18 ms·

The article puts a significant emphasis on the idea that bulletproof ad-blocking technology, assuming that's what this turns out to be in practice, will work lo

The article puts a significant emphasis on the idea that bulletproof ad-blocking technology, assuming that's what this turns out to be in practice, will work long-term becuase of legal restrictions imposed by the FTC. If Google, Facebook, or other multi-billion dollar entities detect an existential threat arising from this or any other technology, rest assured that the laws will change as quickly as is necessary to keep them happy. Lobbyists will be paid, and donations will be made. Anti-ad-blocking laws will be introduced, or the FTC's ad identification restrictions will be relaxed. Ads aren't going anywhere, and neither are advertisers.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jpambrun 10y ago
Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable. Even with the ad labeling requirements relaxed, unless it is truly deceptive, a CNN could identify it just as well (or better) than we can.
- downandout 10y ago
  Interesting question. Given the incredible latitude that courts have afforded to the CFAA, if a site put in its TOS that accessing it with an ad blocker enabled is prohibited, would that be actionable? Could ad blocking companies in such a case be held liable for tortious interference and/or conspiracy to violate the CFAA? I don't know the answer, but I can certainly see a lower court ruling that way before it is decided by the Supreme Court. To be sure, that's where this would be headed if this kind of technology becomes ubiquitous and effective.
- turblety 10y ago
  Already you have restrictive software/firmware running on your computer. Look into Intel ME (Management Engine) a likely backdoor into your computer you have no control over, don't know what it does, and can not disable it. It already helps many DRM applications to restrict what content you can play and how. Legislation to disable adblocking could be reinforced already be implemented into the next generation of Intel/AMD chips so you bet this could be enforceable.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    > It already helps many DRM applications to restrict what content you can play and how. [citation needed] - I'm aware of the hypervisor capabilties of ME but not aware of it being used for DRM yet?
    - Kliment 10y ago
      https://web.archive.org/web/20161005075537/http://www.alexrad.me:80/discourse/why-rosyna-cant-take-a-movie-screenshot.html https://web.archive.org/web/20161005075537/http://www.alexra...
    - turblety 10y ago
      Yeah using PAVP "Protected Audio/Video Path". Basically there are chunks of memory that are only accessible to the Management Engine. (Note at this point it doesn't work in reverse, there is no memory that is not accessible to the Intel ME. It can see and manipulate everything). When your media player wants to play protected video it sends the encrypted content to the graphic card which then sends it through ME for decryption. But regardless of whether this was already in there or not, Intel could simply put any code in there to force the display of ads or media and there is nothing you can do about it. Also, although this hasn't been done yet as far as we know, they could remotely update your Intel chip the next time you are within range of a known WiFi router to include this new anti-feature. EDIT: Adding source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology#Features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Techno...
  - gech 10y ago
    Do Ryzen chips have this?
- Chaebixi 10y ago
  > Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable An anti-ad-blocker ad would probably be easy to enforce: arrest the people making and distributing ad blockers. However, I think the main threat is a repeal of requirements to label ads (which this technology relies on), not to ban ad-blockers outright. I bet that would cause less resistance. Quoth the OP: > Perceptual ad-blocking, on the other hand, ignores those codes and those lists. Instead, it uses optical character recognition, design techniques, and container searches (the boxes that ads are commonly put in on a page) to detect words like "sponsored" or "close ad" that are required to appear on every ad, which is what allows it to detect and block Facebook ads.
  - derefr 10y ago
    You assume everyone who writes an ad-blocker lives in the US, or a in country the US has coerced into joining WIPO. If an ad-blocked is written by a Chinese citizen, hosted in a Russian data-center, and attached to an Iranian domain name, what precisely is the US government going to do?
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      Probably drop a MOAB on the datacenter.
      - goodplay 10y ago
        That would work for a country that can't defend itself or retaliate. I'm not sure that applies to any of the three mentioned.
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago
      Don't you remember when libdvdcss was so illegal you had to run a script (that Ubuntu shipped) to download it? The horror!
    - bigbugbag 10y ago
      Arbitrarily seize the domain name.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable Many doubted that DRM was practical to enforce.
  - jpambrun 10y ago
    Piracy is still booming. It kind of support my point that ad-blocking laws wouldn't be enforceable, just like anti-DRM laws.
  - bigbugbag 10y ago
    And as they were impractical apple removed them from itunes in 2009.
- derefr 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure that, if the ad is embedded into a platform that's locked up with DRM, then an ad-blocker developer would necessarily be violating DMCA provisions by publishing their work. It's thankful that no major PC or mobile OS is yet considered to fall under those regulations, but I think it would already apply in the case of game consoles.
  - bigbugbag 10y ago
    DMCA outside the US is the story of polite anakata and retractable batons.
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  Why not? Even if the risk of getting caught is small, if the penalties are large, the risk isn't worth it. Feel like risking a trip to jail just to avoid some ads? Not to mention that it is fairly easy for government to clamp down on distribution of software that allows ad blocking. As blockers will still exist, but adoption will plummet if the only place to get a ad blocker is torrent sites and such.
  - jpambrun 10y ago
    You just can't jail everybody that avoid DRM or blocks ads. There would be nobody left to pay for said prisons.
  - bigbugbag 10y ago
    Thing is an ad-blocker is merely a content blocker that happens to block ads. making ad blocking illegal would not make content blocker illegal. You could still use those to block trackers which are the underwater part of the online ads iceberg. Making an anti-tracking-blocking law would be a different beast because now you're attacking a fundamental human right to privacy and advertisers would still be mad because they lost their ability to upsell their ads that can't be targeted or retargeted anymore. Alternatively just go back to using the system hosts file, or replace ad blockers by whole website blockers, use a vpn to a country that does not have this law. There are options around such a nonsense piece of legislation
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tn135 10y ago
> If Google, Facebook, or other multi-billion dollar entities detect an existential threat arising from this or any other technology, rest assured that the laws will change as quickly as is necessary to keep them happy. Lobbyists will be paid, and donations will be made Money will be paid and wolves will be invited in the house to essentially bring a legislation that is not enforceable. As a profit hungry business owner that sounds like a real bad move. If I were google or facebook I would rather have a much more robust plan B that would involve using technology and size to benefit from the strategy.
- quotemstr 10y ago
  Oh, the legislation is enforceable all right: just require cryptographic remote attestation for access to online services. Corey Doctorow was right about the coming war on general-purpose computing.
ruleabidinguser 10y ago
Personally I wouldn't be offended if users of these services were denied access to websites that for example depend on ads. Its something like a violation of contract by the user.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  There's no such contract for publicly accessible website. If there was one it could be denounced as any other contract and would allow suing the website for breach of contract. Then there's countries outside the US with different contract laws, so imagine the headache to have a blog online.
drumttocs8 10y ago
I can see it now... "Advertisements are a form of free speech. Corporations are people too."
- aub3bhat 10y ago
  Advertisements are a form of free speech. 6 vs 3 Supreme Court "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc. "
  - 2bitencryption 10y ago
    This is the reason why in the USA you will see commercials for medications ("Ask your doctor about XYZ; you know, instead of letting your doctor decide what's best.")
    - aub3bhat 10y ago
      Hahah Actually its worse, "Ask your doctor about XYZ, and if your doctor did not tell you about it, We will find out! Since we know her name and how much XYZ she prescribed vs generic ABC!"
    - treehau5_ 10y ago
      It was Pfizer that pioneered that, and it's cataloged wonderfully in the book "Overdosed America"
    - takeda 10y ago
      Is it really, so why they don't advertise cigarettes?
      - chadgeidel 10y ago
        Because - at least in the US - Tobacco advertising is specifically banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smoking_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smokin...
aub3bhat 10y ago
Or simply a hardened browser DMCA, with signed write-or-execute JS VM that ensures that integrity of the page as rendered cannot be messed with by some pesky extension.
- pjc50 10y ago
  .. which requires banning all existing browsers, which is something Microsoft, Apple and Google are unlikely to go along with quietly.
  - fkooman 10y ago
    So, next step is DRM for webpages/content in addition to video, either you see all or nothing. The W3C is probably already running with the idea to destroy the "free" web :-)
- pauloday 10y ago
  But then people could just get a list of ad hosts and modify their hosts.txt to redirect those addresses to localhost. I think there's other ways to stop this though. It doesn't seem like a huge stretch for ad providers to give hosts all the stuff to host the ad from their server directly, for example.
- the8472 10y ago
  You mean EME? They could basically deliver a single-frame video containing the ads, text and image of the page. With some hitboxes layered over the <video> element so that when the user clicks on something it still is interactive.
skybrian 10y ago
This is too cynical. You can be sure there will be lobbyists involved making the case for companies affected, but this does not guarantee results. Any business plan where there's government involved is risky. Heck, even with a Republican-controlled Congress, the Republicans can't always get their agenda passed because they don't even agree among themselves what it is. Nobody can rest easy that Congress will do what they want.
- accountyaccount 10y ago
  >Nobody can rest easy that Congress will do what they want. Given enough money, I think you definitely can.
- downandout 10y ago
  It would be cynical in the case of lower profile companies just looking to get their way. In the case of at least two $400 billion+ companies - combined market cap of nearly $1 trillion and the bedrock our country's image of technology supremacy - the rules change. Members of Congress, senators, and many of their constituents directly or indirectly hold shares in one or both of these companies. It is unfathomable to me that once brought to their attention (through lobbying and donations) that these kinds of threats to companies like Google and Facebook would not be legislatively blocked.
  - Retric 10y ago
    'Breaking' the internet for 50+ million people is a no go, they would just add a 10$ / month fee at the ISP level just like music CD's, because company's just want money and politicians want to get elected.
  - skybrian 10y ago
    You do realize they're closer to the Democrat's side on most issues? The Democrats aren't doing so well lately.
  - gerdesj 10y ago
    "Members of Congress ... that these kinds of threats to companies like Google and Facebook would not be legislatively blocked." and how would that affect say me (in the UK)?
uncensored 10y ago
How can anyone prevent me from coding an ML-based ad blocker and releasing it as open source and as something that would install between the broswer and the network?
- Myrmornis 10y ago
  They can't but very few people would use it if it is (a) illegal and (b) some weird geek thing, so it would not have much cultural or economic impact.
adventured 10y ago
If you were right, they'd have already done it. If they can so easily get laws changed to what they prefer, ad-blocking would be illegal right now. It costs Google a lot of money. I haven't seen an ad on their search, adsense or youtube platforms in years.
jasonkostempski 10y ago
If an anti-ad-blocking law were to pass, the next step would be link blockers to sites with unwanted ads, tracking or other content. This is what I do for sites I'm sick of landing on only to be told I can't see the content unless they're allowed to track me. I haven't seen a link to WSJ, Forbes, Wired, etc. in months. Wide adoption of such a tool would force sites to find a better means of funding or just disappear.
shouldbworking 10y ago
I unfortunately agree with you 100%. Theres too much money tied up in advertising for it to ever go away. Google is the greatest conglomeration of Nobel worthy scientists and engineers in the last century. And their entire organization is built on advertising. After creating the best search engine and email system, they created the best web browser and most popular operating system in the world. All of this for the sole purpose of controlling the advertising platform, their raw intelligence is unquestionable. Google's open source contributions are unmatched and this is just a small sample of the tech they keep hidden away. As much as I find myself in awe of google, I'm absolutely terrified of the ad laden future they're leading us towards with open arms. Ad blocking has one single insurmountable problem, Google, the smartest and most powerful company in the world.
- pducks32 10y ago
  I believe that distinction still goes to University of Chicago.
  - sharmi 10y ago
    I am sorry, but I do not get the reference? What does it point to?
    - zitterbewegung 10y ago
      U of C has the most people that have won the Nobel prize historically which points toward people part of the university to win more Nobel Prizes.
      - nyolfen 10y ago
        is that because of the psuedo-nobel for economics? i don't think that should count towards the tally, and in any case i would have guessed it was the manhattan project edit: for those who are downvoting, you might not be aware that the 'nobel' for economics is not issued by the nobel committee but rather the swedish central bank, using the nobel name to appropriate prestige from the better-known prize presented by the norwegian nobel committee. it is not affiliated with the nobel peace prize.
obstinate 10y ago
Just like how big coal was able to prevent all EPA regulations, and big tobacco is still allowed to advertise to children and on billboards, right?
rvern 10y ago
The United States is only one of the many countries that Google and Facebook operate in. They have to follow the laws of the other countries as well, and they have done so in the past. Furthermore, if humans are still able to recognize the ads as ads after they are not explicitly marked as ads, a perceptual ad-blocker might be able to detect them too. If the adtech companies modify the ads enough that the ads are indistinguishable from non-sponsored content, this xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/810/ https://xkcd.com/810/.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  They have to, but they do not and they argue that they don't have to. This is a thing in Europe right now, among which tax evasion through the double irish sandwich.
andresgottlieb 10y ago
You're forgetting about companies whose business is not ad based (eg. Apple), they will make sure not to allow those laws to pass.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
microcolonel 10y ago
I don't think it will get that out of hand. There is huge popular support for ad blocking, and many of the general public would show force on this.
krick 10y ago
The law can be passed, whatever it must be (I'm honestly struggling to imagine it), but what is it worth if you can't enforce it? Evidently some people believe they don't steal because it's illegal, but they actually do it only because they can be caught and punished, and it isn't worth the hassle. If we are talking about some abstract computing environment and not just some proprietary, DRM-bound OS — I can chose to show on the screen whatever the fuck I want, if I can watch some movie at all, I also can watch it in vertically-flipped sepia mode, with whichever parts of the picture blacked-out. Same with any content. It may be illegal, but you cannot verify it, and then prove I did it on purpose. I think solution will be found, but it more likely will be technological. There's no such thing as "end to the arms race". Never can be, almost by definition. That been said, the "news" here isn't even that much sensational. Just vice.com, as usual. Journalists, eh. The most obvious thing is that CV-based solution, while being buzz-wordy and fashionable isn't preferable by any means: for me the main point of blocking ads is not "hiding them" (I don't even care that much), but making web-pages faster and less obtrusive, which requires blocking ads before they are loaded.
guilamu 10y ago
For anyone doubting the absolute veracity of this comment, here's a 5 minutes video on how laws are made in America: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
PostOnce 10y ago
Anti-ad-blocking laws sound likely to be as effective as anti-piracy laws.
chrischen 10y ago
The music industry failed.
amelius 10y ago
On the flipside, if humans can detect what is an ad, then ultimately a computer (e.g. through deep learning) will also be able to detect it.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  There a fairly common forms of advertising that are used because humans are very bad at detecting them (where the commercial message is incorporated into content with another surface purpose rather than delivered alongside it in a discrete form), so that just means those forms will become more common as a share of all ads.
bigbugbag 10y ago
In a few decades with no oil to extract from the ground, antibiotic-resistant pathogen everywhere, generalized food insecurity, power shortages, polluted air and difficulties to access clean water I'm pretty sure advertising will be gone and advertisers with their lack of useful or transferable skills will not be part of this world.
flukus 10y ago
Why do you think google has put so much time and effort into controlling the user agent?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jpambrun 10y ago

Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable. Even with the ad labeling requirements relaxed, unless it is truly deceptive, a CNN could identify it just as well (or better) than we can.

downandout 10y ago
Interesting question. Given the incredible latitude that courts have afforded to the CFAA, if a site put in its TOS that accessing it with an ad blocker enabled is prohibited, would that be actionable? Could ad blocking companies in such a case be held liable for tortious interference and/or conspiracy to violate the CFAA? I don't know the answer, but I can certainly see a lower court ruling that way before it is decided by the Supreme Court. To be sure, that's where this would be headed if this kind of technology becomes ubiquitous and effective.
turblety 10y ago
Already you have restrictive software/firmware running on your computer. Look into Intel ME (Management Engine) a likely backdoor into your computer you have no control over, don't know what it does, and can not disable it. It already helps many DRM applications to restrict what content you can play and how. Legislation to disable adblocking could be reinforced already be implemented into the next generation of Intel/AMD chips so you bet this could be enforceable.
- pjc50 10y ago
  > It already helps many DRM applications to restrict what content you can play and how. [citation needed] - I'm aware of the hypervisor capabilties of ME but not aware of it being used for DRM yet?
  - Kliment 10y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20161005075537/http://www.alexrad.me:80/discourse/why-rosyna-cant-take-a-movie-screenshot.html https://web.archive.org/web/20161005075537/http://www.alexra...
  - turblety 10y ago
    Yeah using PAVP "Protected Audio/Video Path". Basically there are chunks of memory that are only accessible to the Management Engine. (Note at this point it doesn't work in reverse, there is no memory that is not accessible to the Intel ME. It can see and manipulate everything). When your media player wants to play protected video it sends the encrypted content to the graphic card which then sends it through ME for decryption. But regardless of whether this was already in there or not, Intel could simply put any code in there to force the display of ads or media and there is nothing you can do about it. Also, although this hasn't been done yet as far as we know, they could remotely update your Intel chip the next time you are within range of a known WiFi router to include this new anti-feature. EDIT: Adding source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology#Features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Techno...
- gech 10y ago
  Do Ryzen chips have this?
Chaebixi 10y ago
> Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable An anti-ad-blocker ad would probably be easy to enforce: arrest the people making and distributing ad blockers. However, I think the main threat is a repeal of requirements to label ads (which this technology relies on), not to ban ad-blockers outright. I bet that would cause less resistance. Quoth the OP: > Perceptual ad-blocking, on the other hand, ignores those codes and those lists. Instead, it uses optical character recognition, design techniques, and container searches (the boxes that ads are commonly put in on a page) to detect words like "sponsored" or "close ad" that are required to appear on every ad, which is what allows it to detect and block Facebook ads.
- derefr 10y ago
  You assume everyone who writes an ad-blocker lives in the US, or a in country the US has coerced into joining WIPO. If an ad-blocked is written by a Chinese citizen, hosted in a Russian data-center, and attached to an Iranian domain name, what precisely is the US government going to do?
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    Probably drop a MOAB on the datacenter.
    - goodplay 10y ago
      That would work for a country that can't defend itself or retaliate. I'm not sure that applies to any of the three mentioned.
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    Don't you remember when libdvdcss was so illegal you had to run a script (that Ubuntu shipped) to download it? The horror!
  - bigbugbag 10y ago
    Arbitrarily seize the domain name.
hackuser 10y ago
> Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable Many doubted that DRM was practical to enforce.
- jpambrun 10y ago
  Piracy is still booming. It kind of support my point that ad-blocking laws wouldn't be enforceable, just like anti-DRM laws.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  And as they were impractical apple removed them from itunes in 2009.
derefr 10y ago
I'm pretty sure that, if the ad is embedded into a platform that's locked up with DRM, then an ad-blocker developer would necessarily be violating DMCA provisions by publishing their work. It's thankful that no major PC or mobile OS is yet considered to fall under those regulations, but I think it would already apply in the case of game consoles.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  DMCA outside the US is the story of polite anakata and retractable batons.
jaredklewis 10y ago
Why not? Even if the risk of getting caught is small, if the penalties are large, the risk isn't worth it. Feel like risking a trip to jail just to avoid some ads? Not to mention that it is fairly easy for government to clamp down on distribution of software that allows ad blocking. As blockers will still exist, but adoption will plummet if the only place to get a ad blocker is torrent sites and such.
- jpambrun 10y ago
  You just can't jail everybody that avoid DRM or blocks ads. There would be nobody left to pay for said prisons.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  Thing is an ad-blocker is merely a content blocker that happens to block ads. making ad blocking illegal would not make content blocker illegal. You could still use those to block trackers which are the underwater part of the online ads iceberg. Making an anti-tracking-blocking law would be a different beast because now you're attacking a fundamental human right to privacy and advertisers would still be mad because they lost their ability to upsell their ads that can't be targeted or retargeted anymore. Alternatively just go back to using the system hosts file, or replace ad blockers by whole website blockers, use a vpn to a country that does not have this law. There are options around such a nonsense piece of legislation

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tn135 10y ago

> If Google, Facebook, or other multi-billion dollar entities detect an existential threat arising from this or any other technology, rest assured that the laws will change as quickly as is necessary to keep them happy. Lobbyists will be paid, and donations will be made Money will be paid and wolves will be invited in the house to essentially bring a legislation that is not enforceable. As a profit hungry business owner that sounds like a real bad move. If I were google or facebook I would rather have a much more robust plan B that would involve using technology and size to benefit from the strategy.

quotemstr 10y ago
Oh, the legislation is enforceable all right: just require cryptographic remote attestation for access to online services. Corey Doctorow was right about the coming war on general-purpose computing.

ruleabidinguser 10y ago

Personally I wouldn't be offended if users of these services were denied access to websites that for example depend on ads. Its something like a violation of contract by the user.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bigbugbag 10y ago
There's no such contract for publicly accessible website. If there was one it could be denounced as any other contract and would allow suing the website for breach of contract. Then there's countries outside the US with different contract laws, so imagine the headache to have a blog online.

drumttocs8 10y ago

I can see it now... "Advertisements are a form of free speech. Corporations are people too."

aub3bhat 10y ago
Advertisements are a form of free speech. 6 vs 3 Supreme Court "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc. "
- 2bitencryption 10y ago
  This is the reason why in the USA you will see commercials for medications ("Ask your doctor about XYZ; you know, instead of letting your doctor decide what's best.")
  - aub3bhat 10y ago
    Hahah Actually its worse, "Ask your doctor about XYZ, and if your doctor did not tell you about it, We will find out! Since we know her name and how much XYZ she prescribed vs generic ABC!"
  - treehau5_ 10y ago
    It was Pfizer that pioneered that, and it's cataloged wonderfully in the book "Overdosed America"
  - takeda 10y ago
    Is it really, so why they don't advertise cigarettes?
    - chadgeidel 10y ago
      Because - at least in the US - Tobacco advertising is specifically banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smoking_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smokin...

aub3bhat 10y ago

Or simply a hardened browser DMCA, with signed write-or-execute JS VM that ensures that integrity of the page as rendered cannot be messed with by some pesky extension.

pjc50 10y ago
.. which requires banning all existing browsers, which is something Microsoft, Apple and Google are unlikely to go along with quietly.
- fkooman 10y ago
  So, next step is DRM for webpages/content in addition to video, either you see all or nothing. The W3C is probably already running with the idea to destroy the "free" web :-)
pauloday 10y ago
But then people could just get a list of ad hosts and modify their hosts.txt to redirect those addresses to localhost. I think there's other ways to stop this though. It doesn't seem like a huge stretch for ad providers to give hosts all the stuff to host the ad from their server directly, for example.
the8472 10y ago
You mean EME? They could basically deliver a single-frame video containing the ads, text and image of the page. With some hitboxes layered over the <video> element so that when the user clicks on something it still is interactive.

skybrian 10y ago

This is too cynical. You can be sure there will be lobbyists involved making the case for companies affected, but this does not guarantee results. Any business plan where there's government involved is risky. Heck, even with a Republican-controlled Congress, the Republicans can't always get their agenda passed because they don't even agree among themselves what it is. Nobody can rest easy that Congress will do what they want.

accountyaccount 10y ago
>Nobody can rest easy that Congress will do what they want. Given enough money, I think you definitely can.
downandout 10y ago
It would be cynical in the case of lower profile companies just looking to get their way. In the case of at least two $400 billion+ companies - combined market cap of nearly $1 trillion and the bedrock our country's image of technology supremacy - the rules change. Members of Congress, senators, and many of their constituents directly or indirectly hold shares in one or both of these companies. It is unfathomable to me that once brought to their attention (through lobbying and donations) that these kinds of threats to companies like Google and Facebook would not be legislatively blocked.
- Retric 10y ago
  'Breaking' the internet for 50+ million people is a no go, they would just add a 10$ / month fee at the ISP level just like music CD's, because company's just want money and politicians want to get elected.
- skybrian 10y ago
  You do realize they're closer to the Democrat's side on most issues? The Democrats aren't doing so well lately.
- gerdesj 10y ago
  "Members of Congress ... that these kinds of threats to companies like Google and Facebook would not be legislatively blocked." and how would that affect say me (in the UK)?

uncensored 10y ago

How can anyone prevent me from coding an ML-based ad blocker and releasing it as open source and as something that would install between the broswer and the network?

Myrmornis 10y ago
They can't but very few people would use it if it is (a) illegal and (b) some weird geek thing, so it would not have much cultural or economic impact.

adventured 10y ago

If you were right, they'd have already done it. If they can so easily get laws changed to what they prefer, ad-blocking would be illegal right now. It costs Google a lot of money. I haven't seen an ad on their search, adsense or youtube platforms in years.

jasonkostempski 10y ago

If an anti-ad-blocking law were to pass, the next step would be link blockers to sites with unwanted ads, tracking or other content. This is what I do for sites I'm sick of landing on only to be told I can't see the content unless they're allowed to track me. I haven't seen a link to WSJ, Forbes, Wired, etc. in months. Wide adoption of such a tool would force sites to find a better means of funding or just disappear.

shouldbworking 10y ago

I unfortunately agree with you 100%. Theres too much money tied up in advertising for it to ever go away. Google is the greatest conglomeration of Nobel worthy scientists and engineers in the last century. And their entire organization is built on advertising. After creating the best search engine and email system, they created the best web browser and most popular operating system in the world. All of this for the sole purpose of controlling the advertising platform, their raw intelligence is unquestionable. Google's open source contributions are unmatched and this is just a small sample of the tech they keep hidden away. As much as I find myself in awe of google, I'm absolutely terrified of the ad laden future they're leading us towards with open arms. Ad blocking has one single insurmountable problem, Google, the smartest and most powerful company in the world.

pducks32 10y ago
I believe that distinction still goes to University of Chicago.
- sharmi 10y ago
  I am sorry, but I do not get the reference? What does it point to?
  - zitterbewegung 10y ago
    U of C has the most people that have won the Nobel prize historically which points toward people part of the university to win more Nobel Prizes.
    - nyolfen 10y ago
      is that because of the psuedo-nobel for economics? i don't think that should count towards the tally, and in any case i would have guessed it was the manhattan project edit: for those who are downvoting, you might not be aware that the 'nobel' for economics is not issued by the nobel committee but rather the swedish central bank, using the nobel name to appropriate prestige from the better-known prize presented by the norwegian nobel committee. it is not affiliated with the nobel peace prize.

obstinate 10y ago

Just like how big coal was able to prevent all EPA regulations, and big tobacco is still allowed to advertise to children and on billboards, right?

rvern 10y ago

The United States is only one of the many countries that Google and Facebook operate in. They have to follow the laws of the other countries as well, and they have done so in the past. Furthermore, if humans are still able to recognize the ads as ads after they are not explicitly marked as ads, a perceptual ad-blocker might be able to detect them too. If the adtech companies modify the ads enough that the ads are indistinguishable from non-sponsored content, this xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/810/ https://xkcd.com/810/.

bigbugbag 10y ago
They have to, but they do not and they argue that they don't have to. This is a thing in Europe right now, among which tax evasion through the double irish sandwich.

andresgottlieb 10y ago

You're forgetting about companies whose business is not ad based (eg. Apple), they will make sure not to allow those laws to pass.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

microcolonel 10y ago

I don't think it will get that out of hand. There is huge popular support for ad blocking, and many of the general public would show force on this.

krick 10y ago

The law can be passed, whatever it must be (I'm honestly struggling to imagine it), but what is it worth if you can't enforce it? Evidently some people believe they don't steal because it's illegal, but they actually do it only because they can be caught and punished, and it isn't worth the hassle. If we are talking about some abstract computing environment and not just some proprietary, DRM-bound OS — I can chose to show on the screen whatever the fuck I want, if I can watch some movie at all, I also can watch it in vertically-flipped sepia mode, with whichever parts of the picture blacked-out. Same with any content. It may be illegal, but you cannot verify it, and then prove I did it on purpose. I think solution will be found, but it more likely will be technological. There's no such thing as "end to the arms race". Never can be, almost by definition. That been said, the "news" here isn't even that much sensational. Just vice.com, as usual. Journalists, eh. The most obvious thing is that CV-based solution, while being buzz-wordy and fashionable isn't preferable by any means: for me the main point of blocking ads is not "hiding them" (I don't even care that much), but making web-pages faster and less obtrusive, which requires blocking ads before they are loaded.

guilamu 10y ago

For anyone doubting the absolute veracity of this comment, here's a 5 minutes video on how laws are made in America: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

PostOnce 10y ago

Anti-ad-blocking laws sound likely to be as effective as anti-piracy laws.

chrischen 10y ago

The music industry failed.

amelius 10y ago

On the flipside, if humans can detect what is an ad, then ultimately a computer (e.g. through deep learning) will also be able to detect it.

dragonwriter 10y ago
There a fairly common forms of advertising that are used because humans are very bad at detecting them (where the commercial message is incorporated into content with another surface purpose rather than delivered alongside it in a discrete form), so that just means those forms will become more common as a share of all ads.

bigbugbag 10y ago

In a few decades with no oil to extract from the ground, antibiotic-resistant pathogen everywhere, generalized food insecurity, power shortages, polluted air and difficulties to access clean water I'm pretty sure advertising will be gone and advertisers with their lack of useful or transferable skills will not be part of this world.

flukus 10y ago

Why do you think google has put so much time and effort into controlling the user agent?