8 ms·

Can Facebook really make ads unblockable?

60 points by Irishsteve 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fossuser 10y ago
One thing I find annoying about their rhetoric is this rationalization that people want advertising to teach them about new interests and things they might be interested in. People do want to learn more about what they're interested in, but I can't think of a less honest source than an advertiser. I'll grant that targeted advertising is better than untargeted advertising, but no advertising is still strongly preferred (I'd even pay a couple bucks a month for it). This is why tons of users use adblockers - it's just a better experience. I understand advertising is what funds Facebook and I get why they care about it, but don't also try and tell me why advertising is something the users want. Users don't want it and the experience would be better without it (and without all the tons of engineers dedicated to making it better instead of working on the core product).
- blowski 10y ago
  Actually some users _do_ want adverts, bizarre as that may seem to us. The majority of users probably don't care either way, based on the proportion of web users who use Adblock or one of its kin.
  - computerex 10y ago
    > The majority of users probably don't care either way, based on the proportion of web users who use Adblock or one of its kin. Ya because everyone on the web is savy enough to use an adblocker. You're making a lot of silly assumptions.
- imglorp 10y ago
  It's not just a better experience, it's also safer. Less malware from three ad auctions downstream, less private information exfiltrated by third parties, etc. The flashing annoyances are the least of my worries.
- seanwilson 10y ago
  > People do want to learn more about what they're interested in, but I can't think of a less honest source than an advertiser. The opposite side of this is people that think ads are the worst things ever. I really don't understand what the big deal is. It's not like a random ad is going to brainwash me into buying something I never wanted in the first place. Ads being too distracting (e.g. flashing, videos) and a malware source is a different story though.
  - dingaling 10y ago
    > It's not like a random ad is going to brainwash me into buying something I never wanted in the first place Absolutely they do, that's their entire purpose. It has various names such as 'acquired need', a prime example that gained universal acceptance being fabric conditioner. Sugared water is another prime example, I'm sure you can name some brands and mentally picture their bottles lying in a bed of ice cubes.
    - sosborn 10y ago
      You are right that this is there intention, but it is not always the effect. Think about SPAM. Have you ever fallen for any of those emails?
      - falcolas 10y ago
        People fall for them all the time. Most of the more poorly worded ones are actually trying to filter out intelligent users, since they will end up being a waste of the spammer's time.
        sosborn 10y ago
        Yes, some people do. That doesn't mean that everyone does, which was the point that seanwilson was making.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimination-of-television/oclc/3240263&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimina... (Mander was himself an ad executive.) Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly http://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death-public-discourse-in-the-age-of-show-business/oclc/11842779&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death-pub... http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-culture-to-technology/oclc/24694343&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-cu... Adam Curtis, The Century of the Self http://www.worldcat.org/title/century-of-the-self/oclc/86087398&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/century-of-the-self/oclc/86087... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s While we're at it, A Thousand Clowns http://www.worldcat.org/title/thousand-clowns/oclc/748574510&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/thousand-clowns/oclc/748574510... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGeq3aMQpbU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGeq3aMQpbU
- scottmf 10y ago
  It's incredibly disingenuous of them to suggest they're doing users a favor. Do they not see the irony in justifying their circumvention of adblockers with the claim that users want ads? With that said, I've surprised myself by clicking a couple of Facebook ads in the past few months. Or rather, Googled the product to avoid tracking.
  - sherjilozair 10y ago
    > Googled the product to avoid tracking. You sure you avoided tracking by 'Googling'?
    - scottmf 10y ago
      Ha. Maybe slightly.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Most users, however, want the sites and apps they use to remain free AND not have ads.
  - initram 10y ago
    What makes you think that? I hate ads and am more than happy to pay to not see them and to support things I use. I do this all the time with, for example, Netflix, iTunes, and a few others. I even pay for the NPR I listen to in my car where they can't track me or force me to subscribe or pay. I think the reality is that most users get very little value out of the web sites and apps they use and would be just as happy to not use them if they disappeared due to low ad revenue. For those that they would actually miss, some large percentage might be willing to pay for them. In fact, Hulu [1] just announced that they are no longer offering an ad-supported version. That's pretty telling. Either their service was so bad that they couldn't even give it away (doubtful given that they've kept the paid version), or users actually do hate ads and are willing to pay for content that's actually good. [1]http://betanews.com/2016/08/08/end-of-free-hulu/ http://betanews.com/2016/08/08/end-of-free-hulu/
    - fossuser 10y ago
      I don't disagree with your general point, but the paid version of Hulu had ads (and still mostly does) until recently. They have a paid version that's a few dollars more without ads, but that's relatively new and still has ads for some shows. If ad supported free content isn't great, it's at least reasonable - ad supported paid content is absolutely terrible. I think people should categorically reject ad supported paid content or we might end up with another cable tv situation.
- ElComradio 10y ago
  This situation highlights the elephant in the room- People are not much interested in paying for online services, even one as large as FB. Their growth and DAU would suffer dramatically if they had to charge even a nominal fee for use. People will take it for free but it is not worth enough to most to pay even a small amount.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  If users wanted ads, they'd be willing to pay to get them.
- quotemstr 10y ago
  > people want advertising to teach them about new interests and things they might be interested in Sometimes they do. I bought my current wallet after seeing an FB ad for it. It's much better than my previous wallet and I'm happy with the purchase. That's how advertising is supposed to work.
  - RDeckard 10y ago
    What wallet was that? :) Genuinely curious.
sago 10y ago
Can King Cnut turn back the tide? If your users rebel against your business model, it's a brave (foolish? short-term?) business decision to fight your users. Fine for companies who can only generate value from a user by ads (don't like ads? Goodbye, good riddance), but FB gets immeasurable value from network effects and user data. An interesting strategy, then.
kolme 10y ago
It could be feasible to circumvent this "attack" by drawing posts and ads in canvas elements. But then again, the blocker could "look at the pixels". Basically, if a human can tell the difference, a piece of software will eventually be able too. With DRM we had the "if you can see it, you can copy" law. Here might apply the corollary "If you can tell it apart, you can filter it out".
- ArchReaper 10y ago
  It wouldn't even need to 'look at the pixels', it would only have to identify the appropriate canvas elements.
  - kolme 10y ago
    I was thinking of canvas elements with no differences between them. Same size, same properties, random id. In such scenario you'd have to "look at the pixels". The contents are programatically rendered and they're not subject to DOM inspecting.
    - ArchReaper 10y ago
      If it became prevalent enough, then theoretically you could update the *block extensions to identify the javascript (or libraries) that are used to render the ads and nullify them. My guess is that actually implementing this kind of thing would not be worth the cost.
sharkjacobs 10y ago
anyone can make ads unblockable, just host them yourself and don't use a lot of javascipt <a href="www.advertiser.com/adlandingpage.html"><img src="ads/ad.jpg"></a>
- krapp 10y ago
  That will only be unblockable until someone submits a filter for it, and then every ad blocker will block it.
  - dividuum 10y ago
    Not only that, but that exact example is already blocked by default in Easylist by this rule: Static filter /ads/ad. found in: EasyList
- ry_ry 10y ago
  Fb could make them heuristically indistinguishable from a wall-post, and some motivated individual would have a plugin that scraped your friends and blocked non-friend content up and running within hours.
- progval 10y ago
  Then the ad blocker only has to hide all images from the ads/ folder.
- ArchReaper 10y ago
  That's not feasible on a large scale. Plus, it's easy to block <domain.com/ads/*> - almost all adblockers allow you to add your own rules.
SilasX 10y ago
Very interesting! I had earlier proposed[1] that FB would have to start this arms race, of making ads that look different to human users, but not to computers. The article points out that FB seems to be in a losing position since they need their ads to say "suggested post" and give those posts special options -- so ad blockers can always just look for that. I think they can be a little more devious though -- say, make the CSS really complex so that the letters for "suggested post" only appear in the right positions for legit adds, and then have it load the options for the element from somewhere else. But that comes with a major code-complexity/debugging cost. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12255612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12255612
- ArchReaper 10y ago
  Even that is a losing battle, as you would then just identify the class(es) that result in the 'correct' position of letters. Ultimately it is an unwinnable battle, but one they can fight as long as they want.
  - progval 10y ago
    What if it was a set of pixels instead?
    - gruez 10y ago
      even better, the entire page is rendered using the canvas api, using obfuscated javascript
  - scottmf 10y ago
    I disagree. I don't see how it can be unwinnable. Even if it were an endless game of whack-a-mole, free adblock plugins don't have a fraction of the resources of Facebook. Publishers became greedy, ads became intrusive, and users reacted by flocking to adblockers. Now the users have taken it too far and publishers are forced to respond. No one is owed an ad-free experience.
    - 10y ago
overcast 10y ago
I really don't have an issue with ads, I have a problem with shitty ads. If Facebook put a quarter of those adblock blocking resources into getting appropriate ads, none of this would be an issue. That goes for the rest of the internet. People use adblockers because it's completely intrusive and awful to see.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  The latest rash of them have been grotesque "one weird trick" type ones. I'm not sure why they're even selling spots to whatever idiots are making these, because it's undoubtedly driving users away and pushing people to install ad blockers to not look at that nasty garbage.
  - overcast 10y ago
    Because they are probably making more money accepting them, than they are losing money from getting blocked.
meira 10y ago
It's a very contraditory move to bet high in AI and block-Adblock tech at the same time.
- ArchReaper 10y ago
  I get the feeling that the future-business side of Facebook and the in-app advertising side of Facebook are not very connected.
  - meira 10y ago
    And this is a huge business opportunity.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  It is a bet that their AI is orders of magnitude better than the adblock's AI. It's a lot of hubris, but not contradictory.
  - meira 10y ago
    The same bet Microsoft took against FOSS. I'll stick with the same horse.
downandout 10y ago
IMO it's certainly possible to make ads unblockable. Right now they just aren't trying very hard. It's all about the footprints. This article claims that laws requiring ads to be marked as such would preclude them from removing these footprints, but that isn't necessarily true. For example, Facebook could have two images of identical size, one that says the word "sponsored" and one that is blank, stored on their servers. Every post - sponsored or not - could reference the image like "/image.png?postid=123" and the server would decide based on the post ID which image to actually serve. Unless adblockers could implement machine vision, they wouldn't be able to distinguish this. Facebook could also go the hostile route - when they detect an ad blocker, just display a blank overlay saying that you can't use Facebook with an ad blocker enabled. Ads are here to stay.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ArchReaper 10y ago
  I believe this would violate ease-of-access rules - screen readers would have to be able to tell a user, so if an image is used, the alt/title tag would be set to 'sponsored'.
  - downandout 10y ago
    I suppose, but that's not a legal issue, that's a usability issue. There's no law that says I have to use alt/title tags.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      The ADA might want to disagree with you: "The Department is currently developing regulations specifically addressing the accessibility of goods and services offered via the web by entities covered by the ADA. The fact that the regulatory process is not yet complete in no way indicates that web services are not already covered by title III." — Statement of Interest of the United States Department of Justice in NAD v. Netflix (page 10)
golemotron 10y ago
> Can Facebook really make ads unblockable? Of course they can. It's called product placement.
jasonkostempski 10y ago
I bet they won't get around my advanced uBlock filter: facebook.com
cm3 10y ago
And meanwhile Axel Springer won an interim injunction to have Eyeo (makers of Adblock Plus) stop accidentally filtering tweets and other live content on their "news" sites. Ignoring Eyeo's whitelisting business model for a moment, Eyeo's laywers are right in explaining that the filters accidentally block non-ads because sites deliberately make the actual content fit into ads' patterns, which then requires updated filters. The interesting part is that Axel Springer's lawyers argue that filtering content undermines freedom of press. IANAL, but that's like saying if I put headphones on because I don't want to hear the public radio at a train station, then I'm filtering content and restricting freedom of press. The judge accepted the argument, but it doesn't make sense logically and goes against another pillar of contemporary societies: informational self-determination. If we don't fight this, we might actually end up in a world as depicted in that one Black Mirror episode[1]. Sorry, couldn't find anything in English: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Adblock-Plus-Axel-Springer-erwirkt-Einstweilige-Verfuegung-wegen-Overblocking-3294993.html http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Adblock-Plus-Axel-Spr... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits
- zeta0134 10y ago
  I mean, I'm going out of my way to try to stop my computer from running code I don't like. (In this case, advertising and tracking code.) There are tonnes of alternatives I could try, but I think the easiest way for me to block Facebook ads is just to stop visiting Facebook. Ads are more than just annoying. They take away my valuable time and resources. I don't care what business model you think I'm destroying, my attention is mine and mine alone, and I will not have it wrenched away from me by dancing bottles of soap accompanied by the whir of my computers fans as it struggles to play yet another poorly coded flash applet. (I realize Facebook ads very rarely use flash, but they are still distracting in the worst way.) Facebook can try to do a lot of things here, but they can never win my trust back after all these years, and I consequently refuse to trust their advertising platform more than any other. It's an intruder into my system, I will not allow it to run, and they may kindly deal with it and move on. I run my life ad free, I stopped watching television for similar reasons because I didn't feel like paying money for a service that seemed engineered to waste my time with product placement. If your business model does not agree with my preferences, too bad. I'm still not letting you run your code on my computer.
Apocryphon 10y ago
One day, a company is going to find a way to disrupt ads, as in creating a viable way for websites and mobile apps to easily make money from free products that doesn't involve inserting ads, and it will usher in the next Web X.0
- st3v3r 10y ago
  I wouldn't quite hold my breath on that one. Anything like that is going to have to both get users to open their wallets, and do so at a rate which matches or exceeds the current levels of revenue gained by ads. The closest thing we have now might be Patreon, and while it's successful for solo artists and small groups, I doubt a Patreon like model is going to be funding the New York Times.
AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
I'd be happy if all ads became served from the same domain, an integral part of the page (no popovers, popups, focus stealers, etc) and not-dynamic. That would remove 90% of my objections to them. Third party ads with javascript can and have been used to introduce malware, through deception or zero-day/drive-by exploits, even on otherwise reputable sites. It is for that reason that I block ads.
- oxide 10y ago
  I now whitelist javascript and use an adblocker after being hit by a drive-by javascript exploit that installed a bitcoin miner. After taking these precautions, I haven't had an issue with malware since.

60 points by Irishsteve 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

One thing I find annoying about their rhetoric is this rationalization that people want advertising to teach them about new interests and things they might be interested in. People do want to learn more about what they're interested in, but I can't think of a less honest source than an advertiser. I'll grant that targeted advertising is better than untargeted advertising, but no advertising is still strongly preferred (I'd even pay a couple bucks a month for it). This is why tons of users use adblockers - it's just a better experience. I understand advertising is what funds Facebook and I get why they care about it, but don't also try and tell me why advertising is something the users want. Users don't want it and the experience would be better without it (and without all the tons of engineers dedicated to making it better instead of working on the core product).

blowski 10y ago
Actually some users _do_ want adverts, bizarre as that may seem to us. The majority of users probably don't care either way, based on the proportion of web users who use Adblock or one of its kin.
- computerex 10y ago
  > The majority of users probably don't care either way, based on the proportion of web users who use Adblock or one of its kin. Ya because everyone on the web is savy enough to use an adblocker. You're making a lot of silly assumptions.
imglorp 10y ago
It's not just a better experience, it's also safer. Less malware from three ad auctions downstream, less private information exfiltrated by third parties, etc. The flashing annoyances are the least of my worries.
seanwilson 10y ago
> People do want to learn more about what they're interested in, but I can't think of a less honest source than an advertiser. The opposite side of this is people that think ads are the worst things ever. I really don't understand what the big deal is. It's not like a random ad is going to brainwash me into buying something I never wanted in the first place. Ads being too distracting (e.g. flashing, videos) and a malware source is a different story though.
- dingaling 10y ago
  > It's not like a random ad is going to brainwash me into buying something I never wanted in the first place Absolutely they do, that's their entire purpose. It has various names such as 'acquired need', a prime example that gained universal acceptance being fabric conditioner. Sugared water is another prime example, I'm sure you can name some brands and mentally picture their bottles lying in a bed of ice cubes.
  - sosborn 10y ago
    You are right that this is there intention, but it is not always the effect. Think about SPAM. Have you ever fallen for any of those emails?
    - falcolas 10y ago
      People fall for them all the time. Most of the more poorly worded ones are actually trying to filter out intelligent users, since they will end up being a waste of the spammer's time.
      - sosborn 10y ago
        Yes, some people do. That doesn't mean that everyone does, which was the point that seanwilson was making.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimination-of-television/oclc/3240263&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimina... (Mander was himself an ad executive.) Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly http://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death-public-discourse-in-the-age-of-show-business/oclc/11842779&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death-pub... http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-culture-to-technology/oclc/24694343&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-cu... Adam Curtis, The Century of the Self http://www.worldcat.org/title/century-of-the-self/oclc/86087398&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/century-of-the-self/oclc/86087... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s While we're at it, A Thousand Clowns http://www.worldcat.org/title/thousand-clowns/oclc/748574510&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/thousand-clowns/oclc/748574510... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGeq3aMQpbU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGeq3aMQpbU
scottmf 10y ago
It's incredibly disingenuous of them to suggest they're doing users a favor. Do they not see the irony in justifying their circumvention of adblockers with the claim that users want ads? With that said, I've surprised myself by clicking a couple of Facebook ads in the past few months. Or rather, Googled the product to avoid tracking.
- sherjilozair 10y ago
  > Googled the product to avoid tracking. You sure you avoided tracking by 'Googling'?
  - scottmf 10y ago
    Ha. Maybe slightly.
st3v3r 10y ago
Most users, however, want the sites and apps they use to remain free AND not have ads.
- initram 10y ago
  What makes you think that? I hate ads and am more than happy to pay to not see them and to support things I use. I do this all the time with, for example, Netflix, iTunes, and a few others. I even pay for the NPR I listen to in my car where they can't track me or force me to subscribe or pay. I think the reality is that most users get very little value out of the web sites and apps they use and would be just as happy to not use them if they disappeared due to low ad revenue. For those that they would actually miss, some large percentage might be willing to pay for them. In fact, Hulu [1] just announced that they are no longer offering an ad-supported version. That's pretty telling. Either their service was so bad that they couldn't even give it away (doubtful given that they've kept the paid version), or users actually do hate ads and are willing to pay for content that's actually good. [1]http://betanews.com/2016/08/08/end-of-free-hulu/ http://betanews.com/2016/08/08/end-of-free-hulu/
  - fossuser 10y ago
    I don't disagree with your general point, but the paid version of Hulu had ads (and still mostly does) until recently. They have a paid version that's a few dollars more without ads, but that's relatively new and still has ads for some shows. If ad supported free content isn't great, it's at least reasonable - ad supported paid content is absolutely terrible. I think people should categorically reject ad supported paid content or we might end up with another cable tv situation.
ElComradio 10y ago
This situation highlights the elephant in the room- People are not much interested in paying for online services, even one as large as FB. Their growth and DAU would suffer dramatically if they had to charge even a nominal fee for use. People will take it for free but it is not worth enough to most to pay even a small amount.
woodandsteel 10y ago
If users wanted ads, they'd be willing to pay to get them.
quotemstr 10y ago
> people want advertising to teach them about new interests and things they might be interested in Sometimes they do. I bought my current wallet after seeing an FB ad for it. It's much better than my previous wallet and I'm happy with the purchase. That's how advertising is supposed to work.
- RDeckard 10y ago
  What wallet was that? :) Genuinely curious.

sago 10y ago

Can King Cnut turn back the tide? If your users rebel against your business model, it's a brave (foolish? short-term?) business decision to fight your users. Fine for companies who can only generate value from a user by ads (don't like ads? Goodbye, good riddance), but FB gets immeasurable value from network effects and user data. An interesting strategy, then.

kolme 10y ago

It could be feasible to circumvent this "attack" by drawing posts and ads in canvas elements. But then again, the blocker could "look at the pixels". Basically, if a human can tell the difference, a piece of software will eventually be able too. With DRM we had the "if you can see it, you can copy" law. Here might apply the corollary "If you can tell it apart, you can filter it out".

ArchReaper 10y ago
It wouldn't even need to 'look at the pixels', it would only have to identify the appropriate canvas elements.
- kolme 10y ago
  I was thinking of canvas elements with no differences between them. Same size, same properties, random id. In such scenario you'd have to "look at the pixels". The contents are programatically rendered and they're not subject to DOM inspecting.
  - ArchReaper 10y ago
    If it became prevalent enough, then theoretically you could update the *block extensions to identify the javascript (or libraries) that are used to render the ads and nullify them. My guess is that actually implementing this kind of thing would not be worth the cost.

sharkjacobs 10y ago

anyone can make ads unblockable, just host them yourself and don't use a lot of javascipt <a href="www.advertiser.com/adlandingpage.html"><img src="ads/ad.jpg"></a>

krapp 10y ago
That will only be unblockable until someone submits a filter for it, and then every ad blocker will block it.
- dividuum 10y ago
  Not only that, but that exact example is already blocked by default in Easylist by this rule: Static filter /ads/ad. found in: EasyList
ry_ry 10y ago
Fb could make them heuristically indistinguishable from a wall-post, and some motivated individual would have a plugin that scraped your friends and blocked non-friend content up and running within hours.
progval 10y ago
Then the ad blocker only has to hide all images from the ads/ folder.
ArchReaper 10y ago
That's not feasible on a large scale. Plus, it's easy to block <domain.com/ads/*> - almost all adblockers allow you to add your own rules.

SilasX 10y ago

Very interesting! I had earlier proposed[1] that FB would have to start this arms race, of making ads that look different to human users, but not to computers. The article points out that FB seems to be in a losing position since they need their ads to say "suggested post" and give those posts special options -- so ad blockers can always just look for that. I think they can be a little more devious though -- say, make the CSS really complex so that the letters for "suggested post" only appear in the right positions for legit adds, and then have it load the options for the element from somewhere else. But that comes with a major code-complexity/debugging cost. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12255612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12255612

ArchReaper 10y ago
Even that is a losing battle, as you would then just identify the class(es) that result in the 'correct' position of letters. Ultimately it is an unwinnable battle, but one they can fight as long as they want.
- progval 10y ago
  What if it was a set of pixels instead?
  - gruez 10y ago
    even better, the entire page is rendered using the canvas api, using obfuscated javascript
- scottmf 10y ago
  I disagree. I don't see how it can be unwinnable. Even if it were an endless game of whack-a-mole, free adblock plugins don't have a fraction of the resources of Facebook. Publishers became greedy, ads became intrusive, and users reacted by flocking to adblockers. Now the users have taken it too far and publishers are forced to respond. No one is owed an ad-free experience.
  - 10y ago

overcast 10y ago

I really don't have an issue with ads, I have a problem with shitty ads. If Facebook put a quarter of those adblock blocking resources into getting appropriate ads, none of this would be an issue. That goes for the rest of the internet. People use adblockers because it's completely intrusive and awful to see.

seanp2k2 10y ago
The latest rash of them have been grotesque "one weird trick" type ones. I'm not sure why they're even selling spots to whatever idiots are making these, because it's undoubtedly driving users away and pushing people to install ad blockers to not look at that nasty garbage.
- overcast 10y ago
  Because they are probably making more money accepting them, than they are losing money from getting blocked.

meira 10y ago

It's a very contraditory move to bet high in AI and block-Adblock tech at the same time.

ArchReaper 10y ago
I get the feeling that the future-business side of Facebook and the in-app advertising side of Facebook are not very connected.
- meira 10y ago
  And this is a huge business opportunity.
marcosdumay 10y ago
It is a bet that their AI is orders of magnitude better than the adblock's AI. It's a lot of hubris, but not contradictory.
- meira 10y ago
  The same bet Microsoft took against FOSS. I'll stick with the same horse.

downandout 10y ago

IMO it's certainly possible to make ads unblockable. Right now they just aren't trying very hard. It's all about the footprints. This article claims that laws requiring ads to be marked as such would preclude them from removing these footprints, but that isn't necessarily true. For example, Facebook could have two images of identical size, one that says the word "sponsored" and one that is blank, stored on their servers. Every post - sponsored or not - could reference the image like "/image.png?postid=123" and the server would decide based on the post ID which image to actually serve. Unless adblockers could implement machine vision, they wouldn't be able to distinguish this. Facebook could also go the hostile route - when they detect an ad blocker, just display a blank overlay saying that you can't use Facebook with an ad blocker enabled. Ads are here to stay.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ArchReaper 10y ago
I believe this would violate ease-of-access rules - screen readers would have to be able to tell a user, so if an image is used, the alt/title tag would be set to 'sponsored'.
- downandout 10y ago
  I suppose, but that's not a legal issue, that's a usability issue. There's no law that says I have to use alt/title tags.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    The ADA might want to disagree with you: "The Department is currently developing regulations specifically addressing the accessibility of goods and services offered via the web by entities covered by the ADA. The fact that the regulatory process is not yet complete in no way indicates that web services are not already covered by title III." — Statement of Interest of the United States Department of Justice in NAD v. Netflix (page 10)

golemotron 10y ago

> Can Facebook really make ads unblockable? Of course they can. It's called product placement.

jasonkostempski 10y ago

I bet they won't get around my advanced uBlock filter: facebook.com

cm3 10y ago

And meanwhile Axel Springer won an interim injunction to have Eyeo (makers of Adblock Plus) stop accidentally filtering tweets and other live content on their "news" sites. Ignoring Eyeo's whitelisting business model for a moment, Eyeo's laywers are right in explaining that the filters accidentally block non-ads because sites deliberately make the actual content fit into ads' patterns, which then requires updated filters. The interesting part is that Axel Springer's lawyers argue that filtering content undermines freedom of press. IANAL, but that's like saying if I put headphones on because I don't want to hear the public radio at a train station, then I'm filtering content and restricting freedom of press. The judge accepted the argument, but it doesn't make sense logically and goes against another pillar of contemporary societies: informational self-determination. If we don't fight this, we might actually end up in a world as depicted in that one Black Mirror episode[1]. Sorry, couldn't find anything in English: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Adblock-Plus-Axel-Springer-erwirkt-Einstweilige-Verfuegung-wegen-Overblocking-3294993.html http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Adblock-Plus-Axel-Spr... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits

zeta0134 10y ago
I mean, I'm going out of my way to try to stop my computer from running code I don't like. (In this case, advertising and tracking code.) There are tonnes of alternatives I could try, but I think the easiest way for me to block Facebook ads is just to stop visiting Facebook. Ads are more than just annoying. They take away my valuable time and resources. I don't care what business model you think I'm destroying, my attention is mine and mine alone, and I will not have it wrenched away from me by dancing bottles of soap accompanied by the whir of my computers fans as it struggles to play yet another poorly coded flash applet. (I realize Facebook ads very rarely use flash, but they are still distracting in the worst way.) Facebook can try to do a lot of things here, but they can never win my trust back after all these years, and I consequently refuse to trust their advertising platform more than any other. It's an intruder into my system, I will not allow it to run, and they may kindly deal with it and move on. I run my life ad free, I stopped watching television for similar reasons because I didn't feel like paying money for a service that seemed engineered to waste my time with product placement. If your business model does not agree with my preferences, too bad. I'm still not letting you run your code on my computer.

Apocryphon 10y ago

One day, a company is going to find a way to disrupt ads, as in creating a viable way for websites and mobile apps to easily make money from free products that doesn't involve inserting ads, and it will usher in the next Web X.0

st3v3r 10y ago
I wouldn't quite hold my breath on that one. Anything like that is going to have to both get users to open their wallets, and do so at a rate which matches or exceeds the current levels of revenue gained by ads. The closest thing we have now might be Patreon, and while it's successful for solo artists and small groups, I doubt a Patreon like model is going to be funding the New York Times.

AWildDHHAppears 10y ago

I'd be happy if all ads became served from the same domain, an integral part of the page (no popovers, popups, focus stealers, etc) and not-dynamic. That would remove 90% of my objections to them. Third party ads with javascript can and have been used to introduce malware, through deception or zero-day/drive-by exploits, even on otherwise reputable sites. It is for that reason that I block ads.

oxide 10y ago
I now whitelist javascript and use an adblocker after being hit by a drive-by javascript exploit that installed a bitcoin miner. After taking these precautions, I haven't had an issue with malware since.