3 ms·

I disagree with the statement that the game is over after step 18. troymc already said it: Use a proxy browser. Let the ads and tracking do their work inside a

by _nalply 10y ago

I disagree with the statement that the game is over after step 18. troymc already said it: Use a proxy browser. Let the ads and tracking do their work inside a sandboxed virtual system. Software outside the sandbox analyses and filters the experience then relays it to the user. GAME OVER. This reminds me of embedded secrets in a gadget. They are ultimately hackable to a determined enough possessor. The long series of iOS jailbreaks show that. At an extreme the hacker measures single electrons flowing in a die to extract the secret. The rule is: Don't give gadgets with embedded secrets. They will be eventually found out if the interest is high enough. So what can Ad Tech then do? Use malware to break out of the sandbox. However this is so blatantly illegal that it's not practicable for respectable companies. GAME OVER.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Yes, the proxy browser solution looks like where we're going to end up. If ad vendors insist on absolute control over my DOM? Fine. I'll give them a DOM they can have absolute control over. Only I won't be viewing it. It amazes me the degree that publishers will go to make sure I see things I don't want to see. Perhaps if they worked more on creating things I wanted to see, they wouldn't have to work so hard at forcing me to see things that I don't want to.
ue_ 10y ago
The unfortunate part about this is that you're still rendering the ads. Whereas a big point of the usage of adblockers is to save network transfer or computer power or make your browser faster, this proxy browser solution only solves the issue of "I don't want to see things I don't want to see". It's fine for the people who aren't on metered connections or have ever more powerful computers to keep up with the pace of the web - but in some respects, the ad people have won in making it terribly inconvenient.
- gaius 10y ago
  Render them in Xvfb or equivalent on a proxy somewhere first?

by _nalply 10y ago

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

Yes, the proxy browser solution looks like where we're going to end up. If ad vendors insist on absolute control over my DOM? Fine. I'll give them a DOM they can have absolute control over. Only I won't be viewing it. It amazes me the degree that publishers will go to make sure I see things I don't want to see. Perhaps if they worked more on creating things I wanted to see, they wouldn't have to work so hard at forcing me to see things that I don't want to.

ue_ 10y ago

The unfortunate part about this is that you're still rendering the ads. Whereas a big point of the usage of adblockers is to save network transfer or computer power or make your browser faster, this proxy browser solution only solves the issue of "I don't want to see things I don't want to see". It's fine for the people who aren't on metered connections or have ever more powerful computers to keep up with the pace of the web - but in some respects, the ad people have won in making it terribly inconvenient.

gaius 10y ago
Render them in Xvfb or equivalent on a proxy somewhere first?