3 ms·

Right to use Adblockers also means the remote server has the right to force you to download and display the ads as a condition of getting the content. Thus beg

by Dwedit 3y ago

Right to use Adblockers also means the remote server has the right to force you to download and display the ads as a condition of getting the content. Thus begins the arms race. The client can simulate all that happening, but ultimately not actually present the ads to the user (possibly including a blank screen with a timer for enforced video ads). Then the server starts forcing client attestation to make sure their scripts run in a trusted environment. Gets really messy really quick.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
When people make it clear to me the terms of visiting their property, I take care to abide by them or go elsewhere. It only escalates when one side decides they must visit yet not abide by the terms.
thfuran 3y ago
>Thus begins the arms race. The client can simulate all that happening, but ultimately not actually present the ads to the user That's trespassing but with a computer.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  I disagree, because the 'processing' occurs on the local (my) machine. A user is not "visiting" a website, they're not stepping onto their property, they are sending a request for data, and the website is replying to that request. A copy of their data is being willingly sent for display to the users machine. In the case of DNS blocking, requests to advertising addresses aren't made, so no response is received. In the case of in-browser content blocking, the received reply is put through a filter to remove the elements of the reply that the user doesn't want. The concept of trespass just doesn't fit here.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >A copy of their data is being willingly sent for display to the users machine. Not if you're telling their posted signage to go fuck itself and ignoring the terms under which it was provided.
    - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
      Don't read this text. I understand the point of view you're coming from but, from my point of view it goes against the idea behind having a web presence in the first place (which is likely because I'm stuck on that old romantic view of the web from 20 years ago when people shared information for reasons of passion rather than profit). It's also a bit like a EULA, it's not enforceable it's just game-theory-esque attempts at claiming more ground than that to which they're entitled. If no one pushed back, they'd push further and harder.
matrix87 3y ago
> Thus begins the arms race. Except, the one side has to pay for the dev work on their own proprietary system, the other side is a horde of volunteers. At a certain point it isn't worthwhile, easier to just accept that some people aren't going to cooperate
- Jensson 3y ago
  That isn't true, DRM won in games thanks to dedicated DRM companies coming around. We still have DRM free games that you can download, but some games take forever to crack. The same thing will happen in the adblocker wars in the end, it is much easier to automate systems that takes too much work for volunteers to crack. Not every company will be able to afford that themselves, but if they can buy a proprietary system to do it they will.

by Dwedit 3y ago

paulryanrogers 3y ago

When people make it clear to me the terms of visiting their property, I take care to abide by them or go elsewhere. It only escalates when one side decides they must visit yet not abide by the terms.

thfuran 3y ago

>Thus begins the arms race. The client can simulate all that happening, but ultimately not actually present the ads to the user That's trespassing but with a computer.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
I disagree, because the 'processing' occurs on the local (my) machine. A user is not "visiting" a website, they're not stepping onto their property, they are sending a request for data, and the website is replying to that request. A copy of their data is being willingly sent for display to the users machine. In the case of DNS blocking, requests to advertising addresses aren't made, so no response is received. In the case of in-browser content blocking, the received reply is put through a filter to remove the elements of the reply that the user doesn't want. The concept of trespass just doesn't fit here.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >A copy of their data is being willingly sent for display to the users machine. Not if you're telling their posted signage to go fuck itself and ignoring the terms under which it was provided.
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    Don't read this text. I understand the point of view you're coming from but, from my point of view it goes against the idea behind having a web presence in the first place (which is likely because I'm stuck on that old romantic view of the web from 20 years ago when people shared information for reasons of passion rather than profit). It's also a bit like a EULA, it's not enforceable it's just game-theory-esque attempts at claiming more ground than that to which they're entitled. If no one pushed back, they'd push further and harder.

matrix87 3y ago

> Thus begins the arms race. Except, the one side has to pay for the dev work on their own proprietary system, the other side is a horde of volunteers. At a certain point it isn't worthwhile, easier to just accept that some people aren't going to cooperate

Jensson 3y ago
That isn't true, DRM won in games thanks to dedicated DRM companies coming around. We still have DRM free games that you can download, but some games take forever to crack. The same thing will happen in the adblocker wars in the end, it is much easier to automate systems that takes too much work for volunteers to crack. Not every company will be able to afford that themselves, but if they can buy a proprietary system to do it they will.