4 ms·

> Ad blockers have no problem blocking every one of them. that's interesting. how would they block a comment like this: This post was made possible by McDonald

by princeb 10y ago

> Ad blockers have no problem blocking every one of them. that's interesting. how would they block a comment like this: This post was made possible by McDonald's (I'm lovin' it), if it were embedded this deeply in post content? I'm interested only because i have briefly entertained the idea of ad content embeded directly into a db query via a sproc, for example, so that the ad and the post content are basically one and the same... if the entire content is blocked, maybe that's the desired outcome? never bothered to try it though.

jay-saint 10y ago
If all you wanted to do is embed " This post was made possible by xyz co." Most blockers would miss this. However most advertisers want to have a link provided to track results . It's trivial to block the links to xyz.co/partner=123 . With the above knowledge and some trust a retailer could gain customers and bypass adblockers by bypassing links in their ads and focusing on views.
throwaway12253 10y ago
I'm not a lawyer and I doubt it would be that big of an issue for some random blogger who can barely cover hosting costs with advertising revenue, but I remember there being some regulations (FTC rules?) regarding the separation of advertising and content. For example if I recall correctly... you can be sued and heavily fined for conflating the two and not explicitly delineating the different types of information. Hence why Facebook and Google advertising can be pretty easily blocked by figuring out the meaning of div labels. Of course to thwart ad blockers, these div labels usually are cycled through pseudo-random characters forcing a cat-and-mouse game in maintaining block lists, but the intent of separation has to be there. This is similar to the surprising effects of regulation in news reporting that ultimately gives minority viewpoints ample screentime in the spirit of 'fair coverage against bias', leading to viewers' false perception of systemic disunity. The perverse incentives for mixing in deceptive ads or product recommendations is still there so people find rather interesting ways to sidestep the rules: e.g. hyping up stocks or spreading FUD either 'anonymously' or through intent-obfuscated 'press releases'. But then again these shady counterings are also regulated in other ad-hoc ways such as securities fraud law, fiduciary duty to shareholders, compensated spokesperson laws, libel laws, etc.
wvenable 10y ago
The other side of the coin is that we do, actually, want to highlight what is advertising and what is content. You can disguise an ad as content so well that it becomes deceptive.

by princeb 10y ago

jay-saint 10y ago

If all you wanted to do is embed " This post was made possible by xyz co." Most blockers would miss this. However most advertisers want to have a link provided to track results . It's trivial to block the links to xyz.co/partner=123 . With the above knowledge and some trust a retailer could gain customers and bypass adblockers by bypassing links in their ads and focusing on views.

throwaway12253 10y ago

I'm not a lawyer and I doubt it would be that big of an issue for some random blogger who can barely cover hosting costs with advertising revenue, but I remember there being some regulations (FTC rules?) regarding the separation of advertising and content. For example if I recall correctly... you can be sued and heavily fined for conflating the two and not explicitly delineating the different types of information. Hence why Facebook and Google advertising can be pretty easily blocked by figuring out the meaning of div labels. Of course to thwart ad blockers, these div labels usually are cycled through pseudo-random characters forcing a cat-and-mouse game in maintaining block lists, but the intent of separation has to be there. This is similar to the surprising effects of regulation in news reporting that ultimately gives minority viewpoints ample screentime in the spirit of 'fair coverage against bias', leading to viewers' false perception of systemic disunity. The perverse incentives for mixing in deceptive ads or product recommendations is still there so people find rather interesting ways to sidestep the rules: e.g. hyping up stocks or spreading FUD either 'anonymously' or through intent-obfuscated 'press releases'. But then again these shady counterings are also regulated in other ad-hoc ways such as securities fraud law, fiduciary duty to shareholders, compensated spokesperson laws, libel laws, etc.

wvenable 10y ago

The other side of the coin is that we do, actually, want to highlight what is advertising and what is content. You can disguise an ad as content so well that it becomes deceptive.