4 ms·

I don't understand. Generally I don't mind ads if a website is giving me content I want and what I need. But, what I do mind is when whole sections of a website

I don't understand. Generally I don't mind ads if a website is giving me content I want and what I need. But, what I do mind is when whole sections of a website get their content and scripts from multiple different other domains! Most of times it's easy to block such references altogether, but often it breaks the websites which rely entirely on them. Not the ads are the problem. The websites are the problem. Why don't they embed their ads entirely inside the webpages? They could do an elaborate internal dynamic ads system without needing to load a whole stream of third party content and software from other domains! What's the problem? I don't get it. So, I continue to block ads per default, and I don't care about the constant whining about how "morally wrong blocking ads is". EDIT: Having a process integrating ads internally will also give the operators of websites the opportunity to vet the ads for potentially malicious advertising campaigns, aka fake ads, etc. Just an idea.

geocar 8y ago
This exists. I run an ad network that offers this kind of server-to-server request of ads. My publishers pull an XML or JSON URL from their server, then render the ads however they want.
- dschuetz 8y ago
  As long as my browser doesn't load anything from different domains other than the website's domain I don't mind. If that exists, every single website needs to adapt such practice. Anything else is a waste of breath.
  - rootlocus 8y ago
    > As long as my browser doesn't load anything from different domains other than the website's domain I don't mind So you don't care about the content, only the source? There's nothing stopping the website from simply routing malicious JS from the ad network. Even worse, it would be much harder to block it this way.
    - dschuetz 8y ago
      > EDIT: Having a process integrating ads internally will also give the operators of websites the opportunity to vet the ads for potentially malicious advertising campaigns, aka fake ads, etc. If you let inline malicious code inside your website then you're doing it wrong.
      - rootlocus 8y ago
        That's about as great in theory (and probably practice) as the acceptable ads program.
    - geocar 8y ago
      Since my ad network doesn't serve any JS from an advertiser (let alone "malicious" JS), I don't know what you're talking about. What exactly are you trying to block?
      - rootlocus 8y ago
        The quote I argued against didn't specify anything regarding your particular ad network. My argument was pretty simple: the content is more important than the origin. > Since my ad network doesn't serve any JS from an advertiser That's about content. > As long as my browser doesn't load anything from different domains That's about the origin. Just because your network doesn't serve malicious JS, doesn't mean all networks do. And just because it comes from the same origin, doesn't mean it's safe.
  - geocar 8y ago
    It doesn't. In terms of technical details, I request that the publisher send me: - How many ads they want on the page - The client IP address (at least within a /20 of it) - The client user agent (they can strip hex/numbers at the end that are added by some US-based Internet providers) - Some keywords/topics (if they want contextually-targeted ads) - A cookie they have dropped for the purposes of ad retargeting/blocking if they've obtained a preference from the user to do so. In return, I send them a list of objects containing: + a title for the ad (supplied by the advertiser), no HTML permitted + a "description" for text ads (also supplied by the advertiser). <a> and <b> tags permitted, but no other HTML. + an image for the ad (also supplied by the advertiser) delivered as a data URI. I verify that it's actually an image (jpeg or png) + a "click through url" that points at a domain that the publisher has given me (usually something like ads.mysite.com) that I host -- they have to point the NS for this domain at my name servers + a preference url that indicates that the user didn't like this ad. This can be called server-to-server. I still believe in content sponsorship, even though some mega-ad networks like Google have screwed publishers and consumers hard, and it's nice to see moderated consumer views here: There's a lot of people on HN against any form of advertising on the grounds of some kind of "eyeball rape"
    - LoSboccacc 8y ago
      I’m interested. Can I get a pointer on how to find your ad platform?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - geocar 8y ago
        Sure. My email address is on my HN profile. I'm still trying to figure out all the commercials, so I'm not yet focusing on inbound traffic (i.e. website) but if you reach out via email, we can see if we can do something together.
    - iMerNibor 8y ago
      How would you deal with one of your customer faking ad views? That's the main reason I hear from people why server-to-server ads won't work reliably, since the ad network "needs" more data to verify legitimate views
  - ryanmerket 8y ago
    Adzerk. Reddit used them for many year before rolling their own.
underwater 8y ago
Facebook serve their own ads inline. Adblock engaged in a cat and mouse game trying to block their ads whilst simultaneously attempting to get them to sign up to the acceptable ads program. Adblock does nothing to incentivise publishers to behave (rewarding relevant, low bandwidth, visually appealing ads). They only care about using their user base as a weapon so they can extort 30% of profits.
- jk2323 8y ago
  "Facebook serve their own ads inline. " It is never too early to say goodbye to ads https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/socialfixer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/socialfixer/
rocqua 8y ago
Third party hosting means it is a lot easier to pay a website per view. You can't do that if the ads are hosted on a domain not controlled by the advertiser. Similarly, if you are going to personalize the ads, they need access to some third party that has this personalization. Not that I am defending the current state of web advertising, just explaining why it is third party hosted.
- dschuetz 8y ago
  I understand the gist of it and how it works. Websites provide not only dynamic ad frames they also embed trackers and the like. Abolishing "third party hosting" as you call it will make all of that not entirely impossible. The website operators still can and will have to gather usage and view data and sell it. They have to do it, not some other third party I might not be aware of. So, that excuse won't convince me, like, online ads and data mining networks trying to adsplain that their business model might perish. I won't believe a word of it. It will become more strict with a distinct delegation of responsibility, yes. Websites and services will have to use only their own domain to provide any kind of content.
super-serial 8y ago
3 reasons... nobody has time to put their ads on specific websites - it has to be automated to reach thousands of websites/communities at once. Second no advertiser trusts an individual website selling ads, unless there is tracking and reports and they know everything about the demographic of people who see the ads. Third - since advertisers are used to highly targeted ads and tracking... an individual website would basically have to rebuild all those tools in their personal system. That would be impossible without 3rd parties.

geocar 8y ago

This exists. I run an ad network that offers this kind of server-to-server request of ads. My publishers pull an XML or JSON URL from their server, then render the ads however they want.

dschuetz 8y ago
As long as my browser doesn't load anything from different domains other than the website's domain I don't mind. If that exists, every single website needs to adapt such practice. Anything else is a waste of breath.
- rootlocus 8y ago
  > As long as my browser doesn't load anything from different domains other than the website's domain I don't mind So you don't care about the content, only the source? There's nothing stopping the website from simply routing malicious JS from the ad network. Even worse, it would be much harder to block it this way.
  - dschuetz 8y ago
    > EDIT: Having a process integrating ads internally will also give the operators of websites the opportunity to vet the ads for potentially malicious advertising campaigns, aka fake ads, etc. If you let inline malicious code inside your website then you're doing it wrong.
    - rootlocus 8y ago
      That's about as great in theory (and probably practice) as the acceptable ads program.
  - geocar 8y ago
    Since my ad network doesn't serve any JS from an advertiser (let alone "malicious" JS), I don't know what you're talking about. What exactly are you trying to block?
    - rootlocus 8y ago
      The quote I argued against didn't specify anything regarding your particular ad network. My argument was pretty simple: the content is more important than the origin. > Since my ad network doesn't serve any JS from an advertiser That's about content. > As long as my browser doesn't load anything from different domains That's about the origin. Just because your network doesn't serve malicious JS, doesn't mean all networks do. And just because it comes from the same origin, doesn't mean it's safe.
- geocar 8y ago
  It doesn't. In terms of technical details, I request that the publisher send me: - How many ads they want on the page - The client IP address (at least within a /20 of it) - The client user agent (they can strip hex/numbers at the end that are added by some US-based Internet providers) - Some keywords/topics (if they want contextually-targeted ads) - A cookie they have dropped for the purposes of ad retargeting/blocking if they've obtained a preference from the user to do so. In return, I send them a list of objects containing: + a title for the ad (supplied by the advertiser), no HTML permitted + a "description" for text ads (also supplied by the advertiser). <a> and <b> tags permitted, but no other HTML. + an image for the ad (also supplied by the advertiser) delivered as a data URI. I verify that it's actually an image (jpeg or png) + a "click through url" that points at a domain that the publisher has given me (usually something like ads.mysite.com) that I host -- they have to point the NS for this domain at my name servers + a preference url that indicates that the user didn't like this ad. This can be called server-to-server. I still believe in content sponsorship, even though some mega-ad networks like Google have screwed publishers and consumers hard, and it's nice to see moderated consumer views here: There's a lot of people on HN against any form of advertising on the grounds of some kind of "eyeball rape"
  - LoSboccacc 8y ago
    I’m interested. Can I get a pointer on how to find your ad platform?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - geocar 8y ago
      Sure. My email address is on my HN profile. I'm still trying to figure out all the commercials, so I'm not yet focusing on inbound traffic (i.e. website) but if you reach out via email, we can see if we can do something together.
  - iMerNibor 8y ago
    How would you deal with one of your customer faking ad views? That's the main reason I hear from people why server-to-server ads won't work reliably, since the ad network "needs" more data to verify legitimate views
- ryanmerket 8y ago
  Adzerk. Reddit used them for many year before rolling their own.

underwater 8y ago

Facebook serve their own ads inline. Adblock engaged in a cat and mouse game trying to block their ads whilst simultaneously attempting to get them to sign up to the acceptable ads program. Adblock does nothing to incentivise publishers to behave (rewarding relevant, low bandwidth, visually appealing ads). They only care about using their user base as a weapon so they can extort 30% of profits.

jk2323 8y ago
"Facebook serve their own ads inline. " It is never too early to say goodbye to ads https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/socialfixer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/socialfixer/

rocqua 8y ago

Third party hosting means it is a lot easier to pay a website per view. You can't do that if the ads are hosted on a domain not controlled by the advertiser. Similarly, if you are going to personalize the ads, they need access to some third party that has this personalization. Not that I am defending the current state of web advertising, just explaining why it is third party hosted.

dschuetz 8y ago
I understand the gist of it and how it works. Websites provide not only dynamic ad frames they also embed trackers and the like. Abolishing "third party hosting" as you call it will make all of that not entirely impossible. The website operators still can and will have to gather usage and view data and sell it. They have to do it, not some other third party I might not be aware of. So, that excuse won't convince me, like, online ads and data mining networks trying to adsplain that their business model might perish. I won't believe a word of it. It will become more strict with a distinct delegation of responsibility, yes. Websites and services will have to use only their own domain to provide any kind of content.

super-serial 8y ago

3 reasons... nobody has time to put their ads on specific websites - it has to be automated to reach thousands of websites/communities at once. Second no advertiser trusts an individual website selling ads, unless there is tracking and reports and they know everything about the demographic of people who see the ads. Third - since advertisers are used to highly targeted ads and tracking... an individual website would basically have to rebuild all those tools in their personal system. That would be impossible without 3rd parties.