4 ms·
But, they are, right? They aren't preventing ALL ad blockers, but they aren't even merely preventing theoretical ad blockers: they are blocking concrete ad bloc
by saurik 3y ago
But, they are, right? They aren't preventing ALL ad blockers, but they aren't even merely preventing theoretical ad blockers: they are blocking concrete ad blockers that people have built and would actively use.
If there is a checkpoint at an event which seems to be turning away cars it doesn't matter if other cars are also getting through: the way we use the relevant phrasing allows us to say that "they are turning away cars" as that is a bit ambiguous as to why or how many.
- rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 3y agoWe're entered the backwards compatibity discussion teritory, not sure what to think about it to be honest.
- generic92034 3y agoBut you do not need to discuss that. Rather suppose ad-blockers are working less effectively under v3, leading to additional ads being shown. That would increase the attack surface. If ad-blockers really will be less effective under v3 remains to be seen. But do you think it is an unreasonable perspective, given the technical limitation?
- kelnos 3y agoGiven that the reasons behind Google breaking backward compatibility are obviously primarily because they want to weaken ad blocking, I think it's perfectly reasonable to talk about this.