6 ms·

Unblocking User Freedom: the right to use adblockers

149 points by pabs3 3y ago

kstenerud 3y ago
> Despite the steps forward for user control found in these judgments, they do not go as far as we would hope to secure user freedom when using the internet This is a strange take. They contend that the courts not forbidding website owners from refusing access to adblock users is a bad thing somehow, as if the courts should have forced businesses to serve them... The German courts took the only logical conclusion: You can block ads all you want, and website owners can block you all they want.
- baz00 3y ago
  Yeah nothing wrong with that. This is how it goes for me though: 1. Company stuffs ads down my throat. 2. I use adblocker 3. Company blocks me 4. I ignore company. The whole problem starts at (1) which is "create a business supported only by advertising revenue". That says your actual product is worth fuck all.
  - herodotus 3y ago
    > That says your actual product is worth fuck all. Look I use ad blockers and a pi-hole. And I don't bother reading paywalled sites that I don't pay for. But your comment is a little harsh. It is a sad reality of the internet that there are so few options for generating revenue. I wish there was a micro-payment model where part of my monthly ISP payment was divvied up and paid to websites based on volume of content read by me. That way niche websites (like, for example, hobby sites or local sites) could get some income without having to resort to ads or fundraising. In my view the real ripoff are the exorbitant monthly fees I pay to my ISP.
    - seanp2k2 3y ago
      The fact that even in Silicon Valley, the Comcast monopoly is very strong for both single-family and multi-tenant housing tells you everything you need to know about the viability of anyone actually solving this problem. They’re simply making far too much profit from bad service and terrible business practices, and they’ve paid for all the regulators they need to ensure they’ll never have to change or have any meaningful competition. That they and others in the ISP and mobile ISP cartel have been handed hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to build out FTTH and rural areas that they instead pocketed is just the cherry on top of the turd banana split that is consumer protection in the USA. Check out “The Book of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal” for more on this.
    - baz00 3y ago
      It's brutal but true. Either have a revenue model or expect no income. That is the reality. The fuzzy grey bit in the middle is where all the garbage is. Your idea sounds a fantastic way to make a system incredibly complicated with no actual gain other than a billing dystopia.
    - tcfhgj 3y ago
      > I wish there was a micro-payment model where part of my monthly ISP payment was divvied up and paid to websites based on volume of content read by me. something like that already exists: https://www.contentpass.net/en https://www.contentpass.net/en
  - seanp2k2 3y ago
    100% this. If companies use Admiral to block Adblock and don’t have the tiny “heck off” link at the bottom of the modal, I just hit back and don’t read their article. Sometimes Reader works on iOS in those situations, sometimes not. Between crap like Admiral, GDPR nag screens that help no one, incessant useless live chat boxes, large banners on mobile that are pinned to the tops and bottoms of views (doubly so if they’re simply cosmetic), “spin the wheel for a discount” modals, and SMS spam signup schemes, many websites are quite annoying to use and very user-hostile on the modern internet.
    - giantrobot 3y ago
      > If companies use Admiral to block Adblock and don’t have the tiny “heck off” link at the bottom of the modal, I just hit back and don’t read their article. The most asinine part of that is the fucking site has already delivered the content. They incurred whatever costs their multi-megabyte bloated JavaScript monstrosity requires and only then blocks it with a stupid blocking banner. They'd incur the same (or less) costs if they just sent a static HTML page with the content. Doing this they could still make advertising money with a simple text add saying "this content brought to you by Slurm" inline with the content. Just log analysis will get them a ton of visitor information some overwrought AdTech product promises will revolutionize their synergies. A $5 VPS with its included terabyte of data transfer can serve so many fucking web pages in a month. Loading that down with autoplaying videos, megabytes of uncompressed PNGs, and a dozen copies of Doom worth of JavaScript is just a ludicrous pointless cost. A sprinkle of CSS can make those basic pages look amazing.
  - squarefoot 3y ago
    > The whole problem starts at (1) which is "create a business supported only by advertising revenue". That says your actual product is worth fuck all. It's a bit more complex than that as the market is long oversaturated with products and services, that is, there are not enough buyers compared to the number of products and services, but that awful thing called consumerism calls for more and more production anyway to keep the machine going and prices down, therefore companies need to fight hard for potential customers attention, and one way to achieve that goal is to put their names on every possible free spot where one's eyes might look. There's nothing wrong in being dependent on advertising, but at the level necessary today it simply doesn't scale anymore, and on the web a lot more than half of the (sometimes metered) traffic is already made of advertising, and is growing steadily. We already know where this thing is leading: more and more advertising, coupled with less and less attention which in turn will generate the need for even more advertising. It doesn't scale and it doesn't work anymore like it should. I would rather start looking right now for alternatives, for example one where (local) governments convert a tax collected from all registered companies to a system of unobtrusive advertising which by rotating equally, still being weighted according to the amount of investment in research, production, personnel, etc. would guarantee fair exposure to all businesses. That would be however deeply against current idea of uncontrolled capitalism, though, therefore we likely will have to wait for the day the world will be ready for a more mature, harmless way of doing business.
- MikePlacid 3y ago
  Technical curiosity: how site owners are able to detect blockers and why blockers are not able to bypass detection? As for ads I prefer Brave Browser model, where I pay websites directly, bypassing advertisers.
  - Sephr 3y ago
    The Brave model does not allow you to directly pay websites. You directly pay Brave, who then distributes funds to some participating websites. Additionally, they take a 30% cut of the value of their "basic attention token" shitcoin for themselves.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      > You directly pay Brave, who then distributes funds to some participating websites. This isn't worse than the way ads work anyway, so that seems fine. > Additionally, they take a 30% cut of the value I also don't see the problem here. They develop the browser, the infra, etc. What is the problem? What is it that you people want?
      - Sephr 3y ago
        > What is the problem? It's open source software implementing anti-features. Why should I willingly share the value of my attention with my browser vendor?
        insanitybit 3y ago
        Because they're providing the software, infrastructure, and services that allow you to display that content...
        Sephr 3y ago
        The default ratio clearly implies a profit-seeking share in my opinion.
  - 3y ago
- cousin_it 3y ago
  It's not the only logical decision, because it leads to a technological arms race which is costly to all parties. The outcome is binary: see ads or not. The only logical decision is to figure out from first principles what the outcome should be, and make it binding for all parties to avoid the arms race.
- Quarrel 3y ago
  > the only logical conclusion: You can block ads all you want, and website owners can block you all they want. I very much agree with this bit. The real worry is the next step, as per your TOS you force me to render your website content only in an "approved" signed browser. This is a step several players are pushing towards (Netflix and others are already there, but for distinct reasons- at least they degrade your experience if you aren't using an approved stack). This we need to fight against.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    I mean, what if there are actual technical limitations of whatever browser you'd like to use that prevent, for example, the on-the-fly playback of 4K video? Or, even more broadly, what if the device you're watching on has insufficient compute to accomplish the task? Do you, as proverbial Netflix's chief engineer or whatever, degrade the quality of the experience so things run smoothly, or do you press on and let the user choose a worse experience, and leave nasty feedback on public listings/forums/what have you? I don't mean to argue for the Netflix's in this situation, I'm just genuinely curious what HN thinks of this: in a situation where whatever tech a user is bringing to the table is insufficient to run your product, be it hardware or software, what do you do? I've been in a situation myself where the tech stack of our user base was directly contributing to the stream of angry emails our support was getting and was forbidden by management to gate content only to those who we knew could run it, yet simultaneously was held responsible for the negative impressions of our product as a result of it. I left that job soon after because it was an obvious lose/lose scenario.
    - yesco 3y ago
      Netflix does not offer 1080p+ content to people watching on a Linux desktop. There is no technical reason for this, Linux browsers are capable of playing 1080p+ content of course. So why do you think Netflix does this? Rather than deal with hypotheticals let's focus on reality, a lot of people have put a lot of effort into ensuring that web browsers can run the same content on every platform. This is already a solved problem, even if imperfect. The only genuine reason a device might not be able to play a browser supported 4k video is because it's too resource expensive (rare) and this is simply an immutable property of computers that isn't going to change unless you are expecting all users to use the exact same hardware forever.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- gumby 3y ago
  I’m a determined ad blocker and I agree with you. The only exception should be a government web site (I also block analytics).
- em-bee 3y ago
  the problem is that they also say it is legitimate to charge for adfree access. while that is technically correct is has negative impact on society because it means only rich people (i exaggerate intentionally to make a point) can live ad free. poor people have to suffer ads or be excluded, which is fine if the content is something not of interest to the general public, but it is not fine at all if it is eg facebook or youtube. add to that that poorer segments of the population tend to be less well educated and thus more susceptible to manipulation. if you force ads on people you must do so to everyone equally and block adblockers equally. any exchange of money creates a situation where only those that can afford it can protect themselves if you charge for access you may not offer the same access for the price of watching ads. it should be either one or the other
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- beeboobaa 3y ago
  This works until they shove remote attestation down our throats and it becomes practically impossible because you no longer own your machine
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    It still works at that point - websites can send you ads and you can choose not to view those websites. No one is forcing you to go to Youtube or whatever.
    - beeboobaa 3y ago
      > No one is forcing you to go to Youtube or whatever Oh boy. They sure are. Many countries their governments post their videos on youtube. Many employers put their training videos on youtube. And so on.
      - insanitybit 3y ago
        That doesn't sound like a Youtube problem, it sounds like a your-government problem.
        beeboobaa 3y ago
        Just responding to what you said. > No one is forcing you to go to Youtube or whatever
    - Kamq 3y ago
      Nobody is forcing youtube to respond to my https request either. If they wanted, they could lock it down and force you to log in and agree to a bunch of rules in order to use the service, but they don't.
  - kmbfjr 3y ago
    Google et al are fooling themselves if they think this is the end of the game.
  - 3y ago
- blooalien 3y ago
  > "You can block ads all you want, and website owners can block you all they want." This is absolutely the correct conclusion to come to, given that the Internet is really "just" a network of networks (still an amazing thing, don't get me wrong), and when one connects a device to a network, they should have absolute control over the data that device allows to flow to and from the "outside world", for the safety of the user, the device, and for the health of the larger "outside" network. This holds even more true when connecting a network to another network. For your own security, you (should) run a firewall at the very least. Even better is when all devices on the network all have their firewall enabled, but sadly, not all devices were designed with network security in mind, so that's not always possible. TL;DR: All the above is just to say an adblocker is just another form of the end user exercising control over the data that flows into and out of their devices / network, as they've always been able to, until advertising companies (which initially all scoffed at the entire idea of advertising on the "passing fad" Internet) decided that they had a right to our eyeballs and our devices' network data flows at any time and in any way they please.
sys_64738 3y ago
This is pretty much like the piracy argument where the assumption is there is 100% buy-in from people if they don't pirate. There isn't. Likewise, here. If you insist on forcing ads then I won't participate. There are no monetary damages as people refuse to look at or listen to ads.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jraph 3y ago
Posted 3 days ago, 282 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38726389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38726389
freitzkriesler2 3y ago
It needs to be said. I don't care I started blocking ads back in the 2000s when viruses would be delivered over bad flash videos. Nowadays, I still block ads because I'm paying for limited bandwidth on my mobile devices. I'm not paying for unlimited bandwidth when 5gb with ad blocking gets me what I want. I can't use this excuse on my PC but... I honestly don't care if it harms the content creators and more importantly, the video delivery networks like Google. Does that mean there might be less content made? Sure and I'm Ok with that as a consequence.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > I can't use this excuse on my PC Perhaps you should just state your real reason, rather than excuses.
  - whstl 3y ago
    I can state some of mine: I don't want loud audio blasting on my headphones before watching a Youtube or news site video. I don't want to watch scam advertisements on Youtube or Instagram. I don't want to be tracked without my consent by third-party ad companies. I don't want to even support companies that track users without consent. I would actually prefer that websites using non-privacy-respecting ad-ware would die. I don't want my computer to be slowed down by random websites. I don't want to be forced to spend hundreds/thousands on computer upgrades. I don't want ad code from ad companies running on my device. I don't want the risk of malware that might come via ads in some websites. I don't want my attention going to jumpy animations on GIF banners (the original reason I started blocking in the early 2000s). And finally: I don't want to spend the bandwidth, regardless of the fact it's gonna cost me money or not. I am, however: Happy to watch a Youtube NordVPN or Ridge Wallet sponsorship segment on Youtube that doesn't track me and allow me to skip if I want. Same for TV ads (unless they're obnoxious and loud). Also Happy to unblock websites that don't have obnoxious third-party ads.
  - AllegedAlec 3y ago
    I wish for companies that require my attention be taken up by their ugly pixels to all bankrupt and for their C-staff and marketing departments to be unemployed and in the gutter.
sedev 3y ago
There is no right to advertise, is how I see it, any more than there is a right to use asbestos, lead, and mercury any way you please. There is societal permission to use those substances in strictly controlled ways, requiring that serious work be invested in preventing and limiting the toxic effects upon the public of using those substances, because those toxic effects are real and taking the benefits of using those substances while shuffling off the toxic effects onto someone else, is evil. We should regulate advertising in the same way: it is evil to shuffle off its toxic effects onto the public at large while the advertiser and ad-inventory-seller keep all of the benefits. Ad-blocking is as virtuous as carrying around kits and sensors to check how much lead and mercury is in my immediate environment — certainly I will benefit from doing it, but I shouldn't have to, because pumping out ad-toxins into the social environment constantly and pervasively, is evil.
- iteria 3y ago
  Is there a right to free content? Because ads are obnoxious and I do block them, but I also pay for stuff were I can. If ads didn't exist there effectively there would be a pallwall on the internet. As there should be, people need money to live. If people feel so strongly about ads they should either not consume the content or pay for the ad-free version. I use YouTube premium and I've never seen an ad. I get the ad-free version of everything. My child even uses Amazon kids, so she can enjous apps to her hearts content without ads. But I pay for that. Ad blocking is theft. It's theft that I will commit, but it is theft. When you block an ad you reduce the content creator's salary. We then have to ask: what happens if the creator gets no money? They stop giving the content away "for free". This is the piracy fight all over again. Again, I'm on the high seas, so I'm not innocent. I still think that we need remember that content isn't free. We pay for it with attention or money. If enough people don't do that then the content won't be there. That's how capitalism works.
  - Sevii 3y ago
    Ad blocking is not theft. If it were, leaving the room with the television on while ads were playing would also be theft. Youtube is freely sending people content. No one is forcing Youtube to send them cat videos. No one is acquiring Youtube videos illegally via torrents. Ad blocking is only possible on Youtube because Youtube insists on doing big data auction based advertising. If they wanted to, Youtube could embed ads in the video stream making it impossible to block them. Youtube does not have a right to display whatever content they want on my devices. If they freely send me data, I have the right to display that data however I can on my device. If Youtube wanted they could end the utility of adblock today. They could only send data to people who paid. They could embed ads into the video stream. It is their choice to make adblocking possible on Youtube.
davidy123 3y ago
This is going to be a controversial position, but nobody is really arguing the other side, the benefits of ads. And if they were more accepted and integrated (a "perfect" federated model), maybe they could be acceptable rather than abrasive and irrelevant. Who is talking, with a measured perspective, about the shift to participatory, user produced content (yes, I know, a lot of it isn't good, but some is and it is available to many more people without barriers), and the benefits that brings? I just see hand waving about alternatives, some "good old days" ideas about media, and a lot of people accessing essentially free ad-sponsored content with generally minor inconvenience in a murky going-nowhere conflict. I think as much as anyone Google brings alternatives; I pay for Youtube Premium and never have any ads on Youtube/Youtube Music (places where it would be particularly unwelcome), I get paid for Google Surveys, and I think with some work their federated model could be perfectly reasonable. If you disagree, please say why, rather than simply downvoting.
- gigel82 3y ago
  Display a price-tag on content. You can watch 2 ad breaks, or you can pay $0.05 to watch the video (or whatever it is Google is making off of them). Make it super easy to pay (for example with a prepaid wallet you can refill).
- whatshisface 3y ago
  Here's my proposal to replace ads: 1. The server does not send the content to you, unless you pay. Websites are responsible for deciding what to give out for free - only public "abstracts" of NYT articles get search indexing. 2. Some browsers keep an account for you, others show you ads and let the advertising companies pay your way through the internet. 3. Anyone who wants to run a server for free or host P2P content may still do it. All of the advanced tracking technology would be unnecessary if some people browsed through their adsense consumer account and other people ran a tab with their "content intermediary" to pay websites to serve (anonymous) address x.y.z.w.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    > All of the advanced tracking technology would be unnecessary if some people browsed through their adsense consumer account Well yeah, if you do all the tracking officially and up front there's no need to tack it on, but that's not a win. > and other people ran a tab with their "content intermediary" to pay websites to serve (anonymous) address x.y.z.w. Thereby ensuring that the intermediary does the tracking. None of this gives the user privacy.
varispeed 3y ago
The problem is that the content offered most of the time is not good enough to pay for it. For instance the so called news. Most newspapers publish ready made stories with their own editorial take at best. Articles are typically processed by LLM so the wording is slightly different than the stock story. The press has abandoned investigative journalism because it is too risky. Corrupt governments and police can't protect journalists. So they mostly serve three-letter agency approved information and not much beyond that. and they want people to pay for this nonsense. If Google wants people to stop using adblockers, they should be forced to share ad revenue with every single contributor. If they show in their results your aunt recipes, the aunt should get a share of the revenue from ads displayed on that results page.
- andrepd 3y ago
  Well, re: journalism yes there is now 1000x more shit-tier content spamming farms than there were before. But the prestigious and serious news organisations still do perform serious high-quality reporting and investigative journalism. From Der Spiegel to The Guardian and many others. Even in my small country with a dire newspaper market there are still 2 or 3 serious newspapers performing high quality journalism.
  - MikePlacid 3y ago
    > But the prestigious and serious news organisations still do perform serious high-quality reporting and investigative journalism. You’ve omitted one word: honest.
  - varispeed 3y ago
    They only "investigate" approved stories. What you say is an illusion they create quite well. In the UK, there is probably only one that goes slightly deeper - Private Eye and they still have not touched many topics related to corruption and other scandals where Guardian either low-key supports (the perpetrators) or don't talk about it at all.
austinjp 3y ago
ITT: Tails wag dogs. Ads are, in the vast majority, toxic shit. Endemic income inequality and unicorn worship has produced VC-backed hustle culture where "creators" spew "content" over platforms, and slap ads on top to generate income. If a business can't generate sufficient income by selling a product, it's not a viable business. It's certainly not one I want to interact with. Tail wags dog: Without advertising, all this content would be paywalled or simply wouldn't exist. Dog wags tail: Sell your product, maybe give away samples. Sink or swim.
jMyles 3y ago
I can't believe this has become so over-complicated. It's very straightforward: You can respond however you want to my HTTP request. I can then render that response how I see fit. /thread
MzHN 3y ago
Someone brought up piracy from the monetary perspective. Another perspective I like is piracy and streaming services. I, and most in my bubble, stopped pirating when streaming services provided, well, good service. We've bit by bit moved back to piracy when the service has degraded. My journey with ad blocking is similar. Even though my browser was loaded with extensions, I used to not run an ad blocker. No other reason really than laziness. The ads didn't bother me much. It was one of those "I've been meaning to do it but never got to it". What finally got me to install an ad blocker were news of malware being served even on popular websites through ads. Ads weren't simple anymore if they ever were. They were part of one of the most complex and lucrative domains of tech business. And that was leaking into websites. It felt too dirty, so I got an ad blocker. Nowadays the ad-tech industry boasts about moving to first-party ad tracking, a cat-and-mouse game where I don't hold high hopes for ad blockers. So I went a step further and turned off JavaScript by default in uBlock Origin. Or take YouTube ads. I was still watching them on my TV not long ago, but when it got to the point where a 20 minute video has 5 ad breaks I couldn't take it anymore. If ads sticked to being image only, no dark patterns, no targeting persons but instead content and not exceedingly disruptive, I would have probably never bothered with ad blocking.
- MikePlacid 3y ago
  I remember clicking on some Google ads - when they were unobtrusive and textual - just to get these new nice guys some additional revenue (often ads were “on-topic” even). But these jumping, blinking, content obtrusing things? And I am on a tablet 90% of the time…
_Algernon_ 3y ago
The right to general purpose computing should be on a level with the right to free speech in every country that claims to value free speech[1]. Same protections as speech. Because nowadays computing is essentially speech. There certainly is a better argument for computing to be speech than monetary political donations (ie. bribes) being it. And this does of course not mean that every form of computation is permitted, just as not every form of speech is allowed (ie. threats or libel). It also doesn't mean that anyone has to platform your speech. But using technological tools to take away other's right to computing on their purchased device would be considered a free speech violation. This would include DRM, Web Integrity, denial of service and other attacks on computing devices you don't yourself own. [1] I'm referring to the free speech value with its roots in the enlightement, not on the narrower definition of the free speech as defined in the first amendment (which only limits governments from hindering free speech).

149 points by pabs3 3y ago

> Despite the steps forward for user control found in these judgments, they do not go as far as we would hope to secure user freedom when using the internet This is a strange take. They contend that the courts not forbidding website owners from refusing access to adblock users is a bad thing somehow, as if the courts should have forced businesses to serve them... The German courts took the only logical conclusion: You can block ads all you want, and website owners can block you all they want.

baz00 3y ago
Yeah nothing wrong with that. This is how it goes for me though: 1. Company stuffs ads down my throat. 2. I use adblocker 3. Company blocks me 4. I ignore company. The whole problem starts at (1) which is "create a business supported only by advertising revenue". That says your actual product is worth fuck all.
- herodotus 3y ago
  > That says your actual product is worth fuck all. Look I use ad blockers and a pi-hole. And I don't bother reading paywalled sites that I don't pay for. But your comment is a little harsh. It is a sad reality of the internet that there are so few options for generating revenue. I wish there was a micro-payment model where part of my monthly ISP payment was divvied up and paid to websites based on volume of content read by me. That way niche websites (like, for example, hobby sites or local sites) could get some income without having to resort to ads or fundraising. In my view the real ripoff are the exorbitant monthly fees I pay to my ISP.
  - seanp2k2 3y ago
    The fact that even in Silicon Valley, the Comcast monopoly is very strong for both single-family and multi-tenant housing tells you everything you need to know about the viability of anyone actually solving this problem. They’re simply making far too much profit from bad service and terrible business practices, and they’ve paid for all the regulators they need to ensure they’ll never have to change or have any meaningful competition. That they and others in the ISP and mobile ISP cartel have been handed hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to build out FTTH and rural areas that they instead pocketed is just the cherry on top of the turd banana split that is consumer protection in the USA. Check out “The Book of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal” for more on this.
  - baz00 3y ago
    It's brutal but true. Either have a revenue model or expect no income. That is the reality. The fuzzy grey bit in the middle is where all the garbage is. Your idea sounds a fantastic way to make a system incredibly complicated with no actual gain other than a billing dystopia.
  - tcfhgj 3y ago
    > I wish there was a micro-payment model where part of my monthly ISP payment was divvied up and paid to websites based on volume of content read by me. something like that already exists: https://www.contentpass.net/en https://www.contentpass.net/en
- seanp2k2 3y ago
  100% this. If companies use Admiral to block Adblock and don’t have the tiny “heck off” link at the bottom of the modal, I just hit back and don’t read their article. Sometimes Reader works on iOS in those situations, sometimes not. Between crap like Admiral, GDPR nag screens that help no one, incessant useless live chat boxes, large banners on mobile that are pinned to the tops and bottoms of views (doubly so if they’re simply cosmetic), “spin the wheel for a discount” modals, and SMS spam signup schemes, many websites are quite annoying to use and very user-hostile on the modern internet.
  - giantrobot 3y ago
    > If companies use Admiral to block Adblock and don’t have the tiny “heck off” link at the bottom of the modal, I just hit back and don’t read their article. The most asinine part of that is the fucking site has already delivered the content. They incurred whatever costs their multi-megabyte bloated JavaScript monstrosity requires and only then blocks it with a stupid blocking banner. They'd incur the same (or less) costs if they just sent a static HTML page with the content. Doing this they could still make advertising money with a simple text add saying "this content brought to you by Slurm" inline with the content. Just log analysis will get them a ton of visitor information some overwrought AdTech product promises will revolutionize their synergies. A $5 VPS with its included terabyte of data transfer can serve so many fucking web pages in a month. Loading that down with autoplaying videos, megabytes of uncompressed PNGs, and a dozen copies of Doom worth of JavaScript is just a ludicrous pointless cost. A sprinkle of CSS can make those basic pages look amazing.
- squarefoot 3y ago
  > The whole problem starts at (1) which is "create a business supported only by advertising revenue". That says your actual product is worth fuck all. It's a bit more complex than that as the market is long oversaturated with products and services, that is, there are not enough buyers compared to the number of products and services, but that awful thing called consumerism calls for more and more production anyway to keep the machine going and prices down, therefore companies need to fight hard for potential customers attention, and one way to achieve that goal is to put their names on every possible free spot where one's eyes might look. There's nothing wrong in being dependent on advertising, but at the level necessary today it simply doesn't scale anymore, and on the web a lot more than half of the (sometimes metered) traffic is already made of advertising, and is growing steadily. We already know where this thing is leading: more and more advertising, coupled with less and less attention which in turn will generate the need for even more advertising. It doesn't scale and it doesn't work anymore like it should. I would rather start looking right now for alternatives, for example one where (local) governments convert a tax collected from all registered companies to a system of unobtrusive advertising which by rotating equally, still being weighted according to the amount of investment in research, production, personnel, etc. would guarantee fair exposure to all businesses. That would be however deeply against current idea of uncontrolled capitalism, though, therefore we likely will have to wait for the day the world will be ready for a more mature, harmless way of doing business.
MikePlacid 3y ago
Technical curiosity: how site owners are able to detect blockers and why blockers are not able to bypass detection? As for ads I prefer Brave Browser model, where I pay websites directly, bypassing advertisers.
- Sephr 3y ago
  The Brave model does not allow you to directly pay websites. You directly pay Brave, who then distributes funds to some participating websites. Additionally, they take a 30% cut of the value of their "basic attention token" shitcoin for themselves.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    > You directly pay Brave, who then distributes funds to some participating websites. This isn't worse than the way ads work anyway, so that seems fine. > Additionally, they take a 30% cut of the value I also don't see the problem here. They develop the browser, the infra, etc. What is the problem? What is it that you people want?
    - Sephr 3y ago
      > What is the problem? It's open source software implementing anti-features. Why should I willingly share the value of my attention with my browser vendor?
      - insanitybit 3y ago
        Because they're providing the software, infrastructure, and services that allow you to display that content...
        Sephr 3y ago
        The default ratio clearly implies a profit-seeking share in my opinion.
- 3y ago
cousin_it 3y ago
It's not the only logical decision, because it leads to a technological arms race which is costly to all parties. The outcome is binary: see ads or not. The only logical decision is to figure out from first principles what the outcome should be, and make it binding for all parties to avoid the arms race.
Quarrel 3y ago
> the only logical conclusion: You can block ads all you want, and website owners can block you all they want. I very much agree with this bit. The real worry is the next step, as per your TOS you force me to render your website content only in an "approved" signed browser. This is a step several players are pushing towards (Netflix and others are already there, but for distinct reasons- at least they degrade your experience if you aren't using an approved stack). This we need to fight against.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  I mean, what if there are actual technical limitations of whatever browser you'd like to use that prevent, for example, the on-the-fly playback of 4K video? Or, even more broadly, what if the device you're watching on has insufficient compute to accomplish the task? Do you, as proverbial Netflix's chief engineer or whatever, degrade the quality of the experience so things run smoothly, or do you press on and let the user choose a worse experience, and leave nasty feedback on public listings/forums/what have you? I don't mean to argue for the Netflix's in this situation, I'm just genuinely curious what HN thinks of this: in a situation where whatever tech a user is bringing to the table is insufficient to run your product, be it hardware or software, what do you do? I've been in a situation myself where the tech stack of our user base was directly contributing to the stream of angry emails our support was getting and was forbidden by management to gate content only to those who we knew could run it, yet simultaneously was held responsible for the negative impressions of our product as a result of it. I left that job soon after because it was an obvious lose/lose scenario.
  - yesco 3y ago
    Netflix does not offer 1080p+ content to people watching on a Linux desktop. There is no technical reason for this, Linux browsers are capable of playing 1080p+ content of course. So why do you think Netflix does this? Rather than deal with hypotheticals let's focus on reality, a lot of people have put a lot of effort into ensuring that web browsers can run the same content on every platform. This is already a solved problem, even if imperfect. The only genuine reason a device might not be able to play a browser supported 4k video is because it's too resource expensive (rare) and this is simply an immutable property of computers that isn't going to change unless you are expecting all users to use the exact same hardware forever.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gumby 3y ago
I’m a determined ad blocker and I agree with you. The only exception should be a government web site (I also block analytics).
em-bee 3y ago
the problem is that they also say it is legitimate to charge for adfree access. while that is technically correct is has negative impact on society because it means only rich people (i exaggerate intentionally to make a point) can live ad free. poor people have to suffer ads or be excluded, which is fine if the content is something not of interest to the general public, but it is not fine at all if it is eg facebook or youtube. add to that that poorer segments of the population tend to be less well educated and thus more susceptible to manipulation. if you force ads on people you must do so to everyone equally and block adblockers equally. any exchange of money creates a situation where only those that can afford it can protect themselves if you charge for access you may not offer the same access for the price of watching ads. it should be either one or the other
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
beeboobaa 3y ago
This works until they shove remote attestation down our throats and it becomes practically impossible because you no longer own your machine
- insanitybit 3y ago
  It still works at that point - websites can send you ads and you can choose not to view those websites. No one is forcing you to go to Youtube or whatever.
  - beeboobaa 3y ago
    > No one is forcing you to go to Youtube or whatever Oh boy. They sure are. Many countries their governments post their videos on youtube. Many employers put their training videos on youtube. And so on.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      That doesn't sound like a Youtube problem, it sounds like a your-government problem.
      - beeboobaa 3y ago
        Just responding to what you said. > No one is forcing you to go to Youtube or whatever
  - Kamq 3y ago
    Nobody is forcing youtube to respond to my https request either. If they wanted, they could lock it down and force you to log in and agree to a bunch of rules in order to use the service, but they don't.
- kmbfjr 3y ago
  Google et al are fooling themselves if they think this is the end of the game.
- 3y ago
blooalien 3y ago
> "You can block ads all you want, and website owners can block you all they want." This is absolutely the correct conclusion to come to, given that the Internet is really "just" a network of networks (still an amazing thing, don't get me wrong), and when one connects a device to a network, they should have absolute control over the data that device allows to flow to and from the "outside world", for the safety of the user, the device, and for the health of the larger "outside" network. This holds even more true when connecting a network to another network. For your own security, you (should) run a firewall at the very least. Even better is when all devices on the network all have their firewall enabled, but sadly, not all devices were designed with network security in mind, so that's not always possible. TL;DR: All the above is just to say an adblocker is just another form of the end user exercising control over the data that flows into and out of their devices / network, as they've always been able to, until advertising companies (which initially all scoffed at the entire idea of advertising on the "passing fad" Internet) decided that they had a right to our eyeballs and our devices' network data flows at any time and in any way they please.

sys_64738 3y ago

This is pretty much like the piracy argument where the assumption is there is 100% buy-in from people if they don't pirate. There isn't. Likewise, here. If you insist on forcing ads then I won't participate. There are no monetary damages as people refuse to look at or listen to ads.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jraph 3y ago

Posted 3 days ago, 282 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38726389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38726389

freitzkriesler2 3y ago

It needs to be said. I don't care I started blocking ads back in the 2000s when viruses would be delivered over bad flash videos. Nowadays, I still block ads because I'm paying for limited bandwidth on my mobile devices. I'm not paying for unlimited bandwidth when 5gb with ad blocking gets me what I want. I can't use this excuse on my PC but... I honestly don't care if it harms the content creators and more importantly, the video delivery networks like Google. Does that mean there might be less content made? Sure and I'm Ok with that as a consequence.

paulddraper 3y ago
> I can't use this excuse on my PC Perhaps you should just state your real reason, rather than excuses.
- whstl 3y ago
  I can state some of mine: I don't want loud audio blasting on my headphones before watching a Youtube or news site video. I don't want to watch scam advertisements on Youtube or Instagram. I don't want to be tracked without my consent by third-party ad companies. I don't want to even support companies that track users without consent. I would actually prefer that websites using non-privacy-respecting ad-ware would die. I don't want my computer to be slowed down by random websites. I don't want to be forced to spend hundreds/thousands on computer upgrades. I don't want ad code from ad companies running on my device. I don't want the risk of malware that might come via ads in some websites. I don't want my attention going to jumpy animations on GIF banners (the original reason I started blocking in the early 2000s). And finally: I don't want to spend the bandwidth, regardless of the fact it's gonna cost me money or not. I am, however: Happy to watch a Youtube NordVPN or Ridge Wallet sponsorship segment on Youtube that doesn't track me and allow me to skip if I want. Same for TV ads (unless they're obnoxious and loud). Also Happy to unblock websites that don't have obnoxious third-party ads.
- AllegedAlec 3y ago
  I wish for companies that require my attention be taken up by their ugly pixels to all bankrupt and for their C-staff and marketing departments to be unemployed and in the gutter.

sedev 3y ago

There is no right to advertise, is how I see it, any more than there is a right to use asbestos, lead, and mercury any way you please. There is societal permission to use those substances in strictly controlled ways, requiring that serious work be invested in preventing and limiting the toxic effects upon the public of using those substances, because those toxic effects are real and taking the benefits of using those substances while shuffling off the toxic effects onto someone else, is evil. We should regulate advertising in the same way: it is evil to shuffle off its toxic effects onto the public at large while the advertiser and ad-inventory-seller keep all of the benefits. Ad-blocking is as virtuous as carrying around kits and sensors to check how much lead and mercury is in my immediate environment — certainly I will benefit from doing it, but I shouldn't have to, because pumping out ad-toxins into the social environment constantly and pervasively, is evil.

iteria 3y ago
Is there a right to free content? Because ads are obnoxious and I do block them, but I also pay for stuff were I can. If ads didn't exist there effectively there would be a pallwall on the internet. As there should be, people need money to live. If people feel so strongly about ads they should either not consume the content or pay for the ad-free version. I use YouTube premium and I've never seen an ad. I get the ad-free version of everything. My child even uses Amazon kids, so she can enjous apps to her hearts content without ads. But I pay for that. Ad blocking is theft. It's theft that I will commit, but it is theft. When you block an ad you reduce the content creator's salary. We then have to ask: what happens if the creator gets no money? They stop giving the content away "for free". This is the piracy fight all over again. Again, I'm on the high seas, so I'm not innocent. I still think that we need remember that content isn't free. We pay for it with attention or money. If enough people don't do that then the content won't be there. That's how capitalism works.
- Sevii 3y ago
  Ad blocking is not theft. If it were, leaving the room with the television on while ads were playing would also be theft. Youtube is freely sending people content. No one is forcing Youtube to send them cat videos. No one is acquiring Youtube videos illegally via torrents. Ad blocking is only possible on Youtube because Youtube insists on doing big data auction based advertising. If they wanted to, Youtube could embed ads in the video stream making it impossible to block them. Youtube does not have a right to display whatever content they want on my devices. If they freely send me data, I have the right to display that data however I can on my device. If Youtube wanted they could end the utility of adblock today. They could only send data to people who paid. They could embed ads into the video stream. It is their choice to make adblocking possible on Youtube.

davidy123 3y ago

This is going to be a controversial position, but nobody is really arguing the other side, the benefits of ads. And if they were more accepted and integrated (a "perfect" federated model), maybe they could be acceptable rather than abrasive and irrelevant. Who is talking, with a measured perspective, about the shift to participatory, user produced content (yes, I know, a lot of it isn't good, but some is and it is available to many more people without barriers), and the benefits that brings? I just see hand waving about alternatives, some "good old days" ideas about media, and a lot of people accessing essentially free ad-sponsored content with generally minor inconvenience in a murky going-nowhere conflict. I think as much as anyone Google brings alternatives; I pay for Youtube Premium and never have any ads on Youtube/Youtube Music (places where it would be particularly unwelcome), I get paid for Google Surveys, and I think with some work their federated model could be perfectly reasonable. If you disagree, please say why, rather than simply downvoting.

gigel82 3y ago
Display a price-tag on content. You can watch 2 ad breaks, or you can pay $0.05 to watch the video (or whatever it is Google is making off of them). Make it super easy to pay (for example with a prepaid wallet you can refill).
whatshisface 3y ago
Here's my proposal to replace ads: 1. The server does not send the content to you, unless you pay. Websites are responsible for deciding what to give out for free - only public "abstracts" of NYT articles get search indexing. 2. Some browsers keep an account for you, others show you ads and let the advertising companies pay your way through the internet. 3. Anyone who wants to run a server for free or host P2P content may still do it. All of the advanced tracking technology would be unnecessary if some people browsed through their adsense consumer account and other people ran a tab with their "content intermediary" to pay websites to serve (anonymous) address x.y.z.w.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > All of the advanced tracking technology would be unnecessary if some people browsed through their adsense consumer account Well yeah, if you do all the tracking officially and up front there's no need to tack it on, but that's not a win. > and other people ran a tab with their "content intermediary" to pay websites to serve (anonymous) address x.y.z.w. Thereby ensuring that the intermediary does the tracking. None of this gives the user privacy.

varispeed 3y ago

The problem is that the content offered most of the time is not good enough to pay for it. For instance the so called news. Most newspapers publish ready made stories with their own editorial take at best. Articles are typically processed by LLM so the wording is slightly different than the stock story. The press has abandoned investigative journalism because it is too risky. Corrupt governments and police can't protect journalists. So they mostly serve three-letter agency approved information and not much beyond that. and they want people to pay for this nonsense. If Google wants people to stop using adblockers, they should be forced to share ad revenue with every single contributor. If they show in their results your aunt recipes, the aunt should get a share of the revenue from ads displayed on that results page.

andrepd 3y ago
Well, re: journalism yes there is now 1000x more shit-tier content spamming farms than there were before. But the prestigious and serious news organisations still do perform serious high-quality reporting and investigative journalism. From Der Spiegel to The Guardian and many others. Even in my small country with a dire newspaper market there are still 2 or 3 serious newspapers performing high quality journalism.
- MikePlacid 3y ago
  > But the prestigious and serious news organisations still do perform serious high-quality reporting and investigative journalism. You’ve omitted one word: honest.
- varispeed 3y ago
  They only "investigate" approved stories. What you say is an illusion they create quite well. In the UK, there is probably only one that goes slightly deeper - Private Eye and they still have not touched many topics related to corruption and other scandals where Guardian either low-key supports (the perpetrators) or don't talk about it at all.

austinjp 3y ago

ITT: Tails wag dogs. Ads are, in the vast majority, toxic shit. Endemic income inequality and unicorn worship has produced VC-backed hustle culture where "creators" spew "content" over platforms, and slap ads on top to generate income. If a business can't generate sufficient income by selling a product, it's not a viable business. It's certainly not one I want to interact with. Tail wags dog: Without advertising, all this content would be paywalled or simply wouldn't exist. Dog wags tail: Sell your product, maybe give away samples. Sink or swim.

jMyles 3y ago

I can't believe this has become so over-complicated. It's very straightforward: You can respond however you want to my HTTP request. I can then render that response how I see fit. /thread

MzHN 3y ago

Someone brought up piracy from the monetary perspective. Another perspective I like is piracy and streaming services. I, and most in my bubble, stopped pirating when streaming services provided, well, good service. We've bit by bit moved back to piracy when the service has degraded. My journey with ad blocking is similar. Even though my browser was loaded with extensions, I used to not run an ad blocker. No other reason really than laziness. The ads didn't bother me much. It was one of those "I've been meaning to do it but never got to it". What finally got me to install an ad blocker were news of malware being served even on popular websites through ads. Ads weren't simple anymore if they ever were. They were part of one of the most complex and lucrative domains of tech business. And that was leaking into websites. It felt too dirty, so I got an ad blocker. Nowadays the ad-tech industry boasts about moving to first-party ad tracking, a cat-and-mouse game where I don't hold high hopes for ad blockers. So I went a step further and turned off JavaScript by default in uBlock Origin. Or take YouTube ads. I was still watching them on my TV not long ago, but when it got to the point where a 20 minute video has 5 ad breaks I couldn't take it anymore. If ads sticked to being image only, no dark patterns, no targeting persons but instead content and not exceedingly disruptive, I would have probably never bothered with ad blocking.

MikePlacid 3y ago
I remember clicking on some Google ads - when they were unobtrusive and textual - just to get these new nice guys some additional revenue (often ads were “on-topic” even). But these jumping, blinking, content obtrusing things? And I am on a tablet 90% of the time…

_Algernon_ 3y ago

The right to general purpose computing should be on a level with the right to free speech in every country that claims to value free speech[1]. Same protections as speech. Because nowadays computing is essentially speech. There certainly is a better argument for computing to be speech than monetary political donations (ie. bribes) being it. And this does of course not mean that every form of computation is permitted, just as not every form of speech is allowed (ie. threats or libel). It also doesn't mean that anyone has to platform your speech. But using technological tools to take away other's right to computing on their purchased device would be considered a free speech violation. This would include DRM, Web Integrity, denial of service and other attacks on computing devices you don't yourself own. [1] I'm referring to the free speech value with its roots in the enlightement, not on the narrower definition of the free speech as defined in the first amendment (which only limits governments from hindering free speech).