4 ms·

Great news though I do think adblocking should be built into the browser, rather than left to extensions and 3rd party services. The internet should be taken ba

by onyva 7y ago

Great news though I do think adblocking should be built into the browser, rather than left to extensions and 3rd party services. The internet should be taken back from AdTech agencies (Google, AdBuddy AKA Brave). Maybe add to the rumored premium version something like Nextdns?

adangert 7y ago
If adblocking is left up to the browser than companies who own the browser have a financial incentive to let certian ads from paying companies through, as has been seen by adblock plus, and the proposed built in chrome ad blocking (which would obviously never block Google's own ads for any reason). Conflicts of interest should be separated into different independent organizations. Chrome mobile not allowing extensions and therefore adblockers is a crime. There are different revenue sources other than ads (patreon or crypto micropayments for instance) which might evolve as the next means of payment for the internet and search engines. Google purposefully stopping the growth of new technology in order to grasp at an increasingly shrinking past is hurting the end user and is evil.
- onyva 7y ago
  I don't see that with Firefox. Google "blocking" ads in Chrome is of course not serious and not something that's done to protect users. Mozilla is not an ad company like Google (or the wanna be new Google, Brave). But I do think it's a core service a browser should offer, both for privacy reasons, but also environmental and esthetics. We've seen the carbon footprint of processing spam mail, I'm sure ads (which nobody wants or even pays attention to) are even worse.
  - Synaesthesia 7y ago
    Mozilla gets a lot of money from its partnership with google. That’s why google search is the default on Firefox. Google probably wouldn’t want them to block all their ads.
    - onyva 7y ago
      I understand that but I do think it should be something Mozilla should offer, even if it’s a premium service only. The web should not be held hostage by AdTech imho, and as a non for profit Mozilla should be able to generate revenue (and before the Mozilla Corp people jump in, for operations and r&d) from essential services centered around online privacy (cloud storage, vpn, dns etc) with like minded 3rd parties.
      - jdnenej 7y ago
        Why would anyone pay for Mozilla to do adblocking when they could install an ad blocker for free.
        onyva 7y ago
        Part of a premium package. I would pay for something like NextDNS as part of a NextCloud based storage and apps, for example.
tannhaeuser 7y ago
Tracking protection != ad blocking. If browsers would always heuristically filter-out ads, this would make them useless at best, or actually deceptive. See also other comment about incentives of browsers becoming misaligned with users (or indeed Brave which you mentioned yourself).
- onyva 7y ago
  Ads are not of interest to users. I think their display is a waste of time and resources, as well as the risks associated. How blocking ads make a browser “misaligned” with users? It’s in fact the opposite. Brave is simply, like stated before, a Trojan Horse. Replacing google with another ad broker is not helping anyone. >> Brave browser (Stage 1) is a Trojan Horse for their actual business which is a blockchain-based advertising platform (Stage 2). https://mobile.twitter.com/aral/status/1013047635253526530 https://mobile.twitter.com/aral/status/1013047635253526530
  - tannhaeuser 7y ago
    For better or worse, ads are what finances the vast majority of online content out there. Even HN gets the occasional paid job posting, stripe (or other YC company) promo, etc., and I'm ok with it. For me, the problem isn't ads per se, but tracking and targetted ads which bring privacy invasion, monopolization, and security issues.
    - onyva 7y ago
      Which is not needed. Would love to see Breitbart, YouTube, Facebook and other similar hate-monetization platforms die. We don't have to commit collective social suicide in order to accommodate silicon valley.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    > Ads are not of interest to users. If you think that's true, then your idea of what constitutes an ad is very narrow, to the point it leaves out a large swath of reality. An ad is an informational transaction between an entity offering a good or service and a consumer that may want that service. When done poorly, it's an exchange neither are happy with. When done well, it's an exchange that both are happy with. We're all familiar with poor ads. The perfect ad is likely the signage above a retail space that let's the person looking for it know it's at that location. Even then, for those not looking for that specific store, it could be seen as unwanted (and that's also why a lot of cities limit the size of signage for buildings). You might see this as a distinction without purpose, but I think viewing things completely (and often as a spectrum) helps put into focus the specific problems that we want to combat and let us focus our efforts on things that actually make poegress in those problems, rather than ineffectually attack a symptom. Advertising isn't the problem. Poorly matched advertising is annoying, in effective, and costly. Tracking and profiling of the individual has risencin use to combat this, but has many other negative consequences. If we prevent tracking and profiling, the market will shift to some other way to match advertising, and we'll have less privacy problems (but possibly worse targeted ads). But at least it isn't overly broad and done in a way that doesn't help the real problem, tracking. Do we really want to support something so draconian that even HN's minimal advertising articles, or someone's personal blog that endorses something would fall under those regulations? If not (if for not other reason it wouldn't help anything), we should be careful how we approach this, and target the real problem.

by onyva 7y ago

adangert 7y ago

If adblocking is left up to the browser than companies who own the browser have a financial incentive to let certian ads from paying companies through, as has been seen by adblock plus, and the proposed built in chrome ad blocking (which would obviously never block Google's own ads for any reason). Conflicts of interest should be separated into different independent organizations. Chrome mobile not allowing extensions and therefore adblockers is a crime. There are different revenue sources other than ads (patreon or crypto micropayments for instance) which might evolve as the next means of payment for the internet and search engines. Google purposefully stopping the growth of new technology in order to grasp at an increasingly shrinking past is hurting the end user and is evil.

onyva 7y ago
I don't see that with Firefox. Google "blocking" ads in Chrome is of course not serious and not something that's done to protect users. Mozilla is not an ad company like Google (or the wanna be new Google, Brave). But I do think it's a core service a browser should offer, both for privacy reasons, but also environmental and esthetics. We've seen the carbon footprint of processing spam mail, I'm sure ads (which nobody wants or even pays attention to) are even worse.
- Synaesthesia 7y ago
  Mozilla gets a lot of money from its partnership with google. That’s why google search is the default on Firefox. Google probably wouldn’t want them to block all their ads.
  - onyva 7y ago
    I understand that but I do think it should be something Mozilla should offer, even if it’s a premium service only. The web should not be held hostage by AdTech imho, and as a non for profit Mozilla should be able to generate revenue (and before the Mozilla Corp people jump in, for operations and r&d) from essential services centered around online privacy (cloud storage, vpn, dns etc) with like minded 3rd parties.
    - jdnenej 7y ago
      Why would anyone pay for Mozilla to do adblocking when they could install an ad blocker for free.
      - onyva 7y ago
        Part of a premium package. I would pay for something like NextDNS as part of a NextCloud based storage and apps, for example.

tannhaeuser 7y ago

Tracking protection != ad blocking. If browsers would always heuristically filter-out ads, this would make them useless at best, or actually deceptive. See also other comment about incentives of browsers becoming misaligned with users (or indeed Brave which you mentioned yourself).

onyva 7y ago
Ads are not of interest to users. I think their display is a waste of time and resources, as well as the risks associated. How blocking ads make a browser “misaligned” with users? It’s in fact the opposite. Brave is simply, like stated before, a Trojan Horse. Replacing google with another ad broker is not helping anyone. >> Brave browser (Stage 1) is a Trojan Horse for their actual business which is a blockchain-based advertising platform (Stage 2). https://mobile.twitter.com/aral/status/1013047635253526530 https://mobile.twitter.com/aral/status/1013047635253526530
- tannhaeuser 7y ago
  For better or worse, ads are what finances the vast majority of online content out there. Even HN gets the occasional paid job posting, stripe (or other YC company) promo, etc., and I'm ok with it. For me, the problem isn't ads per se, but tracking and targetted ads which bring privacy invasion, monopolization, and security issues.
  - onyva 7y ago
    Which is not needed. Would love to see Breitbart, YouTube, Facebook and other similar hate-monetization platforms die. We don't have to commit collective social suicide in order to accommodate silicon valley.
- kbenson 7y ago
  > Ads are not of interest to users. If you think that's true, then your idea of what constitutes an ad is very narrow, to the point it leaves out a large swath of reality. An ad is an informational transaction between an entity offering a good or service and a consumer that may want that service. When done poorly, it's an exchange neither are happy with. When done well, it's an exchange that both are happy with. We're all familiar with poor ads. The perfect ad is likely the signage above a retail space that let's the person looking for it know it's at that location. Even then, for those not looking for that specific store, it could be seen as unwanted (and that's also why a lot of cities limit the size of signage for buildings). You might see this as a distinction without purpose, but I think viewing things completely (and often as a spectrum) helps put into focus the specific problems that we want to combat and let us focus our efforts on things that actually make poegress in those problems, rather than ineffectually attack a symptom. Advertising isn't the problem. Poorly matched advertising is annoying, in effective, and costly. Tracking and profiling of the individual has risencin use to combat this, but has many other negative consequences. If we prevent tracking and profiling, the market will shift to some other way to match advertising, and we'll have less privacy problems (but possibly worse targeted ads). But at least it isn't overly broad and done in a way that doesn't help the real problem, tracking. Do we really want to support something so draconian that even HN's minimal advertising articles, or someone's personal blog that endorses something would fall under those regulations? If not (if for not other reason it wouldn't help anything), we should be careful how we approach this, and target the real problem.