ago
They are: https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/04/facebook-clickbait/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/04/facebook-clickbait/

SnacksOnAPlane 10y ago

How about allowing us to pay to not see ads? I still enjoy using Facebook but I hate seeing ads. I'd pay a couple bucks a month to avoid them.

johnward 10y ago
I personally don't think it would go over well but I'd like to see a site with as much pull as Facebook try it. I've seen articles claiming facebook is making $10 per user per quarter [1]. That seems high to me but if true I don't see anyone paying $10 per month for memes and political rants. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-average-revenue-per-user-is-up-sharply-2015-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-average-revenue-per-...

johnward 10y ago

I'm more curious to see how this plays out with technology than I am over the economic and privacy arguments. Facebook obviously has the resources to find new ways around these ad blockers. Can these small ad blocker developers keep up? Facebook still renders fine with adblock and ublock origin running.