4 ms·

Do you think that there will ever be widespread/mainstream client-side control of the web like this? Where it was the norm that, say, 90% of web users blocked a

Do you think that there will ever be widespread/mainstream client-side control of the web like this? Where it was the norm that, say, 90% of web users blocked ads and analytics? Would it be good or bad?

lowboy 13y ago
I think we'd see sites implement some sort of check to see if their ad scripts loaded properly, and ad/analytic providers enabling this through hooks. There would probably be "good" providers that would get whitelisted. As a web user, I welcome this extension. It's my browser, and I should be able to control its IO. As a web developer... well, I've never been a fan of advertising-based revenue, but I'd like accurate analytics.
- dictum 13y ago
  I block most tracking services. I wish I didn't have to do that. I'd love if sites could get accurate analytics, as long as the data stays with the website owners (so, nothing from external companies and no pinging Google etc.), isn't shared with third parties (no, not even "trusted" third parties), retention times are not longer than 2 years, it's reasonably anonymized, etc. Until a trustworthy self-hosted analytics script that's fast and doesn't consume too many resources appears, my browser/OS and other info will remain underrepresented in websites' analytics dashboards.
  - tomrod 13y ago
    What is your method to block things?
    - wtallis 13y ago
      NoScript takes care of most tracking systems (those loaded from third-party domains), and has surrogate scripts to prevent it from breaking websites that attempt to depend on the most common tracking scripts, and for this it is the first line of defense. AdBlock I use mostly for most common forms of single-pixel tracking images (and ads, of course), and Cookie Monster to manage cookie permissions, and BetterPrivacy to get rid of flash cookies. RequestPolicy is the nuclear option for when I'm feeling most paranoid. (EDIT: RequestPolicy's 1.0 betas have a default-allow mode, which makes it much easier to leave enabled during everyday use.) For me, the toughest thing is to figure out which cloudfront subdomains to allow.
- wtallis 13y ago
  > I think we'd see sites implement some sort of check to see if their ad scripts loaded properly, and ad/analytic providers enabling this through hooks. NoScript's surrogate scripts are the user's side of this arms race. I think it should be clear that the advertisers can only have as much success as any other DRM provider that relies solely on obfuscation while still trusting the client. Surrogate scripts can be updated more quickly than the multitude of web sites that need to verify that an ad was shown.
gorhill 13y ago
I think you can find some sort of answer by looking at the most popular extensions on Firefox: * AdBlock Plus * NoScript * WOT * Ghostery * Better Privacy * DoNotTrackMe https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/privacy-security/?sort=users https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/privacy-... Now for the hypothetical question as to whether it would be "bad or good", I don't understand: how could it be bad if 90% of people make the choice of blocking unwanted content/connection?
- NoCowLevel 13y ago
  If 90% of people stop ads from reaching them, then online advertising becomes almost useless. Its probably a bad thing because the companies spending billions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising) to advertise, will stop doing so. The websites getting billions in ad revenue will stop getting money. Case in point: http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/10/17/google-earnings-preview-growth-in-ad-revenue-and-motorola-mobility-in-focus/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/10/17/goo... "Google derives most of its value from advertising where it competes primarily with Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook. . According to our estimates, standard PC search ads account for over 30% of Google’s overall value and 60% of its revenues. However, the recent trend in earnings indicates that the growth in online PC ads revenues is slowing down. Additionally, the company’s market share of the U.S. search marketplace has been stagnant at 67%, according to latest data by comScore." Primarily ad-funded free websites would make losses, or go paid. Us, the customers, pay for not wanting to see ads. Of course, this is just my opinion on what might happen.
  - gorhill 13y ago
    To me it's more a matter of ad and content providers adjusting to reality than playing pretend. My view on this is that by blocking ads, I am actually helping these providers by telling them a piece of reality: I don't care about your ads, so I block them, because it won't translate into a sale on my end anyways. If ever blockers are used by a majority of people, content and ad providers will have to deal (rather than whine) with this reality, it's called "market forces". Now that's just regarding ads, but of course there is another consideration for blockers: privacy. It's creepy to stumble onto a marketing firm bragging to their prospective clients that they will be able to "see absolutely everything your visitors do on your webpage ... See their every mouse move, click and keystroke".
e12e 13y ago
A "major" Norwegian language tech-network (tek.no/hw.no/gamer.no etc) recently started demanding that you either show ads, or use their paid service. That means that with adblock/noscript, they do some tricks to hide content, forcing you to either make some kind of effort to get to the content, or whitelist them. I have no idea how successful that has been for them with regards to increasing revenue -- I do know that I've pretty much stopped reading them (but a large part of that is that their content is hastily written crap, not offering much of any value over other, better, international sites). Had at least some of their reviews and articles been worth reading, I might have considered paying for a subscription. I'm not sure what the takeaway is from that, though. Don't try to sell crap?
Nursie 13y ago
We're a way off 90% but it's already started. Me, I'd be fine with sites that blocked users that don't display ads, like me. Then I could make the choice whether it's important enough to me that I would put up with them. It's unlikely I would but at least at that point we're on a level playing field. I'd actually support some sort of request header that (unlike the utterly useless DoNotTrack) says something like WillNotDisplayAdvertising.

lowboy 13y ago

I think we'd see sites implement some sort of check to see if their ad scripts loaded properly, and ad/analytic providers enabling this through hooks. There would probably be "good" providers that would get whitelisted. As a web user, I welcome this extension. It's my browser, and I should be able to control its IO. As a web developer... well, I've never been a fan of advertising-based revenue, but I'd like accurate analytics.

dictum 13y ago
I block most tracking services. I wish I didn't have to do that. I'd love if sites could get accurate analytics, as long as the data stays with the website owners (so, nothing from external companies and no pinging Google etc.), isn't shared with third parties (no, not even "trusted" third parties), retention times are not longer than 2 years, it's reasonably anonymized, etc. Until a trustworthy self-hosted analytics script that's fast and doesn't consume too many resources appears, my browser/OS and other info will remain underrepresented in websites' analytics dashboards.
- tomrod 13y ago
  What is your method to block things?
  - wtallis 13y ago
    NoScript takes care of most tracking systems (those loaded from third-party domains), and has surrogate scripts to prevent it from breaking websites that attempt to depend on the most common tracking scripts, and for this it is the first line of defense. AdBlock I use mostly for most common forms of single-pixel tracking images (and ads, of course), and Cookie Monster to manage cookie permissions, and BetterPrivacy to get rid of flash cookies. RequestPolicy is the nuclear option for when I'm feeling most paranoid. (EDIT: RequestPolicy's 1.0 betas have a default-allow mode, which makes it much easier to leave enabled during everyday use.) For me, the toughest thing is to figure out which cloudfront subdomains to allow.
wtallis 13y ago
> I think we'd see sites implement some sort of check to see if their ad scripts loaded properly, and ad/analytic providers enabling this through hooks. NoScript's surrogate scripts are the user's side of this arms race. I think it should be clear that the advertisers can only have as much success as any other DRM provider that relies solely on obfuscation while still trusting the client. Surrogate scripts can be updated more quickly than the multitude of web sites that need to verify that an ad was shown.

gorhill 13y ago

I think you can find some sort of answer by looking at the most popular extensions on Firefox: * AdBlock Plus * NoScript * WOT * Ghostery * Better Privacy * DoNotTrackMe https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/privacy-security/?sort=users https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/privacy-... Now for the hypothetical question as to whether it would be "bad or good", I don't understand: how could it be bad if 90% of people make the choice of blocking unwanted content/connection?

NoCowLevel 13y ago
If 90% of people stop ads from reaching them, then online advertising becomes almost useless. Its probably a bad thing because the companies spending billions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising) to advertise, will stop doing so. The websites getting billions in ad revenue will stop getting money. Case in point: http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/10/17/google-earnings-preview-growth-in-ad-revenue-and-motorola-mobility-in-focus/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/10/17/goo... "Google derives most of its value from advertising where it competes primarily with Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook. . According to our estimates, standard PC search ads account for over 30% of Google’s overall value and 60% of its revenues. However, the recent trend in earnings indicates that the growth in online PC ads revenues is slowing down. Additionally, the company’s market share of the U.S. search marketplace has been stagnant at 67%, according to latest data by comScore." Primarily ad-funded free websites would make losses, or go paid. Us, the customers, pay for not wanting to see ads. Of course, this is just my opinion on what might happen.
- gorhill 13y ago
  To me it's more a matter of ad and content providers adjusting to reality than playing pretend. My view on this is that by blocking ads, I am actually helping these providers by telling them a piece of reality: I don't care about your ads, so I block them, because it won't translate into a sale on my end anyways. If ever blockers are used by a majority of people, content and ad providers will have to deal (rather than whine) with this reality, it's called "market forces". Now that's just regarding ads, but of course there is another consideration for blockers: privacy. It's creepy to stumble onto a marketing firm bragging to their prospective clients that they will be able to "see absolutely everything your visitors do on your webpage ... See their every mouse move, click and keystroke".

e12e 13y ago

A "major" Norwegian language tech-network (tek.no/hw.no/gamer.no etc) recently started demanding that you either show ads, or use their paid service. That means that with adblock/noscript, they do some tricks to hide content, forcing you to either make some kind of effort to get to the content, or whitelist them. I have no idea how successful that has been for them with regards to increasing revenue -- I do know that I've pretty much stopped reading them (but a large part of that is that their content is hastily written crap, not offering much of any value over other, better, international sites). Had at least some of their reviews and articles been worth reading, I might have considered paying for a subscription. I'm not sure what the takeaway is from that, though. Don't try to sell crap?

Nursie 13y ago

We're a way off 90% but it's already started. Me, I'd be fine with sites that blocked users that don't display ads, like me. Then I could make the choice whether it's important enough to me that I would put up with them. It's unlikely I would but at least at that point we're on a level playing field. I'd actually support some sort of request header that (unlike the utterly useless DoNotTrack) says something like WillNotDisplayAdvertising.