14 ms·

Ad blocking is under attack (2017)

367 points by metadat 4y ago

Kelteseth 4y ago
This is from 2017
fazfq 4y ago
I don't know if ad blocking really is under attack, but I sure as hell won't trust a for-profit corporation like AdGuard to save it.
- hcurtiss 4y ago
  You don't trust for-profit corporations?
  - kome 4y ago
    Not OP, but yes: I don't trust for-profit corporations.
    - hcurtiss 4y ago
      There are many I do trust. It seems odd to me that some would categorically distrust companies because they're in the business of making a profit. Sometimes, I trust them specifically because trust is their entire business model (e.g., 1Password).
- mschuster91 4y ago
  Surprisingly, it costs money not just to develop and maintain ad blockers, but especially to operate them (see e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33266471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33266471).
  - fazfq 4y ago
    Everything costs this money in this life, especially since time is money. On the other hand we have a massive pile of software that was made by people in exchange for nothing, so it's easy to prove that it can be done. (Regarding your link: I would just firewall India off)
- 404mm 4y ago
  Genuine question, can you please recommend adblocker with comparable or better ad blocking skills that is available for safari (mobile and desktop), and that works as a browser extension and not a local dns (configured via vpn profile on mobile)?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Mobile: 1Blocker
tomrod 4y ago
While the article is from 2017, the relevance is high today. Large adtech companies are coalescing and supporting a single browser framework that gives them a modicum of control around how adblockers are integrated into the extensions, while also funding directly or indirectly realistic browser competition through Firefox (sorry Brave and Vivaldi... still a ways to go market share-wise). The economist in me thinks there is formal and informal coordination to make this ad "market" exist (no one wants ads, really, they want search engines with relevant results) and there is exercise in market power to the detriment of businesses purchasing advertising (and waste to society writ large).
- rglullis 4y ago
  > still a ways to go market share-wise Brave is already at 60+ million MAU. It's already 1/4 of the market share from Firefox. Brave's market share is rising, Firefox is declining. If there is one horse to bet here, it is Brave. Sticking with Firefox is just playing "controlled opposition" right now.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    I edited my original comment, which give Brave kudos for their growth, because I wanted to acknowledge their fight against an oligarchic adtech market. Perhaps ironically, I removed the comment because I thought it could lead to a pro/anti Brave fight that I wasn't intending to ignite. (I'm not a Brave user due to their prior business model and feature rollout around crypto). It would be nice to see innovation in this space but web standards implementation requirements may make that bar too high? I'm not a browser dev, just an armchair techie.
  - anonymous_sorry 4y ago
    Brave advocates should spend most of their energy going after Chrome and Safari users. If Brave can convert them better than Firefox can (which, sadly, seems to be quite a low bar), they'll overtake soon enough. Attempting to convert Firefox users is not a long term strategy, and doesn't do as much or anything to create a better web.
intrasight 4y ago
DMCA takedowns are a threat the the open web. Folks have been saying that these lists need to be made DMCA-proof. A role for blockchains?
- kube-system 4y ago
  The immutability of blockchains don’t make them immune to the law. See Tornado Cash.
  - intrasight 4y ago
    The treasury department isn't going to go after an adblock list. What federal agency do you think would?
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Nobody, because this claim doesn't hold any water. But if you were breaking the law, and you were met with enforcement, having it in an immutable blockchain won't help you.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Block chain anti-censorship is a lot like cryptography. It makes you look for other places to compromise and in this case it's browser vendors or major network operators. Your ad blocking list isn't gonna be useful when the browser with 90% marketshare says you can't install an ad blocker.
cik 4y ago
Can someone please help me understand, in my ignorance? I gather that the files are stored, in GitHub (or X), and that X is likely a corporation in the United States, hence the DMCA applies. What happens if said files are stored in Y jurisdiction, and not with a service, or cloud provider located in something US related. A fine example would be a privacy centric cloud in Sweden such as Bahnhof. Doesn't this (small) part of the war on advertising simply disappear?
newaccount2021 4y ago
p0pcult 4y ago
I use a Pi-hole for all my adblocking needs. https://pi-hole.net/ https://pi-hole.net/ $15 solution. I'm sure HN readers can tackle this.
- bad_good_guy 4y ago
  what do you do when you leave your home?
  - 10729287 4y ago
    Connect through a personal vpn allow you to benefit from your home dns server, here the Pi-hole.
  - AntonyGarand 4y ago
    I personally use NextDNS[0], which works from anywhere and has mostly the same features. For $3/m it's worth not managing a pi myself [0] https://nextdns.io/ https://nextdns.io/
    - kcmastrpc 4y ago
      as i get older the number of services i want to operate locally dwindle. nextdns does a great job, has a number of great implementations that prevent fall through, and works for the entire family regardless of whether or not they're on the local network. great product, great team.
  - harwell 4y ago
    I personally used to have setup a VPN with tailscale following their article [1]. Basically all my internet traffic is redirected back to the pi and therefore takes advantage of the pi-hole. [1] https://tailscale.com/kb/1114/pi-hole/ https://tailscale.com/kb/1114/pi-hole/
    - geerlingguy 4y ago
      I use Pi-VPN (pivpn.io), so the rabbit hole of Pis goes one deeper.
wincy 4y ago
I was trying to use good old hosts file blocking the other day for my wife and realized this doesn't work anymore. Does anyone know how I can block a website like Facebook on a Mac with whatever new tech they've rolled out? I know Self Control does it, so there's definitely a way.
- agilob 4y ago
  You would need to block all facebook domains https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/blob/master/corporations/facebook/all https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/blob/master/corporatio...
  - wincy 4y ago
    Ah actually these won’t work, as https uses a new record type on Macs. I think it’s because of the stuff detailed in this Stackoverflow question? https://superuser.com/questions/1657925/some-websites-bypass-hosts-file-in-safari https://superuser.com/questions/1657925/some-websites-bypass...
- ChoGGi 4y ago
  A local DNS server would be easier (wildcards as there's lots of FB domains).
- markx2 4y ago
  nextdns.io - and the FB blocklist mentioned in another comment.
- TacticalCoder 4y ago
  > Does anyone know how I can block a website like Facebook on a Mac with whatever new tech they've rolled out? whois to find all their IPs range and block all these? They change once in a while but not every day. See here for the whois command: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11164672/list-of-ip-space-used-by-facebook https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11164672/list-of-ip-spac... FWIW I just reject any outgoing attempt to these range from my firewall using a file I version and update once in a while. EDIT: I've also got a PiHole running and I'm pretty sure it's also blocking a huge lot of FB related ad domains. I could automate the whois query and check if it's different from the current list I'm using but I don't bother (so far).
Havoc 4y ago
Also noticed that adblocking on youtube has recently (~week) gotten much less effective. Usually updating the list and restarting chrome fixes it but not anymore
- gnull 4y ago
  Why would you use Chrome for that in 2022?
  - Havoc 4y ago
    I use Chrome for youtube (logged in) and FF for other browsing, i.e. both open
    - loxias 4y ago
      That used to be me until about 6 months ago. Now FF performs as well or better than chrome, and adblocking works like a charm. I might have had to open uBlock Origin and click a few more lists several weeks ago, (for youtube, paramount plus, and hulu) but everything's grand now. The only thing I still need chromium for is google meet :/ (and huddles in slack) I suggest you give it a try again!
      - galangalalgol 4y ago
        Are there any good sites to help set up ubo well? Also my local dns filter gave up yesterday in advance of the nov 1st date. I was using personaldns. I could use a good reference on options, like loading it through f-droid or using a vpn/dns filter service, or just exposing a vpn at home to use my home pihole (and eating the latency) also dns filters don't seem to stop YouTube ads even in the browser where ubo can. Is it doing some ip level filtering?
    - olex 4y ago
      You can use FF with multi-account containers (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...), no need to have a separate browser for a Google/Youtube login. This keeps the login to Youtube/Google tabs only, others are completely separated and know nothing about your Google account. Also works for FB and other stuff, ofc.
PedroBatista 4y ago
Ad blocking is by definition attacking ads and all the companies and interests that revolve around that. So ad blocking is and always will be "under attack", that was always expected, "small" players, like individual news sites for example have been fighting ad blocking for years, now big players are feeling the heat too and since ad blocking is an "existential threat" ( Meta just learned that ), they no longer ignore it or "kinda deal with it". It always has been a war. And like every war, there are endless philosophical theories and discussions about the "sustainability" of the Web "without ads", the tracking, etc. But the reality is: It always has been a war.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  That's similar to cracking phones. Even though some folks would like to make it illegal to crack phones, they can't. They are, however, allowed to release patches and updates that "crack the crack," so to speak. As long as these patches don't violate the law, then it's a simple, perfectly-legal arms race. For myself, I don't run an adblocker. When I go to a site that's overrun with ads, I don't return. Hasn't happened too often. I also have Reader Mode, which works on most sites. I refuse to project my own values onto others. I really don't care whether or not anyone else runs adblockers, as I don't profit from ads, and I don't run them, myself, for my own reasons, which no one really cares about.
  - djcannabiz 4y ago
    wdym crack? as in jailbreak
    - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
      Yes. "Jailbreak." Most of the folks I know that use them, refer to them as "cracked" phones.
Xenoamorphous 4y ago
Unpopular opinion here (gazillion downvotes) but ad blocking is unethical. A website chooses to serve ads. You don't like it? Don't ever go (back?) to that website again, I'm sure there's some blacklist extensions out there. Just because you don't like ads or tracking (neither illegal) you don't have the right to cost that website money (bandwidth, etc.) without anything in exchange. Actually it's good that some sites are ad-funded. E.g. news sites. Ideally that kind of site would offer a paid, ad-free, tracking-free option for people with cushy jobs like the HN crowd. But Mr. and Ms. Can't Make Ends Meet can still access the news in exchange of seeing some (or a lot of) ads here and there. At the very least, if there's an ad-funded website you like and visit frequently then disable ad blocking for them.
- beanjuiceII 4y ago
  if we are going to talk about ethics I think ad ethics should also be brought into the conversation as well then, because not every website uses ads in a respectable manner
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  >”Just because you don't like ads or tracking (neither illegal) you don't have the right to cost that website money (bandwidth, etc.) without anything in exchange.” Why does this need to be a “right”? Let’s assume I allow advertisements but I ignore them completely. Am I likewise costing that website money without anything in exchange? What if I hated advertisements so much that I had someone place post-it notes on my screen so the banners were not visible, ensuring that at no point in time my attention would given to the ad spaces - would that be unethical?
  - Xenoamorphous 4y ago
    Not a "right" in the legal sense. Just unethical. Ad impressions is what counts, you can place as many post-it notes as you want.
- NilMostChill 4y ago
  > you don't have the right Genuine question,seriously, not an attack, is it you who decides this for everyone or is this a personal decision kind of thing ? > ad blocking is unethical. If we are solely going by personal ethics then almost all big ad-tech is unethical in it's implementation, tracking, carbon footprint, extensive profiling with no opt-out. Even if you adhere to your idea of not going back if it doesn't suit you the damage is already done privacy-wise.
vasco 4y ago
Controversial opinion: if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. Otherwise you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living. If you consider ads to be psychological assault or other characterizations like this that I've heard before in this forum, stop going to those websites. You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff? More hypocritical than that is that I know many such people who then go to create their apps and as soon as they have enough traffic, they'll add adsense to their apps but keep blocking it in others. There's also the argument that you block ads due to privacy, again here I'd say, don't use those websites. If you know there's a security camera at the bank branch and you don't want to be recorded, you don't go to the bank branch, no normal person would think to put a hood on their head to still go. I bet this is going to get downvoted to shit, because I've been in HN for a few years and it's predictable where the crowd goes, but it seems very odd to me how we so easily deny other developers of creating free to use tools just because we think we have some moral higher ground.
- Majestic121 4y ago
  I somewhat agree with you that it is hypocritical to refuse ads but still go to the website, especially if the website offer a paid option and that you have a Software Developer salary. However, if you get downvoted, it might also be because complaining about being downvoted (even before actually receiving downvotes) is pretty annoying
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - wintermutestwin 4y ago
    Youtube is a great example of your argument - you can subscribe and avoid ads (I think?). I would gladly do so, except google is also stealing my data and now these thieves have it tied to my CC#.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
ameshkov 4y ago
This is my article from 2017. Here's a short update on what happened since then: 1. DMCA takedowns did not destroy ad blocking (thank god), but there were a couple more times when it was tried, nothing huge though. 2. Streisand effect is a thing and the domain in question was blocked by everyone and everywhere. There was even a special filter list and later a browser extension which only purpose was to block such domains. It got some traction but later got abandoned: https://github.com/paulgb/BarbBlock https://github.com/paulgb/BarbBlock. If something like that happens again I am pretty sure it can be revived very quickly. 3. The corporations still try different angles to prohibit ad blocking. The last example I know about is something like this: Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright.
- kekebo 4y ago
  Thanks for the update. Do you have any insight into wether a copyright claim like the one used by Axel Springer stands on valid legal ground (wether in Germany or elsewhere)?
  - ameshkov 4y ago
    I only talked with the layer of the defending side. They say that this is a nonsense, but with such a complex matter you can never be absolutely sure.
    - axus 4y ago
      It might actually be a problem for shared service that modifies a page outside your home, but a personal ad-blocker is equivalent to the scissors you used to clip the ads out of a magazine.
      - DocTomoe 4y ago
        Which is a great analogy that shows how difficult the argument is to decide. If you take a scissor to a reproduction of a piece of art you have not created yourself (and for which the protection timeframe has not ended yet), create snippets, and rearrange them, this can be considered an Urheberrecht violation[1]. No one would consider doing the same to a newspaper the same. [1] The distinction here is relevant: German copyright is not like US copyright - it can't be sold away, you can only license out individual derived rights, and it also allows for protection against "abuse of a work", e.g. doing something with it the original creator disapproves of[2]. If that always applies to the removal of ads has not been decided in a final decision. [2] "The author has the right to prohibit any distortion or other interference with his work that is likely to jeopardize his legitimate intellectual or personal interests in the work." Art 14 UrhG
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
scarface74 4y ago
I don’t see the issue. Don’t all Ad blocking extensions allow you to add your own list of blocked domains? When they are sued, take the “offending” sites out of the list of blocked sites and post another list of “sites we had to remove because of DMCA”. Then add functionality “import list from text file”. And let Barbara Streisand take care of the rest. Edit: I see the original author did exactly this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33356940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33356940
INTPenis 4y ago
Now please correct me if I'm wrong but this is only an issue because these blocklists are constantly updated with new domains spreading malware. If we only wanted to block the major ad companies of the world we would not need such a high frequency of updates and everyone could manage with a stale list for months before an update would make a difference. Personally I use noscript and other ways to protect myself against malware, so I'm only interested in blocking the major ad companies. Which I could do happily for months using any stale old list.
manholio 4y ago
There is nothing fundamental preventing advertisers to create unblockable ads that are served from the same domain as the website and embedded in the pages. It's more convoluted and needs to setup a back-channel to the website, but it's definitely doable. See for example Facebook and Twitter ads, they are very hard to block without customized, site-specific extensions. What stops advertisers form going through the hassle is the minority of users who use ad-blocking and even those can be easily detected and annoyed with warning pop-ups. But make no mistake about it, when website owners decide you need to see their ads because their existence depends on it, you most definitely will.
- intrasight 4y ago
  > advertisers to create unblockable ads that are served from the same domain as the website Why would I visit an advertisers web site? :) Ads inline with content are usually "sponsorships". I have no issue with ads where it's the case that a publisher has a relationship with a product. And this isn't what ad blocking seeks to address. They would be harder to block. But it is no challenge really for a browser extension. But again - such "sponsorship ads" don't bother me in the least.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  One day someone is gonna make a machine learning thing that kills all forms of advertising in real time. Including brands in videos and other hardcoded stuff.
luxuryballs 4y ago
If they want to show ads “better” or be more unblockable they should just be smarter about it. Use web assembly, bake ads directly into videos by encoding them server side, just like how in a world without IP law companies would have to make their secrets actually harder to discover and reverse engineer.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
smhoff256 4y ago
I understand the alarm and there needs to consequences for companies that abuse the DMCA. Having said that my hosts file gets a new entry . 0.0.0.0 funclam.com
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sylware 4y ago
It is all about user system control. They want to deny the control of some parts of the system to the user, and that as much as possible. The worst case is video game consoles. Here, it is related to the "web", namely via ultra-huge complexity and size of web engines (with their SDK) with obfuscation of script code.
pentagrama 4y ago
I frequently stumble upon blog posts from adguard.com, usually have good research and analysis about the state of ad blocking and that spectrum. But anyone here use their Ad-blocker? Why I should consider it over uBlock Origin?
- rpastuszak 4y ago
  I switched to AdGuard because uBlock Origin doesn't work with older versions of Safari (<13). It works pretty well on desktop and mobile. I like the ux (simple, but customisable if I need to tweak things). I use Chrome only for work-related stuff and for compatibility tests (I don't want to contribute turning Chrome into another IE^2). I use uBlock Origin with Chromium-based browsers.
- schipplock 4y ago
  I'm using adguard on an ipad, where I can't install uBlock origin. Also on macOS with Safari (no uBlock origin).
sentrms 4y ago
Since yesterday, Instagram is able to circumvent ad blockers probably by no longer using a different domain for ad "posts". I had to write a (tampermonkey) script to filter out the many ads between posts.
kazinator 4y ago
"Lone troll elicits overreaction from Internet."
pexabit 4y ago
Ads were much more relevant in a time when micropayments were much less feasible than they are today. There isn't any good reason Facebook can't charge $40/year if they commit to making it good again (e.g. rolling back to 2011 or so) and hosting only the highest paid ads (e.g. Superbowl level production values).
- Spivak 4y ago
  > There isn't any good reason Facebook can't charge $40/year I mean you can say it's not a good reason but uhh FB makes about $40 billion in a quarter so even imagining a world where somehow 1 billion users pay that, they wouldn't, it would have to be $160/yr.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
Why everything must go through GitHub? This adblocking thing begs for a decentralized solution, like a torrent or something. We rely too much on all those tech behemoths anyway.
lemiffe 4y ago
Make every entry on EasyList a slightly cryptic regex, this surely can’t fall under jurisdiction of DMCA
janef0421 4y ago
I think a lot of the issue with ads on the internet is that they are increasingly user-hostile; Minimal communication of the utility of the advertised product, heavy use of psychological manipulation, ads masquerading as genuine content, excessive length, etc. The pervasive use of surveillance to target these ads and make them more manipulative is also a major issue. The result is that users block ads, which means ads become even more numerous and aggressive, which results in a feedback loop. A lot of this could be reverted if advertisers used more informational ad styles, similar to those used in the mid-20th century, and used only context-based targeting, but I doubt marketing executives would go for that.

367 points by metadat 4y ago

This is from 2017

I don't know if ad blocking really is under attack, but I sure as hell won't trust a for-profit corporation like AdGuard to save it.

hcurtiss 4y ago
You don't trust for-profit corporations?
- kome 4y ago
  Not OP, but yes: I don't trust for-profit corporations.
  - hcurtiss 4y ago
    There are many I do trust. It seems odd to me that some would categorically distrust companies because they're in the business of making a profit. Sometimes, I trust them specifically because trust is their entire business model (e.g., 1Password).
mschuster91 4y ago
Surprisingly, it costs money not just to develop and maintain ad blockers, but especially to operate them (see e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33266471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33266471).
- fazfq 4y ago
  Everything costs this money in this life, especially since time is money. On the other hand we have a massive pile of software that was made by people in exchange for nothing, so it's easy to prove that it can be done. (Regarding your link: I would just firewall India off)
404mm 4y ago
Genuine question, can you please recommend adblocker with comparable or better ad blocking skills that is available for safari (mobile and desktop), and that works as a browser extension and not a local dns (configured via vpn profile on mobile)?
- scarface74 4y ago
  Mobile: 1Blocker

tomrod 4y ago

While the article is from 2017, the relevance is high today. Large adtech companies are coalescing and supporting a single browser framework that gives them a modicum of control around how adblockers are integrated into the extensions, while also funding directly or indirectly realistic browser competition through Firefox (sorry Brave and Vivaldi... still a ways to go market share-wise). The economist in me thinks there is formal and informal coordination to make this ad "market" exist (no one wants ads, really, they want search engines with relevant results) and there is exercise in market power to the detriment of businesses purchasing advertising (and waste to society writ large).

rglullis 4y ago
> still a ways to go market share-wise Brave is already at 60+ million MAU. It's already 1/4 of the market share from Firefox. Brave's market share is rising, Firefox is declining. If there is one horse to bet here, it is Brave. Sticking with Firefox is just playing "controlled opposition" right now.
- tomrod 4y ago
  I edited my original comment, which give Brave kudos for their growth, because I wanted to acknowledge their fight against an oligarchic adtech market. Perhaps ironically, I removed the comment because I thought it could lead to a pro/anti Brave fight that I wasn't intending to ignite. (I'm not a Brave user due to their prior business model and feature rollout around crypto). It would be nice to see innovation in this space but web standards implementation requirements may make that bar too high? I'm not a browser dev, just an armchair techie.
- anonymous_sorry 4y ago
  Brave advocates should spend most of their energy going after Chrome and Safari users. If Brave can convert them better than Firefox can (which, sadly, seems to be quite a low bar), they'll overtake soon enough. Attempting to convert Firefox users is not a long term strategy, and doesn't do as much or anything to create a better web.

intrasight 4y ago

DMCA takedowns are a threat the the open web. Folks have been saying that these lists need to be made DMCA-proof. A role for blockchains?

kube-system 4y ago
The immutability of blockchains don’t make them immune to the law. See Tornado Cash.
- intrasight 4y ago
  The treasury department isn't going to go after an adblock list. What federal agency do you think would?
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Nobody, because this claim doesn't hold any water. But if you were breaking the law, and you were met with enforcement, having it in an immutable blockchain won't help you.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Block chain anti-censorship is a lot like cryptography. It makes you look for other places to compromise and in this case it's browser vendors or major network operators. Your ad blocking list isn't gonna be useful when the browser with 90% marketshare says you can't install an ad blocker.

cik 4y ago

Can someone please help me understand, in my ignorance? I gather that the files are stored, in GitHub (or X), and that X is likely a corporation in the United States, hence the DMCA applies. What happens if said files are stored in Y jurisdiction, and not with a service, or cloud provider located in something US related. A fine example would be a privacy centric cloud in Sweden such as Bahnhof. Doesn't this (small) part of the war on advertising simply disappear?

newaccount2021 4y ago

p0pcult 4y ago

I use a Pi-hole for all my adblocking needs. https://pi-hole.net/ https://pi-hole.net/ $15 solution. I'm sure HN readers can tackle this.

bad_good_guy 4y ago
what do you do when you leave your home?
- 10729287 4y ago
  Connect through a personal vpn allow you to benefit from your home dns server, here the Pi-hole.
- AntonyGarand 4y ago
  I personally use NextDNS[0], which works from anywhere and has mostly the same features. For $3/m it's worth not managing a pi myself [0] https://nextdns.io/ https://nextdns.io/
  - kcmastrpc 4y ago
    as i get older the number of services i want to operate locally dwindle. nextdns does a great job, has a number of great implementations that prevent fall through, and works for the entire family regardless of whether or not they're on the local network. great product, great team.
- harwell 4y ago
  I personally used to have setup a VPN with tailscale following their article [1]. Basically all my internet traffic is redirected back to the pi and therefore takes advantage of the pi-hole. [1] https://tailscale.com/kb/1114/pi-hole/ https://tailscale.com/kb/1114/pi-hole/
  - geerlingguy 4y ago
    I use Pi-VPN (pivpn.io), so the rabbit hole of Pis goes one deeper.

wincy 4y ago

I was trying to use good old hosts file blocking the other day for my wife and realized this doesn't work anymore. Does anyone know how I can block a website like Facebook on a Mac with whatever new tech they've rolled out? I know Self Control does it, so there's definitely a way.

agilob 4y ago
You would need to block all facebook domains https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/blob/master/corporations/facebook/all https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/blob/master/corporatio...
- wincy 4y ago
  Ah actually these won’t work, as https uses a new record type on Macs. I think it’s because of the stuff detailed in this Stackoverflow question? https://superuser.com/questions/1657925/some-websites-bypass-hosts-file-in-safari https://superuser.com/questions/1657925/some-websites-bypass...
ChoGGi 4y ago
A local DNS server would be easier (wildcards as there's lots of FB domains).
markx2 4y ago
nextdns.io - and the FB blocklist mentioned in another comment.
TacticalCoder 4y ago
> Does anyone know how I can block a website like Facebook on a Mac with whatever new tech they've rolled out? whois to find all their IPs range and block all these? They change once in a while but not every day. See here for the whois command: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11164672/list-of-ip-space-used-by-facebook https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11164672/list-of-ip-spac... FWIW I just reject any outgoing attempt to these range from my firewall using a file I version and update once in a while. EDIT: I've also got a PiHole running and I'm pretty sure it's also blocking a huge lot of FB related ad domains. I could automate the whois query and check if it's different from the current list I'm using but I don't bother (so far).

Havoc 4y ago

Also noticed that adblocking on youtube has recently (~week) gotten much less effective. Usually updating the list and restarting chrome fixes it but not anymore

gnull 4y ago
Why would you use Chrome for that in 2022?
- Havoc 4y ago
  I use Chrome for youtube (logged in) and FF for other browsing, i.e. both open
  - loxias 4y ago
    That used to be me until about 6 months ago. Now FF performs as well or better than chrome, and adblocking works like a charm. I might have had to open uBlock Origin and click a few more lists several weeks ago, (for youtube, paramount plus, and hulu) but everything's grand now. The only thing I still need chromium for is google meet :/ (and huddles in slack) I suggest you give it a try again!
    - galangalalgol 4y ago
      Are there any good sites to help set up ubo well? Also my local dns filter gave up yesterday in advance of the nov 1st date. I was using personaldns. I could use a good reference on options, like loading it through f-droid or using a vpn/dns filter service, or just exposing a vpn at home to use my home pihole (and eating the latency) also dns filters don't seem to stop YouTube ads even in the browser where ubo can. Is it doing some ip level filtering?
  - olex 4y ago
    You can use FF with multi-account containers (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...), no need to have a separate browser for a Google/Youtube login. This keeps the login to Youtube/Google tabs only, others are completely separated and know nothing about your Google account. Also works for FB and other stuff, ofc.

PedroBatista 4y ago

Ad blocking is by definition attacking ads and all the companies and interests that revolve around that. So ad blocking is and always will be "under attack", that was always expected, "small" players, like individual news sites for example have been fighting ad blocking for years, now big players are feeling the heat too and since ad blocking is an "existential threat" ( Meta just learned that ), they no longer ignore it or "kinda deal with it". It always has been a war. And like every war, there are endless philosophical theories and discussions about the "sustainability" of the Web "without ads", the tracking, etc. But the reality is: It always has been a war.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
That's similar to cracking phones. Even though some folks would like to make it illegal to crack phones, they can't. They are, however, allowed to release patches and updates that "crack the crack," so to speak. As long as these patches don't violate the law, then it's a simple, perfectly-legal arms race. For myself, I don't run an adblocker. When I go to a site that's overrun with ads, I don't return. Hasn't happened too often. I also have Reader Mode, which works on most sites. I refuse to project my own values onto others. I really don't care whether or not anyone else runs adblockers, as I don't profit from ads, and I don't run them, myself, for my own reasons, which no one really cares about.
- djcannabiz 4y ago
  wdym crack? as in jailbreak
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    Yes. "Jailbreak." Most of the folks I know that use them, refer to them as "cracked" phones.

Xenoamorphous 4y ago

Unpopular opinion here (gazillion downvotes) but ad blocking is unethical. A website chooses to serve ads. You don't like it? Don't ever go (back?) to that website again, I'm sure there's some blacklist extensions out there. Just because you don't like ads or tracking (neither illegal) you don't have the right to cost that website money (bandwidth, etc.) without anything in exchange. Actually it's good that some sites are ad-funded. E.g. news sites. Ideally that kind of site would offer a paid, ad-free, tracking-free option for people with cushy jobs like the HN crowd. But Mr. and Ms. Can't Make Ends Meet can still access the news in exchange of seeing some (or a lot of) ads here and there. At the very least, if there's an ad-funded website you like and visit frequently then disable ad blocking for them.

beanjuiceII 4y ago
if we are going to talk about ethics I think ad ethics should also be brought into the conversation as well then, because not every website uses ads in a respectable manner
BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
>”Just because you don't like ads or tracking (neither illegal) you don't have the right to cost that website money (bandwidth, etc.) without anything in exchange.” Why does this need to be a “right”? Let’s assume I allow advertisements but I ignore them completely. Am I likewise costing that website money without anything in exchange? What if I hated advertisements so much that I had someone place post-it notes on my screen so the banners were not visible, ensuring that at no point in time my attention would given to the ad spaces - would that be unethical?
- Xenoamorphous 4y ago
  Not a "right" in the legal sense. Just unethical. Ad impressions is what counts, you can place as many post-it notes as you want.
NilMostChill 4y ago
> you don't have the right Genuine question,seriously, not an attack, is it you who decides this for everyone or is this a personal decision kind of thing ? > ad blocking is unethical. If we are solely going by personal ethics then almost all big ad-tech is unethical in it's implementation, tracking, carbon footprint, extensive profiling with no opt-out. Even if you adhere to your idea of not going back if it doesn't suit you the damage is already done privacy-wise.

vasco 4y ago

Controversial opinion: if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. Otherwise you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living. If you consider ads to be psychological assault or other characterizations like this that I've heard before in this forum, stop going to those websites. You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff? More hypocritical than that is that I know many such people who then go to create their apps and as soon as they have enough traffic, they'll add adsense to their apps but keep blocking it in others. There's also the argument that you block ads due to privacy, again here I'd say, don't use those websites. If you know there's a security camera at the bank branch and you don't want to be recorded, you don't go to the bank branch, no normal person would think to put a hood on their head to still go. I bet this is going to get downvoted to shit, because I've been in HN for a few years and it's predictable where the crowd goes, but it seems very odd to me how we so easily deny other developers of creating free to use tools just because we think we have some moral higher ground.

Majestic121 4y ago
I somewhat agree with you that it is hypocritical to refuse ads but still go to the website, especially if the website offer a paid option and that you have a Software Developer salary. However, if you get downvoted, it might also be because complaining about being downvoted (even before actually receiving downvotes) is pretty annoying
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wintermutestwin 4y ago
  Youtube is a great example of your argument - you can subscribe and avoid ads (I think?). I would gladly do so, except google is also stealing my data and now these thieves have it tied to my CC#.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago

ameshkov 4y ago

This is my article from 2017. Here's a short update on what happened since then: 1. DMCA takedowns did not destroy ad blocking (thank god), but there were a couple more times when it was tried, nothing huge though. 2. Streisand effect is a thing and the domain in question was blocked by everyone and everywhere. There was even a special filter list and later a browser extension which only purpose was to block such domains. It got some traction but later got abandoned: https://github.com/paulgb/BarbBlock https://github.com/paulgb/BarbBlock. If something like that happens again I am pretty sure it can be revived very quickly. 3. The corporations still try different angles to prohibit ad blocking. The last example I know about is something like this: Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright.

kekebo 4y ago
Thanks for the update. Do you have any insight into wether a copyright claim like the one used by Axel Springer stands on valid legal ground (wether in Germany or elsewhere)?
- ameshkov 4y ago
  I only talked with the layer of the defending side. They say that this is a nonsense, but with such a complex matter you can never be absolutely sure.
  - axus 4y ago
    It might actually be a problem for shared service that modifies a page outside your home, but a personal ad-blocker is equivalent to the scissors you used to clip the ads out of a magazine.
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      Which is a great analogy that shows how difficult the argument is to decide. If you take a scissor to a reproduction of a piece of art you have not created yourself (and for which the protection timeframe has not ended yet), create snippets, and rearrange them, this can be considered an Urheberrecht violation[1]. No one would consider doing the same to a newspaper the same. [1] The distinction here is relevant: German copyright is not like US copyright - it can't be sold away, you can only license out individual derived rights, and it also allows for protection against "abuse of a work", e.g. doing something with it the original creator disapproves of[2]. If that always applies to the removal of ads has not been decided in a final decision. [2] "The author has the right to prohibit any distortion or other interference with his work that is likely to jeopardize his legitimate intellectual or personal interests in the work." Art 14 UrhG

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

scarface74 4y ago

I don’t see the issue. Don’t all Ad blocking extensions allow you to add your own list of blocked domains? When they are sued, take the “offending” sites out of the list of blocked sites and post another list of “sites we had to remove because of DMCA”. Then add functionality “import list from text file”. And let Barbara Streisand take care of the rest. Edit: I see the original author did exactly this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33356940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33356940

INTPenis 4y ago

Now please correct me if I'm wrong but this is only an issue because these blocklists are constantly updated with new domains spreading malware. If we only wanted to block the major ad companies of the world we would not need such a high frequency of updates and everyone could manage with a stale list for months before an update would make a difference. Personally I use noscript and other ways to protect myself against malware, so I'm only interested in blocking the major ad companies. Which I could do happily for months using any stale old list.

manholio 4y ago

There is nothing fundamental preventing advertisers to create unblockable ads that are served from the same domain as the website and embedded in the pages. It's more convoluted and needs to setup a back-channel to the website, but it's definitely doable. See for example Facebook and Twitter ads, they are very hard to block without customized, site-specific extensions. What stops advertisers form going through the hassle is the minority of users who use ad-blocking and even those can be easily detected and annoyed with warning pop-ups. But make no mistake about it, when website owners decide you need to see their ads because their existence depends on it, you most definitely will.

intrasight 4y ago
> advertisers to create unblockable ads that are served from the same domain as the website Why would I visit an advertisers web site? :) Ads inline with content are usually "sponsorships". I have no issue with ads where it's the case that a publisher has a relationship with a product. And this isn't what ad blocking seeks to address. They would be harder to block. But it is no challenge really for a browser extension. But again - such "sponsorship ads" don't bother me in the least.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
One day someone is gonna make a machine learning thing that kills all forms of advertising in real time. Including brands in videos and other hardcoded stuff.

luxuryballs 4y ago

If they want to show ads “better” or be more unblockable they should just be smarter about it. Use web assembly, bake ads directly into videos by encoding them server side, just like how in a world without IP law companies would have to make their secrets actually harder to discover and reverse engineer.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

smhoff256 4y ago

I understand the alarm and there needs to consequences for companies that abuse the DMCA. Having said that my hosts file gets a new entry . 0.0.0.0 funclam.com

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sylware 4y ago

It is all about user system control. They want to deny the control of some parts of the system to the user, and that as much as possible. The worst case is video game consoles. Here, it is related to the "web", namely via ultra-huge complexity and size of web engines (with their SDK) with obfuscation of script code.

pentagrama 4y ago

I frequently stumble upon blog posts from adguard.com, usually have good research and analysis about the state of ad blocking and that spectrum. But anyone here use their Ad-blocker? Why I should consider it over uBlock Origin?

rpastuszak 4y ago
I switched to AdGuard because uBlock Origin doesn't work with older versions of Safari (<13). It works pretty well on desktop and mobile. I like the ux (simple, but customisable if I need to tweak things). I use Chrome only for work-related stuff and for compatibility tests (I don't want to contribute turning Chrome into another IE^2). I use uBlock Origin with Chromium-based browsers.
schipplock 4y ago
I'm using adguard on an ipad, where I can't install uBlock origin. Also on macOS with Safari (no uBlock origin).

sentrms 4y ago

Since yesterday, Instagram is able to circumvent ad blockers probably by no longer using a different domain for ad "posts". I had to write a (tampermonkey) script to filter out the many ads between posts.

kazinator 4y ago

"Lone troll elicits overreaction from Internet."

pexabit 4y ago

Ads were much more relevant in a time when micropayments were much less feasible than they are today. There isn't any good reason Facebook can't charge $40/year if they commit to making it good again (e.g. rolling back to 2011 or so) and hosting only the highest paid ads (e.g. Superbowl level production values).

Spivak 4y ago
> There isn't any good reason Facebook can't charge $40/year I mean you can say it's not a good reason but uhh FB makes about $40 billion in a quarter so even imagining a world where somehow 1 billion users pay that, they wouldn't, it would have to be $160/yr.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago

Why everything must go through GitHub? This adblocking thing begs for a decentralized solution, like a torrent or something. We rely too much on all those tech behemoths anyway.

lemiffe 4y ago

Make every entry on EasyList a slightly cryptic regex, this surely can’t fall under jurisdiction of DMCA

janef0421 4y ago

I think a lot of the issue with ads on the internet is that they are increasingly user-hostile; Minimal communication of the utility of the advertised product, heavy use of psychological manipulation, ads masquerading as genuine content, excessive length, etc. The pervasive use of surveillance to target these ads and make them more manipulative is also a major issue. The result is that users block ads, which means ads become even more numerous and aggressive, which results in a feedback loop. A lot of this could be reverted if advertisers used more informational ad styles, similar to those used in the mid-20th century, and used only context-based targeting, but I doubt marketing executives would go for that.