4 ms·

I think the future is machine learning based blocking. Ads are obvious, they have to be for users to see them. You could probably use text classification and o

I think the future is machine learning based blocking. Ads are obvious, they have to be for users to see them. You could probably use text classification and object recognition to filter ads effectively. And you could do it from the view layer where nothing on the page can tell they've been blocked. This is also my tinfoily theory for why Chrome restricts the API's used by ad blockers. It's to prevent more effective blockers from being developed.

dbt00 6y ago
I don't think so. Machine learning is generally poorly suited to dealing with an intelligent adaptive adversary capable of an unpredictable universe of inputs.
- throwaway189262 6y ago
  Text classification might be very good at identifying ad text. There's a popular fake news dataset where models hit 85% accuracy https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-68787-8_45 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-68787-8_... Ads are highly tuned for click through rates. Even if the model isn't 100% accurate, it would force advertisers to use less effective ad text to avoid filters.
  - lone-commenter 6y ago
    > it would force advertisers to use less effective ad text to avoid filters. That seems counterproductive to me. I mean, ads would still be annoying. And that’s why we block them.
    - mrob 6y ago
      I decline to accept ads because I don't want professional manipulators tricking me into acting against my best interests. I consider myself fairly good at resisting manipulation, but these are highly skilled experts backed by the full power of modern neuroscience, and they aim to catch me off guard. Adverts are hazardous to view, and you should not do so without utmost mental focus and discipline, which is impractical during general browsing. The avoidance of annoyance is a just bonus.
      - ziml77 6y ago
        "Tricked by professional manipulators". I like that phrasing over what I've tried to use: "mind control". Makes me sound like a conspiracy wacko.
Vinnl 6y ago
> Ads are obvious, they have to be for users to see them. I'm not so sure about that: https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/google-fefd7ae8-120a-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be-780x704.jpg https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/g... (See also: "native ads".)
Oddskar 6y ago
Not everything has to be done with machine learning you know.
indymike 6y ago
>This is also my tinfoily theory for why Chrome restricts the API's used by ad blockers. It's to prevent more effective blockers from being developed. In general, we've been engineering around bad user software install decisions for decades. Windows spyware, toolbars, spammy mobile apps, for example. The apis needed by an ad blocker are exactly the kinds of APIs that would be coveted by and used by nefarious ad products. In fact, the Firefox ecosystem took a big hit when Mozilla shut down a bunch of APIs that allowed for some pretty amazing ad blocking a few years ago. So why did they have to take those APIs out of the product? Nefarious products that used those APIs. For example, on of the first things that happened with the original AdBlock was it was cloned and used to deliver and rewrite ads by a scumware company. All the warnings and pop-up scary messages in the world don't stop users from making bad decisions, and that at Google scale, may actually be a bigger problem. Ad Blockers may simply be collateral damage as the cost of dealing with app-drive ad fraud is petty staggering compared to the small number of ad blocker users. That said, I'm on the side of giving users the power, even if they occasionally shoot themselves in the foot.
- throwaway189262 6y ago
  Theres another option. Better vetting for apps and extensions that use dangerous API's. It's disingenuous to say "these API's are too dangerous to use" when the browser itself does all the things the API could. Why should people trust Chrome or Firefox more than their extensions? Google/Apple got themselves in this situation by having their official stores. People assume it's on the store, it's safe. Now they take away API's because they don't actually police their stores, they just made them to have a captive market. Now they blame extension developers and take away API's because they don't want to admit they don't police their own stores enough. Before the days of official stores most people were careful what they downloaded. And they would be again if it wasn't in these companies perverse interests to convince users that store apps are safer than non store apps. Because people would stop using the stores and take away the money train. The right way to fix this would never happen. Decentralize the stores and let users make their own decisions. And take away all the api restrictions because once people realize the risk they'll be more careful. PC's are and have been an open market for decades, yet getting viruses is rare. I have no reason to believe it would be different for phones and extensions

dbt00 6y ago

I don't think so. Machine learning is generally poorly suited to dealing with an intelligent adaptive adversary capable of an unpredictable universe of inputs.

throwaway189262 6y ago
Text classification might be very good at identifying ad text. There's a popular fake news dataset where models hit 85% accuracy https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-68787-8_45 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-68787-8_... Ads are highly tuned for click through rates. Even if the model isn't 100% accurate, it would force advertisers to use less effective ad text to avoid filters.
- lone-commenter 6y ago
  > it would force advertisers to use less effective ad text to avoid filters. That seems counterproductive to me. I mean, ads would still be annoying. And that’s why we block them.
  - mrob 6y ago
    I decline to accept ads because I don't want professional manipulators tricking me into acting against my best interests. I consider myself fairly good at resisting manipulation, but these are highly skilled experts backed by the full power of modern neuroscience, and they aim to catch me off guard. Adverts are hazardous to view, and you should not do so without utmost mental focus and discipline, which is impractical during general browsing. The avoidance of annoyance is a just bonus.
    - ziml77 6y ago
      "Tricked by professional manipulators". I like that phrasing over what I've tried to use: "mind control". Makes me sound like a conspiracy wacko.

Vinnl 6y ago

> Ads are obvious, they have to be for users to see them. I'm not so sure about that: https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/google-fefd7ae8-120a-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be-780x704.jpg https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/g... (See also: "native ads".)

Oddskar 6y ago

Not everything has to be done with machine learning you know.

indymike 6y ago

>This is also my tinfoily theory for why Chrome restricts the API's used by ad blockers. It's to prevent more effective blockers from being developed. In general, we've been engineering around bad user software install decisions for decades. Windows spyware, toolbars, spammy mobile apps, for example. The apis needed by an ad blocker are exactly the kinds of APIs that would be coveted by and used by nefarious ad products. In fact, the Firefox ecosystem took a big hit when Mozilla shut down a bunch of APIs that allowed for some pretty amazing ad blocking a few years ago. So why did they have to take those APIs out of the product? Nefarious products that used those APIs. For example, on of the first things that happened with the original AdBlock was it was cloned and used to deliver and rewrite ads by a scumware company. All the warnings and pop-up scary messages in the world don't stop users from making bad decisions, and that at Google scale, may actually be a bigger problem. Ad Blockers may simply be collateral damage as the cost of dealing with app-drive ad fraud is petty staggering compared to the small number of ad blocker users. That said, I'm on the side of giving users the power, even if they occasionally shoot themselves in the foot.

throwaway189262 6y ago
Theres another option. Better vetting for apps and extensions that use dangerous API's. It's disingenuous to say "these API's are too dangerous to use" when the browser itself does all the things the API could. Why should people trust Chrome or Firefox more than their extensions? Google/Apple got themselves in this situation by having their official stores. People assume it's on the store, it's safe. Now they take away API's because they don't actually police their stores, they just made them to have a captive market. Now they blame extension developers and take away API's because they don't want to admit they don't police their own stores enough. Before the days of official stores most people were careful what they downloaded. And they would be again if it wasn't in these companies perverse interests to convince users that store apps are safer than non store apps. Because people would stop using the stores and take away the money train. The right way to fix this would never happen. Decentralize the stores and let users make their own decisions. And take away all the api restrictions because once people realize the risk they'll be more careful. PC's are and have been an open market for decades, yet getting viruses is rare. I have no reason to believe it would be different for phones and extensions