5 ms·

I've often dreamed of coding up some kind of worm-virus, but instead of stealing data or demanding ransom or corrupting storage, it would just install uBlock Or

I've often dreamed of coding up some kind of worm-virus, but instead of stealing data or demanding ransom or corrupting storage, it would just install uBlock Origin on infected computers. Millions of infected people, with zero idea what an "ad-blocker" is, just wondering where all the YouTube ads went. And then, hopefully after a month or so of infection, companies realizing that their bottom-lines were unaffected, pulling out of digital advertising altogether. Previously-thought-of-as-invincible giant behemoths like Facebook and Google, just crumbling to dust over a short span of time. Just a dream though.

kilroy123 9y ago
I don't think it's even necessary. The percentage of people using ad blockers keeps going up and up.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  its still a minority. And even more so on mobile browsers.
  - tannhaeuser 9y ago
    You're probably right, though I don't get why. FF mobile with uBlock origin works really really well. Me, I'm using even IE 11 lately on-site at a customer of mine. They provide a choice of Chrome and IE, but I don't feel like klicking through Google's privacy disclaimer.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      sadly ff mobile share is very close to 0 percent.
- emn13 9y ago
  I kind of suspect adblocking is doomed to die rather quickly if it ever seriously threatens the ad industry. As anti-adblock has shown even fairly trivial measures can be effective; and if you control the platform in more depth you can be a lot trickier about it, e.g. by doing minification-esque transforms to the complete dom tree.
  - RodericDay 9y ago
    Markets and competition should prevent this outcome. Unless we're not in a competitive market situation, in which case regulators can step in.
    - emn13 9y ago
      How would markets prevent this? The only party interested in adblocking is the consumer, who isn't the supplier nor the customer of ads. Now, if there were some real alternative to ads; but nobody has found that yet. I suppose regulators could create that alternative, but that doesn't seem politically likely for the foreseeable future.
      - RodericDay 9y ago
        Any browser provider that has a different business model than ads? For example, Safari.
paulie_a 9y ago
Personally I have grown so tired of analytics and advertising my personal idea would be to build a plugin that doesn't block anything. But instead it simply visits websites on random topics over time and clicks ads here and there. Slowly degrading the data shitty advertising companies have and ruining ROI. I am starting to do this manually and randomly clicking ads. I honestly need to start doing that on facebook due to their new policy that every 2-3 posts need to be some "suggested" garbage Honestly I am burned out by the constant barrage of terrible ads on most websites and social media in particular.
- tomascot 9y ago
  If I'm not mistaken this exists for Firefox. Or at least existed at some point, I guess something like that could get a lot of big players upset
  - a_imho 9y ago
    Adnauseam? https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/
- mastax 9y ago
  https://noiszy.com/ https://noiszy.com/ Previously, on HN... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14002995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14002995 Noiszy is a browser plugin that creates meaningless web data - digital "noise." It visits and navigates around websites, from within your browser, leaving misleading digital footprints around the internet. Noiszy only visits a list of sites that you approve, and only works when you turn it on. Run Noiszy in the background while you're working, or start Noiszy when you're not using your browser, and it sends meaningless data to these sites for as long as you let it run. This meaningless data dilutes the significance of your "real" data, by creating a campaign of misinformation. You become more difficult for an algorithm to understand, market to, or manipulate. You can outsmart the "filter bubble".
- DanBC 9y ago
  See "track me not".
abritinthebay 9y ago
You’d lose a lot more companies than that - vast swathes of content producers would go under. Their bottom line absolutely would be affected. This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet
- satori99 9y ago
  > This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet Hyperbole much? That statement is just rubbish. Personally I think it would be the most constructive thing to happen to the Internet. Hell, maybe even society in general. Advertisers are scum, they ruin everything they touch, and any 'content' producers whose businesses died if this was to occur would certainly not be missed by me.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Not hyperbole. Having the majority of content producers be unable to continue operation would be a blow the Internet has never seen. Massively destructive. Nothing would come close that’s happened before.
    - satori99 9y ago
      If no-one is willing to pay for their 'content', then it isn't worth anything anyway. The Internet did just fine without corporate advertisers running the show and tracking everybody for years.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        You mean in the early to late 90s? Because advertising has been running the show at many levels since the early 2000s. If you don't think regressing the internet back 20 years would be massively destructive... well, I can't help you.
- gaius 9y ago
  Content worth paying for is worth paying for the old-fashioned way. Movies are not an ad-supported industry, nor is music. We'd only lose the crap that has to trick people into paying indirectly, and good riddance.
prostoalex 9y ago
An ad never clicked usually doesn't get billed, but gets reported as expanding "the reach", so counterintuitively it might actually boost a campaign (CTR fell, but the reach is now pretty cheap). Every single ad clicked every single time without an intent to act on it, however ... https://adnauseam.io https://adnauseam.io
- manigandham 9y ago
  That is a piece of junk. Digital advertising can filter out silly clicks like that without a problem.
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
Sadly, we would just end up with more sponsored content.
manigandham 9y ago
Digital advertising is absolutely effective. 2 of the biggest companies in the world are digital advertising companies, with several other giants. Don't be fooled by random examples.

kilroy123 9y ago

I don't think it's even necessary. The percentage of people using ad blockers keeps going up and up.

ekianjo 9y ago
its still a minority. And even more so on mobile browsers.
- tannhaeuser 9y ago
  You're probably right, though I don't get why. FF mobile with uBlock origin works really really well. Me, I'm using even IE 11 lately on-site at a customer of mine. They provide a choice of Chrome and IE, but I don't feel like klicking through Google's privacy disclaimer.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    sadly ff mobile share is very close to 0 percent.
emn13 9y ago
I kind of suspect adblocking is doomed to die rather quickly if it ever seriously threatens the ad industry. As anti-adblock has shown even fairly trivial measures can be effective; and if you control the platform in more depth you can be a lot trickier about it, e.g. by doing minification-esque transforms to the complete dom tree.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  Markets and competition should prevent this outcome. Unless we're not in a competitive market situation, in which case regulators can step in.
  - emn13 9y ago
    How would markets prevent this? The only party interested in adblocking is the consumer, who isn't the supplier nor the customer of ads. Now, if there were some real alternative to ads; but nobody has found that yet. I suppose regulators could create that alternative, but that doesn't seem politically likely for the foreseeable future.
    - RodericDay 9y ago
      Any browser provider that has a different business model than ads? For example, Safari.

paulie_a 9y ago

Personally I have grown so tired of analytics and advertising my personal idea would be to build a plugin that doesn't block anything. But instead it simply visits websites on random topics over time and clicks ads here and there. Slowly degrading the data shitty advertising companies have and ruining ROI. I am starting to do this manually and randomly clicking ads. I honestly need to start doing that on facebook due to their new policy that every 2-3 posts need to be some "suggested" garbage Honestly I am burned out by the constant barrage of terrible ads on most websites and social media in particular.

tomascot 9y ago
If I'm not mistaken this exists for Firefox. Or at least existed at some point, I guess something like that could get a lot of big players upset
- a_imho 9y ago
  Adnauseam? https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/
mastax 9y ago
https://noiszy.com/ https://noiszy.com/ Previously, on HN... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14002995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14002995 Noiszy is a browser plugin that creates meaningless web data - digital "noise." It visits and navigates around websites, from within your browser, leaving misleading digital footprints around the internet. Noiszy only visits a list of sites that you approve, and only works when you turn it on. Run Noiszy in the background while you're working, or start Noiszy when you're not using your browser, and it sends meaningless data to these sites for as long as you let it run. This meaningless data dilutes the significance of your "real" data, by creating a campaign of misinformation. You become more difficult for an algorithm to understand, market to, or manipulate. You can outsmart the "filter bubble".
DanBC 9y ago
See "track me not".

abritinthebay 9y ago

You’d lose a lot more companies than that - vast swathes of content producers would go under. Their bottom line absolutely would be affected. This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet

satori99 9y ago
> This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet Hyperbole much? That statement is just rubbish. Personally I think it would be the most constructive thing to happen to the Internet. Hell, maybe even society in general. Advertisers are scum, they ruin everything they touch, and any 'content' producers whose businesses died if this was to occur would certainly not be missed by me.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Not hyperbole. Having the majority of content producers be unable to continue operation would be a blow the Internet has never seen. Massively destructive. Nothing would come close that’s happened before.
  - satori99 9y ago
    If no-one is willing to pay for their 'content', then it isn't worth anything anyway. The Internet did just fine without corporate advertisers running the show and tracking everybody for years.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      You mean in the early to late 90s? Because advertising has been running the show at many levels since the early 2000s. If you don't think regressing the internet back 20 years would be massively destructive... well, I can't help you.
gaius 9y ago
Content worth paying for is worth paying for the old-fashioned way. Movies are not an ad-supported industry, nor is music. We'd only lose the crap that has to trick people into paying indirectly, and good riddance.

prostoalex 9y ago

An ad never clicked usually doesn't get billed, but gets reported as expanding "the reach", so counterintuitively it might actually boost a campaign (CTR fell, but the reach is now pretty cheap). Every single ad clicked every single time without an intent to act on it, however ... https://adnauseam.io https://adnauseam.io

manigandham 9y ago
That is a piece of junk. Digital advertising can filter out silly clicks like that without a problem.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

Sadly, we would just end up with more sponsored content.

manigandham 9y ago

Digital advertising is absolutely effective. 2 of the biggest companies in the world are digital advertising companies, with several other giants. Don't be fooled by random examples.