3 ms·

Not really, because a) people aren't willing to put up with false positives (i.e., adblockers hiding the meme cat photos you were looking for), and b) people ar

Not really, because a) people aren't willing to put up with false positives (i.e., adblockers hiding the meme cat photos you were looking for), and b) people aren't willing to pay money to hide ads. The real solution is getting rid of intrusive and/or annoying ads, but that would mean sites with tightly curated audiences; no clickbait, SERP spam and other stupid audience-inflating crap. Ultimately intrusive ads happen because publishers are in a rush to monetize traffic that advertisers view as cheap/low quality. It becomes a downwards spiral of attract low-quality eyeballs -> ad spendings plummet -> devote more screen share to annoying ads -> viewership falls -> attract more low-quality eyeballs -> etc. Maybe at some point we'll hit rock bottom and things will start improving.

lifthrasiir 7y ago
> a) people aren't willing to put up with false positives (i.e., adblockers hiding the meme cat photos you were looking for) You can estimate the actual ratio of false positives by examining existing automation solutions based on image recognition. As a very rudimentary example, I have successfully used Sikuli [1] for various tasks including a program running "binary blobs". Unless you mix contents and ads altogether (and I personally think that it is fine as long as the ad is properly marked! It is at least a kind of contents, just that what I don't want generally though.) you can't ramp the false positive ratio up beyond a certain level. [1] http://www.sikuli.org/ http://www.sikuli.org/