The adblocking revolution is months away

Ad blocking is very expensive. The iOS approach is the best idea. Have you seen the cost in memory and CPU of browser ad blocker extensions? That's prohibitive in mobile.

alecco4• 11 years ago

Good idea. Vote with your feet!

(Just switched, never looking back)

I see it as changing my phone from having 3 "pimps" (mobile operator + Samsung + Google) to having just 1 (Apple fending off the others). And for the price of a cup of coffee you get quite decent apps instead of freemium ad-supported, slow as hell, ugly garbage apps.

mike-cardwell• 11 years ago

On my desktop, I use Firefox with uBlock Origin. On my Android phone, I also use Firefox with uBlock Origin. shrug

pakled_engineer• 11 years ago

If you have SU/root, or build your own system.img you can use a hosts file to kill 99.9% of all in-app ads or apparently Adblock Plus has this feature too. The only time my hosts file failed was some simple weather app that refused to work when it detected no access to it's ad server so I rewrote it myself.

If you don't have root you can build your own VPN that can kill all ad traffic, a service that offers this must exist somewhere. If this all sounds too complicated buy an iPhone until Android enables an easy way to kill annoying mobile ads.

soylentcola3• 11 years ago

Another option is to use something like AdFree Android which includes a hosts file/blacklist that is frequently updated if you don't feel like making your own.

u02sgb• 11 years ago

I use Privoxy at home to block Ads, only works connected on wifi at home but it's easy to setup.

aninteger• 11 years ago

If you can get root on your phone you can easily block 90% of advertising. The AdAway already mentioned is great but I also would suggest DroidWall and then you can effectively whitelist or blacklist any Android applications from using the network at all. Some apps only use your network connection to serve ads and in that case you just block those apps.

Nexxxeh2• 11 years ago

If you're on Android, there are so many possible different solutions to the problem. You're not crippled to what Apple deem fit for you to have.

Off the top of my head, I can think of four more, other the suggestions in that blogpost.

- Firefox + uBlock. (Superb. Best mobile browsing experience.)

- Xposed Framework and something like UnbelovedHosts. (Probably root required)

- Ad-Free Time with MobiDNS. (Like $3 a month, additional benefits included. VPN/DNS redirect hybrid.)

- An ad-blocking proxy or VPN.

You aren't stuck waiting for a solution from a competitor that's late to the party.

We've been blocking adverts on Android for longer than Apple have let users change their onscreen keyboards...

coldpie3• 11 years ago

Seconding Firefox with uBlock. Mozilla has made a big push, and Firefox for Android is a really great experience these days.

soylentcola3• 11 years ago

If you don't feel like enabling superuser (root) on the devices you own for system-wide ad blocking, Firefox for Android lets you install AdBlock Plus/Edge/etc. like any other extension and works quite well in my experience. When they stopped allowing those addons in mobile Chrome I started using mobile Firefox as my main browser and have been perfectly satisfied.

But yeah, if you don't mind setting it up so you can grant superuser permissions to something like Adfree Android, you get system-wide ad blocking which also gets rid of ads in most apps. Still, I haven't bothered in a while because good apps don't include really obnoxious ads and the good ones that offer free versions with unobtrusive ads deserve to make some money. If they're truly good apps, then I sorta feel bad when I don't even notice I'm using the free version because ads are blocked. There are a handful of apps where I fired them up on a new device before setting up Adfree and was reminded that I really ought to just shell out the $2-3 for the full version.

mrkmcknz• 11 years ago

The amount of companies that are providing some form of tracking or advanced analytics based on traditional mobile advertising is pretty huge.

This could eventually be an event significant enough to kill a number of companies.

luso_brazilian2• 11 years ago

And when that happens it will be interesting to see what happens to all the user data they amassed. Good chances it will be a cross between the user data sale by RadioShack [1] and the scramble to acquire Nortel patents [2].

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/paularosenblum/2015/03/24/bankru...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/01/nortel-pat...

microtonal2• 11 years ago

I think it is safe to assume that they will lobby to make ad blocking illegal before they go down.

TeMPOraL5• 11 years ago

And I for one would say: good riddance.

vilmosi2• 11 years ago

The overall article is of good quality but it reeks of Apple bias I personally find distasteful.

>> User experience is what Apple puts above pretty much everything else, and they’ve decided that they don’t like it the experience available through the ad-supported web, and so they’re going to do something about it.

The reason Apple does this is to push content creators away from the Web and into native apps. Apple gets a cut on any money made from apps but not from Web ads. It's a strategic move that's not fueled by wanting better UX for users. I'll bet Apple won't consider "Install from Apple Store" type messages as ads.

>>That also plays into Apple’s other general message, about how it doesn’t track what you do when you’re using its products

Bullshit. They have their own advertising network they want to push. That's the whole reason they're allowing Web ads to be blocked. So you'll see more of iAds. Nothing to do about "caring for your privacy".

microtonal2• 11 years ago

That's too simple. Apple (and others) have relentlessly tried to optimize power saving. People like phones with a good battery time, plus I assume that there can be significant cost saving if you can use smaller capacity batteries.

They have probably come to a point where a significant amount of power use during mobile browsing is caused by ads (both rendering and the extra network use that it incurs). Blocking ads could be a welcome power saver.

JustSomeNobody• 11 years ago

I would venture to say that the relentless push to move as much as possible to the client has much more impact on battery life than the handful of ads we typically see.

ethbro4• 11 years ago

While this pay be true, at some point profit trumps UX.

Look at how the iPod+iTunes morphed as soon as Apple realized how much money could be generated by adding DRM and a store.

eevilspock2• 11 years ago

Another HN front page story compares Power usage of the worlds most popular websites calculated on different browsers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9974615

While the article isn't about mobile versions of these browsers, it speaks both to the importance of this issue as well adds to the debate about whether "User experience is what Apple puts above pretty much everything else."

robmcm12• 11 years ago

While the article may have a pro Apple bias this comment exudes a negative Apple bias. Equally distasteful.

stephenr2• 11 years ago

The overall article is of good quality but it reeks of Apple bias I personally find distasteful

Your entire comment is just anti-apple biased assumptions. How are you any better than the article?

forgetsusername3• 11 years ago

I'll bet Apple won't consider "Install from Apple Store" type messages as ads."

Which for me, is the worst kind. When you accidentally click an ad (sometimes unbeknownst to you) and suddenly the browser is closing and iTunes is opening, trying to get you to install Game of War...

That said, if ad-blocking works on iOS, I think much of what he writes comes true. It will be interesting.

robmcm12• 11 years ago

Please remember that Apple has only said they will support plugins for Safari, no direct mention of ad blocking.

If there is ad blocking it will be provided by a third party.

If it is then it will be up to the third party if they want to block this kind of advert. By their nature however "install banners" are typically part of the content (if it's for the site's own application) so a typical ad blocker wouldn't catch them. If however it's a third party advert showing an app install dialogue/overlay it will likely be blocked, by the fact it will likely come from an ad providing domain.

noxToken• 11 years ago

The worst are pop up ads that occur in the middle of rapid tapping. Multiple taps can register be the OS responds. At least on Android, it will launch a new tab for each tap on the ad with each tab attempting to launch the Play Store. This is mostly confined to mobile games, but it can also happen when trying to quickly scroll.

ceejayoz• 11 years ago

Apple gets a cut on any money made from apps but not from Web ads.

Not if those apps are free and using non-Apple advertising networks like AdMob.

roninb3• 11 years ago

Then they still get the $100 the dev paid to publish the app in the first place.

onion2k2• 11 years ago

Having apps locks you in to the ecosystem. If you're installing one app from the app store you're very likely to install others.

Luc2• 11 years ago

Honestly, aren't your comments as much an example of Apple bias as what you're commenting on, but with the sign reversed?

Mikushi3• 11 years ago

So looking at facts is a bias now?

How about all the different ways Apple breaks the web for its own sake? Things like the HTTP Protocol are fundamentally broken by Apple, and this is not ok.

They are a despicable company, a dragon only interested in increasing its cash reserves. I do not understand the support they are getting from the developer community, they shit on them constantly, make their life difficult, and forces them to buy Apple.

This latest move is even more despicable as its pushed as positive for the user, landing them good PR, when in fact its all about levering Apple's stronghold on users to push iAds. They are a company for profit, and their history shows they don't do anything for users, they do it for them.

They should be criticized and hounded as a toxic company for the web.

hiou2• 11 years ago

If you look at moves made by Apple in the iPhone era it becomes quite clear and does not require bias.

- Ban flash. Biggest competition to native apps.

- Cripple the iOS web browser just enough that web apps trying to have native style performance will struggle.

- Release their own map to push Google out of their ecosystem. When that didn't work now they are trying this.

Apple's business model is pretty simple. Aquire a user through very aggressive marketing converted into a device purchase. Use that device purchase a an entry point to take over all points of monetary action of that user. That means nothing(web, flash, credit card) should go through anything but them. You don't need bias to see something as obvious as this now is.

ryangittins• 11 years ago

No, he made well-reasoned points. You, on the other hand, have yet to.

cousin_it2• 11 years ago

That move might backfire, though. If Apple devices offer an ad-free web but not ad-free apps, then users will drift toward the web, just as content creators drift toward apps.

kazinator4• 11 years ago

But that specific content going into the apps won't be available on the web. Users who want that content won't find it there. It will be in the apps, where the ads can't be easily blocked (without reverse engineering and altering on an app-by-app basis).

luso_brazilian2• 11 years ago

I'll bet Apple won't consider "Install from Apple Store" type messages as ads.

Apple won't consider anything as ads. What they provided was the hooks for developers to implement "Content Blocking Safari Extensions" [1]. To quote the docs:

"Your app extension is responsible for supplying a JSON file to Safari. The JSON consists of an array of rules (triggers and actions) for blocking specified content. Safari converts the JSON to bytecode, which it applies efficiently to all resource loads without leaking information about the user’s browsing back to the app extension."

There will be competing AdBlocking extensions just like on Firefox, for instance. It will be up to the developers to create the rules of what should be blocked and what should be allowed.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/releaseno...

mikeash3• 11 years ago

Apple provides hooks so that a web page can display an official, system supported "there is an app for this web site, tap here to download it" banner. I will bet $5 that Apple does not provide a way to block those.

rayiner• 11 years ago

It can be both. If people find the ad supported web unpleasant, doing the right thing for the user experience is also something that benefits their bottom line.

adamlett2• 11 years ago

I wholeheartedly agree. A convincing argument can be made that the reason Apple is so successful is precisely because Apple business goals are in alignment with their customers' and users' interest.

danielweber2• 11 years ago

If people incorrectly assume that the alternative to "free with ads" is "free with no ads" then we will have a market failure.

gwu783• 11 years ago

I block "in-app" ads the same way I block "web" ads.

Most ads use the same third party DNS services which makes blocking even easier.

egze• 11 years ago

How do you block them?

kazinator4• 11 years ago

Apps can be written to refuse to run if they can't fetch their ads. This can be baked into compiled code.

Apps can be written to download and cache ads periodically as part of their "update" process, and display these ads even when you don't have an internet connection. If they are not able to update these ads for some time (say 60 days), they can then refuse to run: "the application has expired and needs an update; please connect to the Internet". New ads are fetched when the user connects and lets the app update.

happyscrappy2• 11 years ago

Advertisers hate iAd because it doesn't let you harvest nearly as much users data as most platforms. Advertisers can go suck a lemon as far as I am concerned. It is hard for some people to see past their own Apple hate but success speaks for itself. It doesn't hurt that the competition keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

andresmanz• 11 years ago

success speaks for itself

Our experience as developers should tell us that this isn't true. Success often implies popularity, and popularity is not a very good indicator for quality.

collyw3• 11 years ago

Everything that Apple releases is a "revolution" according to Apple fans. I had guessed it was going to be about Safari from the title.

doodpants• 11 years ago

"Everything that Apple releases is a 'revolution' according to Apple fans" according to Apple haters. See Artie MacStrawman[1].

The article isn't saying that Apple enabling ad blocking in Safari is a "revolutionary" new feature; it's saying that bringing ad blocking into the mainstream could cause a serious disruption in existing online advertising business models.

[1]http://crazyapplerumors.com/2006/08/21/everybody-tired-of-on...

smackfu• 11 years ago

Yes, it is not a coincidence that Apple introduced ad blockers at the same time as their own News app that doesn't allow you to block ads.

wahsd• 11 years ago

Bingo!!!

That's the real and legitimate conspiracy here. They are trying to leverage their ... qualitative ... market dominance to "urge" news content providers to shift their content to the News app where the Apple ad network is king.

I would also like to point out that Apple is not only strong-arming the news content sector, but they are also actively damaging if not destroying various other app companies that are in that space with their unfair advantage. The unfair advantage basically comes into play because they are the effective governmental regulatory body of the Apple ecosystem and therefore have disproportionate leverage and power over those in their ecosystem.

You may say, so what, it's their ecosystem, but that is inherently contradictory to having a fair and level playing-field where you compete based on merits, value, and worth.

It's quite odd that Apple really doesn't like to compete and is rather lazy when it comes to competing. They would rather strong-arm people to extract profits, which really isn't all that different than a protection racket ... "Oh, you want ad revenue? It would be a shame if you didn't get any ad revenue because something happened to your shitty little store and all the ads were stripped out. But we here at Apple would like to offer you a brand new opportunity to protect your ad revenue with Apple News."

WorldWideWayne• 11 years ago

It's a revolution though! Apple finally enabled users of their gimped mobile OS to do something that they've been able to do for 20 years on desktop computers.

kazinator4• 11 years ago

You are spot on. Apple's obvious point of view is this: random websites not affiliated with Apple are using our devices to advertize to the user. That must be stopped! We own the device, after all, and if the user is going to be advertized to, we give the permission for that and want a cut. Plus the wild and wooly ads are obnoxious. We can decide what is acceptable to our users and how it is presented, for a better (though not ad-free) experience.

dhimes4• 11 years ago

Imagine LG doing something like this with their TVs...

Steko5• 11 years ago

The reason Apple does this is to push content creators away from the Web and into native apps.

This is baloney, Apple hosts free apps at a loss. The idea that Apple wants you to have an app for every website is absolutely ridiculous. Safari is one of the most used iOS apps today and will be so for at least the better part of the next decade.

Bullshit. They have their own advertising network they want to push.

iAds is a rounding error on Apple's business. In all likelihood Apple sees a competitive browser advantage: people like X, Google will not do X on Android. They'll load up The Verge during the keynote and show that it takes 1/X the time that the top of the line Android phones do and 11 year olds will walk around telling each other that Safari is X times faster than Chrome.

e40• 11 years ago

iAds is a rounding error on Apple's business.

It may be now, but I'll bet they don't think it will be in the future.

ionised• 11 years ago

I'm an Android user and I didn't really get bias from the article, save a bias against ads and a compliment to Apple for allowing Adblocking.

s73v3r21• 11 years ago

If what you were saying had any merit, then Google would be doing the same. Because, in case you forgot, they also have a popular mobile app store.

fuzzy764• 11 years ago

Apple was clear when announcing this that their goal was NOT to block ads. It was to block stuff that a) tracked you and b) caused your surfing to slow down. This is what they're aiming for.

alecco4• 11 years ago

Good. The 2015 web sucks for mobile. Advertising is out of control and there's never going to be regulation to control.

Thank you Apple!

Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9940202

mrweasel• 11 years ago

I don't necessarily disagree, but there's also the possibility that mobile (and touch) is just a generally worse interface for navigation and content that a laptop or desktop PC.

It has been a while since I used a phone or even an iPad for anything, the quality of the interface seems more like a gimmick or something that you would only use as a last resort. To me touch is the part that doesn't work, combined with the small screen size.

BukhariH• 11 years ago

As expected this is going to have a negative affect on ad revenues but what people forget is that publishers won't just accept lower revenues.

They're going innovate. The easiest thing to implement would be a paywall but after the paywall we are going to see a rise in microtransactions for content.

That being said there are advantages to the subscription model. Maybe, publishers will stop posting click-baity headlines and misleading content if they know they've got users locked down and dont have to worry about them going to other sources as much.

But, on the other hand microtransactions are going to make content even more click-baity in order to convince users to pay for the content based on a headline and abstract.

alecco4• 11 years ago

Good, no more blogspam/clickbait crap.

sergiotapia2• 11 years ago

Precisely! I'm all for this quite honestly.

biafra4• 11 years ago

Another way publishers can fight this, is to not show the content if they detect ad blocking.

tonyblundell2• 11 years ago

The web is 20 years old. I think if this was going to happen, it would have happened by now.

Outside of a few niches, people just aren't willing to pay to read websites.

What I could see happening is premium content being bundled by ISPs. Pay for X package from Y ISP, get content from A, B and C websites. Kind-of like how TV channels are bundled.

In all likelihood though, I think advertising will continue as is. Advertisers will just come up with cleverer ways of presenting it.

FroshKiller• 11 years ago

The web is 20 years old. I think if this was going to happen, it would have happened by now.

That's a failure of imagination right there. It took decades for cable to come along and disrupt broadcast television. You never know what's going to happen.

hellofunk2• 11 years ago

Before the web, it was quite standard for nearly everyone to pay for their daily newspaper. People obviously have no problem paying a little for the news. Take away quality free content, and natural human interest will lead to a successful pay model, possibly.

pseudonym• 11 years ago

Honestly, I think that we're already moving that direction-- Patreon is comparatively recent, but more and more people are finding that it's actually a viable "microtransaction/subscription" model for online content. The idea of paying a subscription model for some of the things on Patreon would have seemed silly a couple years ago, but I think we're starting to hit the ads-to-content noise/ratio level where people are actually seeing what the alternative looks like.

Xophmeister2• 11 years ago

    What I could see happening is premium content being bundled
    by ISPs. Pay for X package from Y ISP, get content from A, B
    and C websites. Kind-of like how TV channels are bundled.

That's a different can of worms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

2bit_encryption• 11 years ago

"The uptake of AdBlock and its commercial sibling Adblock Plus has been gradual"

Adblock Plus is in no way a commercial offshoot of Adblock. I thought Adblock went defunct, Adblock Plus picked up where they left off (plus extra features), and then at a later point Adblock returned. Despite the name, it's not some industrial commercial version of Adblock. They're different plugins, with different people behind them..... right? ABP is open source, too (according to its site).

r1ch• 11 years ago

Adblock Plus is semi commercial, they sell whitelisting services to publishers (you can pay them to have your non-intrusive ads show by default).

theseatoms• 11 years ago

I'm looking forward to the increased number of affordable subscription-based news and entertainment sources that spring up due to the inability to rely on bottom-of-the-barrel style ad revenue. (A model that isn't working for the majority of providers or consumers.) We've seen an explosion in quantity of content. I'm looking forward to an uptick in quality.

biafra4• 11 years ago

I don't see any reason or indicator for a revolution. Ad-Blocking has been around for years. Also on mobile. It is nice that Apple finally has hooks for plugins in their mobile browser, but it is by no means a game changer or a revolution.

stephenr2• 11 years ago

iOS has a substantial percentage of mobile web usage. In many parts of the world mobile devices are overtaking desktop devices particularly for casual web browsing etc.

jfoster• 11 years ago

Are Apple and Google needlessly destroying each others margins, here? Apple pushing ahead with this will just make Google desperately push Android as hard as they can.

If Google's ecosystem were left alone on iOS, Google would have fewer reasons to push Android heavily. On the other hand, if Google need Android devices out there in order for their ecosystem to survive, they might be more willing to see Android devices put into consumers' hands at break-even (or even loss-making) prices. Apple will either see market share decline or need to sacrifice part of their margins to maintain share.

charlesarthur4• 11 years ago

"Apple pushing ahead with this will just make Google desperately push Android as hard as they can."

What does that mean, exactly?

"they might be more willing to see Android devices put into consumers' hands at break-even (or even loss-making) prices"

That already happens. Samsung's profits and phone shipments are substantially down, LG made 1.5cents operating profit per phone in Q2, Sony made a loss, HTC made a loss; and those are the premium handset makers, most of them part of conglomerates. All selling Android.

"Apple will either see market share decline or need to sacrifice part of their margins to maintain share."

This is a common refrain since about 2010. Hasn't happened so far.

qq66• 11 years ago

This is a common refrain since about 2010. Hasn't happened so far.

iOS market share has declined tremendously since 2010, from approximately 80% to approximately 20%.

someuser12• 11 years ago

Honestly, the experience on some of these mobile websites is so horrible that I've actually started boycotting them when they're just too bad to endure. It's funny, as the screens get larger, the content space stays the same or shrinks. I think, "ooh more content on one page!" and they think "ooh more ads to cram in!"

It's just the worst. Ads with tiny close buttons, ads that mimic the content on the page in order to get you to click, banners at the top and bottom of the screen. I DON'T WANT YOUR SHIT. I can't wait till all of that goes away.

forgetsusername3• 11 years ago

Ads with tiny close buttons

I recently encountered an ad with a tiny close button that jittered, making it impossible to touch without triggering the ad popup. How clever.

profinger2• 11 years ago

Which is why people want to block them completely lol

profinger2• 11 years ago

Aside from ads, mobile websites in general are complete garbage. So then adding a banner to the bottom is just icing on the cake.

megalodon• 11 years ago

Ever visited one of those free live streaming websites? 20 layers of ads with tiny close buttons, that sometimes themselves trigger redirects. It's the perfect example of how ads make you want to punch your screen.

TeMPOraL5• 11 years ago

I think the worst are social clickjacking ads. This is a whole new genre of scumbaggery. Every now and then I see a friend of mine embarrass themselves on social media. You open your Facebook and suddenly see the newest status update of a lady or a gentleman that says something like "HEY! I JUST GOT A $10 FREE TOP UP ! HOW FUCKING COOL IS THAT?".

s73v3r21• 11 years ago

Ok, you don't want their shit. How do you propose to give the creators of the content you're visiting revenue so they can continue?

zodPod4• 11 years ago

>Of course, at this point we should step back and ask “why were the adverts there in the first place?” Oh yes, because they help pay for the content. In some – well, many, almost all – cases, they pay for all of the content.

Honestly? I don't give a crap. Too many places have abused it and thrown stupid crap in just so they can make money. Just like the idiots who are careless with fireworks and then states ban them, the idiots have ruined it. It may not be fair or completely make sense but I don't want to see your ad NOR do I want your stupid newsletter so I'm going to block the modal window along with every ad on your site just so you end up losing money.

My favorite has been the "Complete survey to continue reading the article" or "Become a member to continue reading the article". Both of which cause me to just go, "Ok, well screw your site then. I'll go find one of the million other publishers of the exact same article on the internet. You don't have a scare resource anymore because you're just another bullshit media rewriter."

MadcapJake• 11 years ago

Like the New York Times....pretty sure they're not all "bullshit media rewriters" there.

Expect a LOT more "Become a member" or "Subscribe to..." websites as adblockers become more popular.

zodPod4• 11 years ago

Which will likely, hopefully, just create a new media. Things like Periscope. Newer generations will ignore the big media garbage and follow citizen reporting. This is all speculation and I'm sure there are problems with it but these big companies will just be digging their own graves with bull crap like that. They already have enough trouble selling print media who's going to pay them for their content (which is 80% useless filler anyway) when they start doing that.

I do understand smaller bloggers and stuff will have a similar problem but it's people like those that will actually GET subscriptions and who I'd actually be willing to pay for their content if they didn't bombard me with bull crap when I loaded their pages.

nine_k3• 11 years ago

With all my respect to quality media like NYT, I don't want a full-scale subscription. What I'd like is paying a few cents for a specific article in a hassle-free way.

Micropayments are hard because of the transaction costs, but this seems to slowly change (see e.g. flattr). I wish more sites offered a per-view zero-setup one-click micropayment solution.

What's more interesting is what Google will do if their ads revenue shrinks considerably — I suppose 99% of their income is targeted online context ads.

redblacktree• 11 years ago

When I'm presented with "answer a survey to continue" ads, I purposefully don't read the question and pick an answer at random. I hope others do the same, so that the survey results are entirely useless.

x0• 11 years ago

Well, I do as well, so that's two at least.

zodPod4• 11 years ago

In my case, if I actually answer it, I read the question and pick the exact opposite of what applies.

"What is your age range: 0-17 18-25 26-35 <-Normal 35-50 50+ <- My answer"

That way, if they're using the information for anything then I've hopefully screwed up their targeting at least a little!

AUmrysh• 11 years ago

My opinion is that they are serving me data, I can view/consume that data however I would like. It's not my responsibility to view the ads they put on their page, and if I want to increase the font size or disable javascript, that's my business.

s73v3r21• 11 years ago

Then stop using them. Problem solved.

On an unrelated note, we're gonna need you to come in and work for free this weekend.

sergiotapia2• 11 years ago

I can't wait to try this out once it launches! I remember when the web wasn't littered with all this garbage and I'm happy that we can go back to those roots. Did you see how fast everything loaded when it didn't have to load 27 popups and tracker beacons?

Next step is for Apple to enable a default privacy blocking block-filter and enable it on first boot.

I'm going to buy my wife an iPhone 6 once this lands to send a message loud and clear to Apple that what they're doing is great for users.

blinkingled4• 11 years ago

How long will this revolution last if content providers decide to not show content to iOS users? I mean if they exist to make money and they can't on iOS would it matter that there were hundreds of millions of them? With ad blocking it would be as if they never existed in first place.

Perhaps the idea is for Apple to get the content providers to make apps so they get their cut? Perhaps it is better for the content providers if they make content for-pay only for iOS users and make it work because Apple's users don't mind paying for stuff?

This is definitely not about Apple's good will for its users or love for the UX though - interesting how Apple and its fans like the perpetuate everything under "because Apple cares" banner!

thescrewdriver2• 11 years ago

How long will this revolution last if content providers decide to not show content to iOS users?

Which begs the question:

How long will content providers last if they decide to not show content to iOS users?

blinkingled4• 11 years ago

More like how long will content providers last if iOS users block their ads? Showing the content doesn't mean anything if they can't monetize it.

verinus• 11 years ago

depends on the market share and monetization I think.

It would hurt content providers targeting the US much more than those who target the global market where iOS has a much lower market share...

danielweber2• 11 years ago

Someone has to pay the bills. It's conceivable that the iOS users are all loss-leaders telling their non-ad-blocking friends to read the article, but that's kind of stretching it.

robmcm12• 11 years ago

This is the start of an arms race. I expect by the time this launches there will be tools provided by the ad-networks to detect blockers and allow the content provider to block access.

blinkingled4• 11 years ago

Exactly - that will hurt the UX like nothing else ever has. If people find out web sites don't work on their phone or tablet - the dumping of that platform to the competitor will be rather quick. Partly why Windows Phone didn't fly was IE - the websites looked crap compared to WebKit based browsers. Microsoft had to do unprecedented stuff like emulating WebKit to get over it.

pjc504• 11 years ago

It might not be a bad thing if it did trigger a more above-board means of both paying for content and producing content that people want to pay for. At the moment it's a clickbait race to the bottom.

Also, bear in mind that we're having this discussion on an ad-free website.

blinkingled4• 11 years ago

Also, bear in mind that we're having this discussion on an ad-free website.

That's a totally wrong comparison however. Nothing fits.

fluidcruft• 11 years ago

HN has ads. They are rare (and mostly job postings), but they do exist.

threeseed2• 11 years ago

How long will this revolution last if content providers decide to not show content to iOS users?

Good luck with that. iOS users make up a significant percentage of web traffic and are demographically the most valuable (generally of a higher socio-economic status). By alienating them they won't be coming to your site which means no opportunity to upsell them to a paid version of the content.

Advertisers don't deserve much sympathy from me. They have trashed the customer experience.

prapam23• 11 years ago

"higher socio-economic status" - might be outside US but aren't the mobile subsidized in US. There was discussion in reddit about an article about Moto on how its going to change the way mobiles are purchased. One of the top commented reply was about people not willing to buy $400+ mobiles.

s73v3r21• 11 years ago

" iOS users make up a significant percentage of web traffic and are demographically the most valuable (generally of a higher socio-economic status)."

What good is that if they're blocking ads, so you can't monetize them?

joeblau• 11 years ago

How long will this revolution last if content providers decide to not show content to iOS users?

It's also not just iOS. It's a feature of Safari so it would also impact desktop visits to websites as well.

MarkMc• 11 years ago

Perhaps the idea is for Apple to get the content providers to make apps so they get their cut?

I don't see how that would work. When you visit the New York Times website on iOS it will simply say, "Sorry web not supported on iOS; please download our app". The NYT app will be free but will show NYT ads - Apple will not get any extra revenue.

onion2k2• 11 years ago

Surely the overwhelming majority of ads delivered on mobile devices are in apps, and iOS9 won't block those as far as I understand. This will drive more content sites to develop their own apps (and presumably wind down their mobile web offering).

It won't kill companies; it'll kill the web.

jaydz• 11 years ago

The web would become a second class citizen on iOS and native apps would be the only way to access content. Those cheering this have not thought this through.

frio80• 11 years ago

This.

I think this is going to be really bad for the web. Next year, we will all be screaming when we see more of "If you want to read this article and much more, download our App!"

cognivore2• 11 years ago

> If the site generates the ad, it’s suddenly a lot harder to block. <<

Seems to me that this is the loophole in the entire ad-block plan. Seems like it'd be relatively straightforward to make a system that pulls in the ads from various sources, brings them locally, and then displays them from the website's domain. Seems so obvious I'd think someone is already doing it.

zubspace• 11 years ago

What I would love to see is putting this whole advertising market into the hands of the webmasters. A system installed on the webserver, where the webmaster offers ad-space which can be bought directly by the advertiser. Ads will be hosted from the same url as the page. I believe, this could be a win-win situation for the website owner and the advertiser.

- More revenue for websites

- Better adds, because webmasters are interested in keeping their site nice and clean.

- To spice this up, there could be a central authority which simply brings together those offers.

The only one who loses are current ad networks.

Mahn2• 11 years ago

Except this wouldn't work well when you are an advertiser looking to advertise on hundreds of medium size sites simultaneously. That's one of the reasons middlemen like ad networks exist in the first place, so that you don't have to contact, negotiate and set up advertising with every single site individually.

greghendershott• 11 years ago

Yes, this seems to be the root of most of the problems described by OP and some comment threads here. In old school print ads, the publisher decides what is appropriate advertising for their readers. This needs to be possible for web site publishers, too. With status quo ad networks, AFAICT it's not possible.

It seems that ad networks are a necessary evil to match many small advertisers with many small web sites. (No revolutionary "disintermediation" here; quite the opposite.) The question with distributors is, which end do they feel they work for? Today's ad networks view advertisers as the customer to serve. Instead, although I don't know if it's economically viable, it seems like we need ad networks who view the web site publisher as a client to serve. And who give publishers the tools to accept only ads they deem appropriate in terms of content as well as ad tech.

cognivore2• 11 years ago

That's excellent, I like it!

midnitewarrior• 11 years ago

The side effect of this that Apple doesn't mind at all, is that it will help kill the Web and make people more dependent on apps.

dmritard963• 11 years ago

And the Ad-network rearchetechture is probably already built. The way all of these adblockers are typically implemented is an IP/DNS Name black list where the requests to those locations are stopped short. There is a super simple solution though, those who want to leverage ads for revenue can just bundle the advertising material into the content of the page rather than including the ads via third party ajax calls. Sure perhaps you could then play another iteration of cat and mouse by trying to tease out ads from NLP or with some sort of visual hashing, but at the end of the day, that is a much more difficult technical challenge than blocking ajax calls or bundling content.

pjc504• 11 years ago

Apparently the reason they're loaded separately in the first place is fraud detection. Bundling it into the page provides no easy way of independently verifying impressions.

lifty2• 11 years ago

Theoretically, you could shift the responsibility of displaying ads and tracking users to the publishers, with requirements to publish back to the ad networks granular information about every impression. The ad networks could then check for cheating by randomly accessing the publishing website to make sure all the requests are reported back by the publishers.

dmritard963• 11 years ago

That makes some sense. So if I understand the logic, loading the resource (perhaps executing some js) = verified impression. Its interesting because it seems like you could come up with some sort of phone home to the original contents domain to validate the ad loaded as well. So it sounds like the real innovation here is going to be figuring out a way to validate impressions through the content sites. It doesn't seem much more difficult than going to the independent directly but can't say I have a super obvious solution in hand. With that said, I can think of at least a few ways it could be done and in fact might have some interesting incentive changes for that industry. Seems like a big opportunity.

patrickaljord• 11 years ago

Indeed, I'm surprised that people never mention this. Google probably has been working on this for a while now. Just bundle the ad and the video in the same stream and check timing to see if the ad has been watched or clicked on, same could be done for text ads, just serve them from the same ip as regular results, at least on mobile native apps. They're probably not pushing it for now as adblocking is not yet that much of a problem on their bottom line and they don't want to give hackers the time to work around these anti-adblocking techniques.

austenallred• 11 years ago

Yup. If everyone starts blocking all ads, I hope you like native ads that look and feel just like content.

smsm423• 11 years ago

That would probably get some regulators' attention pretty soon. And would create some serious reputation problems for those who have it - it's one thing reading WaPo article, another reading WaPo article where each paragraph could be an ad insert instead.

smsm423• 11 years ago

While in theory it is possible, in practice making it work smoothly over hundreds of content generation platforms and design templates would be much harder and marginal costs of adding ads to your site would increase significantly. It won't be "insert that piece of HTML code into your site" anymore.

lottin• 11 years ago

It seems a little presumptuous to call this a revolution. "Catch up with the rest of the world" would probably be better term.

AlexMuir• 11 years ago

I completely understand why people use Adblock - it improves the user experience. Ironically hiding adverts is a just a side-effect; the improvement comes from speeding up page loads, and cutting down on cpu usage and bandwidth use. (I install Adblock for my mother to stop her seeing scams, but that's another thing entirely.)

I've spent the past week optimising How a Car Works for speed (mobile is 55% of our traffic now).

The average uncached weight of an article is 1.1 MB, of which 70% is Google Adsense and Facebook (the only two 3rd party scripts I include). I can't trim it any further and it's very frustrating - suggestions welcome btw.

Almost the only suggestions that Google's Page Speed tool has left are to minify the scripts that Google and Facebook themselves are serving.

I use Adsense because it's easy, pays fine, and the ads seem reasonably relevant. But the weight of crap being downloaded is absurd and I hate the idea of wasting some Kenyan's precious data allowance on an irrelevant advert that might earn me $0.01.

In fact, I'm going to use geolocation to not include Adsense in countries where I earn nothing.

TeMPOraL5• 11 years ago

That's very considerate of you, thank you. I just clicked an ad on your page as a reward :).

I don't think people are really bothered that there are ads - everyone learns at some point that under current system, people need to earn money to live and websites cost money to keep them up. The problem is with a) the amount of ads, b) obnoxiousness of them, and c) that quite a lot are actually dishonest, annoying and downright malicious. It's because of those people started using ad blockers. The Internet really looks much, much better without all that crap. I'm pretty sure for most the resource use is a secondary consideration to the amount of frustration an ad-laden site can generate.

dhimes4• 11 years ago

I don't mind ads. I hate the tracking. I either want a market solution to it, or, failing that, I want it outlawed.

dublinben• 11 years ago

I can't trim it any further

It seems pretty obvious that you could reduce your page size by 70% by simply removing Google and Facebook scripts.

brazzledazzle• 11 years ago

So obvious that they almost certainly considered it...

Vexs• 11 years ago

Thats one of the reasons I like uBlock origin- supposedly, it says the ad was displayed/clicked on a webpage, which means I don't deal with ads and websites don't deal with money loss.

quadrangle2• 11 years ago

uBlock doesn't click ads in the background.

That would be https://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/

glass-• 11 years ago

No it doesn't. This is some bizarre myth that keeps being perpetuated.[0]

[0] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Does-uBlock-block-ads...

gorhill• 11 years ago

it says the ad was displayed/clicked on a webpage

Where exactly does it say this?

STRML• 11 years ago

One optimization I do often - don't load the FB scripts until someone actually hovers over an FB like button or share box. 99.9% of the time, they never do. In the meantime, just mock the look of the button. We even mocked the like counts et al by polling FB's API from teh server.

skosch• 11 years ago

Related: Heise's Shariff JS. https://github.com/heiseonline/shariff

redthrowaway• 11 years ago

What if they click the button before the script loads?

annnnd• 11 years ago

Of course, there is no hover on mobile, so you are probably optimizing traffic where it is not so critical.

bunderbunder• 11 years ago

It's my (located in USA) precious data allowance, too. At the price I pay for mobile data - my plan comes out to $0.025/MB - I would not be at all surprised to discover that I'm paying more to be advertised to than you're being paid to carry the ad.

orf• 11 years ago

Try CloudFlare? That should get the page weight down a bit while costing you nothing.

shawabawa3• 11 years ago

He's not concerned about his bandwidth costs, but about the bandwidth costs (in both money and time) to the users.

Too• 11 years ago

Isn't it reasonable to assume most users already have a CDN version of adsense and facebook cached since 90% of all websites use it?

kuni-toko-tachi• 11 years ago

"People are getting p*ssed off with the huge data loads pages impose without their consent"

This is an absurd statement. Users know that many sites are ad-supported. Whether they like it or not is independent of that, but consent is given by visiting them. Complaining that sites need ad revenue to support their operations is childish.

The fair solution is not ad-blocking tools, but a general browser settings that says that you do not wish to see ads at all. This information should be transmitted to the site requested so that the content provider can offer you a subscription if they provide one or to serve you a blank page that says politely to buzz off. Doing an end-run around ads is no different that sneaking into the backdoor of a venue without buying a ticket.

zodPod4• 11 years ago

It's not consent when you go to a mostly-text site and are served 14-15MB of content that you don't even see. Not when I have 2GB of available data a month. I am referencing a previous post on here but I don't remember any of the details except that the site they were using as the demo used like 14MB of data but was a page with a couple paragraphs of text on it because it was pulling in a bunch of ad information.

coldpie3• 11 years ago

Lol, did you just censor the word "pissed"?

gorena• 11 years ago

Consent? I send an HTTP request. Server sends an HTTP response. My browser (or not browser - is cURL violating "consent"?) interprets that as I wish.

If you don't want to show me content, return a 3XX/4XX/5XX.

s73v3r21• 11 years ago

And then you'd cry and moan that the big bad website is forcing you to view ads.

yoklov• 11 years ago

Nothing would prevent content providers from sending ads even if you selected that setting.

In fact, that is almost certainly what would always happen, since it would require exactly no change from the current state.

unprepare2• 11 years ago

Doing an end-run around ads is no different that sneaking into the backdoor of a venue without buying a ticket.

This is a curious statement.

Tickets are sold in limited quantities

Venues have limited available space

Those alone make the comparison completely moot.

A better comparison would be:

If I video tape (download) a tv show (website), and then watch it by fast-forwarding through commercials (ad-blocking) - have i done something akin to sneaking into a concert? Have i stolen something? I've certainly kept the content creators from gaining an additional ad impression, which is how they make money. What exactly was wrong here?

In what way is adblocking any different from using a DVR to skip commercials?

JoeAltmaier• 11 years ago

I find it very curious indeed. In my browser on my hardware in my home, the marketing types are insisting that I MUST watch their ads or I am cheating.

This is of course a natural impulse, for them. They put a lot of effort into creating manipulative words and images, and there I go ignoring them. Must be frustrating. But to claim I'm in the wrong is a species of hubris I don't subscribe to.

When I buy the sunday newspaper, I dump the wad of ads in the trash before I leave the convenience store. Nobody jumps out of the bushes and claims I'm stealing.

In fact I make an effort to ignore ads all day long, whether its ignoring billboards, posters, spam email etc. None of that is 'stealing'.

I sympathize with folks who see their livelihood disappearing as the Internet evolves. But blamethrowing isn't going to move us forward. They'll just have to come up with something new.

someuser12• 11 years ago

Going back to a statement I made in another comment: I DON'T WANT YOUR SHIT.

My argument is that ads are a waste of your bandwidth and my time. I've literally never been motivated to buy something by a banner ad.

hsod6• 11 years ago

What if the venue isn't sold out that night?

s73v3r21• 11 years ago

No, the concert analogy is valid. It still costs the website bandwidth and server time to serve the website to you.

na85• 11 years ago

Oh please. Spare us the sanctimonious BS. It's no different at all? In any way?

andrepd2• 11 years ago

There are ad-blockers for virtually every PC browser and for Android. Why is a revolution impending because iOS 9 will have it too?

wiremine• 11 years ago

Some other data points to consider:

a. The AdBlock Plus team has stated, "in it's current state there are still some issues, which render Content Blocking Extensions insufficient" to use as an and blocking platform. [1]

b. Apple states that "if the rule compiler detects that a set of rules would negatively impact user experience, it refuses to load them and returns and error. [2]

So, at least in iOS 9, it doesn't seem to be a complete solution for the type of ad blockers we see on the desktop.

After reading about this, it feels like Apple isn't trying to kill the web in this version of the technology. Instead, it is warning shot across the bow, so to speak, for publishers with really crappy experiences.

[1] https://adblockplus.org/blog/content-blocking-in-safari-9-an...

[2] https://www.hackingwithswift.com/safari-content-blocking-ios... (quote is third paragraph from the bottom...)

forgotmypassw• 11 years ago

I wouldn't call ad blocking feature "revolutionary", but whatever.

Mahn2• 11 years ago

The question that I always wonder is, is it really that devastating if people who don't want ads and wouldn't click on them hide them? I can't help but think that the kind of person that uses adblock-like software is also not likely to be the target group for most ads. It's only a tiny minority those who do click on ads after all.

s73v3r21• 11 years ago

I'm sorry, but this argument has never been anything more than entitled bullshit.

keithpeter5• 11 years ago

Is your rejection of the argument based on the value of data generated by the tracking cookies? Is there some other reason behind your response? Just interested.

bargl2• 11 years ago

Yesterday I started looking for an ad blocker that would randomly click ads in some of the sites I visit so as not to punish the website for the ads they are adding. I couldn't find anything, does anyone know if that exits?

austerity• 11 years ago

Why do you think punishing the advertisers is any better? They seem to be even less deserving of it.

bargl2• 11 years ago

Honestly I haven't fully formed my opinion on this, I was really just curious. It sounds like an interesting problem.

Right now, I tend to lean toward the idea that rather then fighting people tracking me I'd prefer to add white noise so they can't really tell where I'm at, but I really prefer this more for GPS then ads. I don't really care if ads know what I'm doing, if I want someone who won't track my searches I go to duck duck go.

EDIT: If I REALLY don't want to be tracked I go to TOR + VPN, but I don't typically want to go through all that.

quadrangle2• 11 years ago

https://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/

antonmks• 11 years ago

Could be a good idea for Windows 10 - blocking all ads by default, including those delivered through browsers. It could seriously affect and even kill many current and potential Microsoft competitors like Google and Facebook.

s73v3r21• 11 years ago

So you're killing ads in apps now too? Sounds like another great reason to avoid developing for your platform.

LoSboccacc• 11 years ago

Mobile Safari account for 10% of the whole browser market share (desktop + mobile) and ALL other platform already had the possibility of installing an adblocker, so I don't share the sensationalism of the article.

what is pushing the adblockers is the resurgence of annoying ads that spam windows all over the place and/or redirect the current page to a temporary site.

internet population at large can now use a search engine and look up 'block annoying advertisement' (first result, adblock plus) and 90% of them are in a position of installing an adblocker, Mobile Safari is just jumping late on the trend because awareness of it's customer, not because apple is ahead of the game.

EugeneOZ• 11 years ago

Good call to start revolution from the another side - from side of web entrepreneurs. If monetization of your web project done with ads, do FIGHT with ad blockers, such as AdBlock, AdBlock Plus and others. Change markup, track html changes after page load, find other ways to resist - don't let them ruin your business. It's important to stay "good citizens" - don't use popups, don't use huge banners, but it's up to users to decide if there is too much ads on your pages - not up to blockers. Blockers should start with empty black lists and only add records on demand.

dhimes4• 11 years ago

Starting with known offenders is ok- a kind of collective intelligence on the worst ones. The trackers. Fuck them.

nemoniac• 11 years ago

Put "Apple" or "iOS 9" or something in the title.

joesmo2• 11 years ago

"But wait, what about the moral dimension? The fact that if you block the ads, the sites lose their income?"

What a ridiculous point. Sure the advertisers want to make this into a moral issue, but is it? No. It's not. Advertisers just feel entitled. They are not actually entitled to display their ads or make money. Even bringing up this point like it's a valid point for debate drags the quality of the article down.

Advertisers not making money off people using ad blockers is NOT a moral issue. It's a failing of their business model. Nothing more and nothing less. Are we now going to say that they are too "insert adjective of choice here" to fail? Insanity!

hammerzeit• 11 years ago

Forget ethical questions, then, and let's talk economics.

If you're not generating revenue for them, why should anybody who hopes to make money off of content choose to show you anything? What value do you represent to them? Why should they believe you?

flavor82• 11 years ago

I'll take "your broken business model is not my problem" for 200 points.

There are plenty of places that I can buy content that I'm interested in. I'd far rather pay for quality content than put up with ads all over the web. As a plus side, paid for content might fix the journalism crisis.

The death of content farms is not going to be a huge loss to the web ecosystem. Anything useful enough that people are willing to pay for it will survive.

beerbajay• 11 years ago

why should anybody who hopes to make money off of content choose to show you anything?

Nobody is forcing them to use advertizing to support their work/site. If they're not making money, they should change their business model.

s73v3r21• 11 years ago

Apparently just like you feel entitled to enjoy the content others have made for free.

thatswrong0• 11 years ago

When a webpage is served to you, you are under no obligation to not modify that webpage in any way. They gave the bytes to you for free. You can do whatever you want to them once you get them.

If my modification of that content is depriving them of income, then that's a flaw in their business model, not my ethics.

joesmo2• 11 years ago

I see all you can do is stoop to calling names, but I'll give you a proper reply regardless of the fact that you don't deserve one.

No, it's the artists who feel entitled to make money off their work, work that oftentimes is quite worthless or poor. Others are not required to offer content for free and I don't feel entitled to it. If it's there for free, maybe I'll consume it, maybe not. It's only the content creators who think their consumers feel entitled to free content because they're too stupid to come up with better business models to market their content. As a writer, musician, and artist, I offer a lot of my content for free with no ads and have no problem with that. I actually enjoy creating it and don't do it for the ad revenue. If other content creators want to charge for their content or wrap it up in ads, it's up to them to figure out a business model that works for their purpose. Their failing to do so does in no way reflect a failing in anyone's morality except possibly theirs.

tl;dr: If my ad-blocking is hurting these content creators so much, they should figure out a way to deliver ads that can't be blocked and stop calling the consumers names like "entitled" (because that's another reason the consumers don't want to pay for that mediocre two-paragraph piece surrounded by 10 megs of ads). Period.

SG-• 11 years ago

Adblocking is already a thing on desktops/laptops and iOS 9 isn't going to ship with an Adblocker turned on or included. People will have to go download one in the App Store just like how they'd currently do in their desktop browsers.

The only thing happening is that the functionality is going to be added letting people do this. I suppose the fact that the App Store is really simple to use will make it easier on top of likely having a good Adblocker featured on top.

I'm already running iOS 9 dev build and have built my own Adblocker using the new APIs and it's been great, personally it makes me actually want to browse more content on my iPhone than before. Previously I'd just give up on some sites and switch to the laptop or not even load the content to begin with because of long loads and too many ads.

misterbwong2• 11 years ago

I've worked in the industry for some time and I can definitely say that this is a big problem for publishers and that it isn't going to turn out how everyone wants. Ads are huge business and the main source of revenue for lots of small-mid sized businesses.

I often see comments about how companies should move to a subscription (or pay per article) model but what you need to realize is that it will work for some (small number of) publishers, but is not tenable for most.

Adblock is just an annoyance to publishers right now but once the industry starts moving on this, you will see MORE intrusive ads, not less.

We're talking native in-content ads, "sponsored content" indiscernible from real content, first party scripts with evercookies...the works. Why? Because the publishing business is built on the 3rd party advertising model and this is the next logical evolution. Every publisher can't (and probably wouldn't want to) have their own sales, ad dev and ad servicing teams.

This is what happens when adblock gains popularity and, unfortunately, it's not pretty.

subbz• 11 years ago

A big problem on all the adblocking is that it will result in more "sponsored content" - that can't be what we're looking for.

hsod6• 11 years ago

A thought experiment for the "there's nothing wrong with AdBlock" set:

Imagine a blog with quality original content that is relevant to your interests.

Imagine that, the first time you go to that site, you see the following text:

"This site and it's content are supported by advertisement. If you would like to read our content the only thing we ask is that you do not use an ad blocker on our pages.

If this arrangement is unacceptable to you, we understand and there are no hard feelings, we simply ask that you refrain from accessing the site.

There is no enforcement mechanism-- this agreement is based on the honor system."

Would you still block ads on the site?

If you answered no, a follow up question:

Are all ad-supported sites saying this implicitly?

kinghajj5• 11 years ago

Would you still block ads on the site?

Yes. Even the "non-obtrusive" ones. My computer, my browser, choice; I'm under no obligation to interpret their content as they intended.

hsod6• 11 years ago

But aren't you entering into an implicit agreement with the site owners? Is it not wrong to intentionally violate an agreement you entered into willingly?

Lets take advertisement out of it, since people feel strongly about it.

What if the site asked you to donate one dollar to a particular charity? And if you are unwilling or unable, please simply stop using the site, thanks and have a nice day. Again, no enforcement-- honor system.

Would it be "right" to continue using the site but refuse to donate?

What if it was a cause you disagreed with?

What if the money went to the site owner, not a charity?

s73v3r21• 11 years ago

And you would still visit their site?

So basically you're an ass.

dlandis• 11 years ago

For many people it will depend on the nature and quantity of ads and trackers they have. Reddit has a similar thing where they thank you for not using ad blockers or perhaps gently encourage you not to -- and since they only have a few unobtrusive ads, many people do turn off their blockers.

hsod6• 11 years ago

That seems to me a red herring. The site requires you to agree to view their ads, or not access it. The nature of the ads is irrelevant-- if they are obtrusive enough to make the viewing experience unacceptable to you, your recourse is to stop viewing the site.

mirimir2• 11 years ago

Yes. Unless the site owner agreed to accept all liability for malware potentially dropped by ads. They would need funds in escrow, and a claims mechanism.

hsod6• 11 years ago

Why not just stop going to the site?

mc808• 11 years ago

If the content is that good and I somehow know this before visiting the site, I might put some effort into viewing the content, which might include sitting through their obnoxious, invasive, destructive, scummy advertising if necessary. Otherwise, I will have to settle for a selection from the other 3 petabytes of data coming into existence in the next 60 seconds. If the bandwidth saved by my non-visit is worth more than they could earn by developing a socially responsible business model, good for them, I guess.

norea-armozel2• 11 years ago

If they're using a quality ad network (does such a thing exist?) where they honor the site's policy of no flash, no videos, and no auto-play advertisements then sure I'd turn the adblocker off. But that's the kicker for me since I've never seen an ad network that doesn't try to shove flash or scummy adverts in my face. I think the sites that depend on adverts for revenue are not a problem it's the ad networks which refuse to improve the quality of the ads. I swear that the quality of ads have not changed since the late 90s. If anything, I think they're gotten worse with time. When I buy a comic or a newspaper the adverts are fairly decent and they don't disrupt my content consumption. Whereas a website advert can often crash my browser or be part of some exploit/attack without the site or ad network owners knowing about it. So, I run with the adblocker on by default then I white list sites that I know are reputable. I just wish someone comes up with a better ad network to compete with the scummy tactics that are used right now by ad networks which would eliminate my need to use an adblocker altogether.

rsync• 11 years ago

I think we know what a post-ad (or "blocked") landscape looks like ... just look to NPR and boingboing.

At NPR: major movies, product launches, etc., are framed as stories and are given decent editorial treatment. But it's just part of the PR Blitz package that the advertiser is taking out into the marketplace. There's a TV commercial, a magazine ad, a Charlie Rose booking, a Terry Gross segment ... and a pre-written 80 second slot for "Here and Now". It's just part of the blitz and it's just pacakged slightly differently when it plays on NPR. But make no mistake that Terry Gross interview with Mr. Phoenix as "Her" was moving into theaters was not a coincidence.[1]

at boingboing: constant, never-ending "stories" that are nothing but frames of words for amazon affiliate links. They've gotten very brazen about it[2], but other outfits could be more subtle and I think you'll see it.

[1] Highly recommended. Hilarious interview. At one point, Phoenix forgets what her name is and at no point does he even know what show he's on. Classic.

[2] Regular postings along the lines of "remember that one movie ... man that was great ... two more lines of content ... affiliate link to the DVD".

slfnflctd• 11 years ago

I remember when "Here and Now" first appeared on my local npr affiliate. I was taken aback at how out of step with their other content it was-- unintellectual, poorly informed host(s), focused on the latest 'hot' media topics du jour (minus the insightful introspection found on other npr programs)... for me, it added nothing of value, and felt like a waste of my time, so I stopped listening and assumed others did the same. I can't believe it's still airing.

gukov• 11 years ago

"All of Facebook's revenue growth since it went public comes from one source: mobile ads" - http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mobile-ads-responsib...

shkkmo• 11 years ago

I don't see why this article mentions all those add blockers, discuses the moral implications, and then completely fails to mention Privacy Badger.

https://www.eff.org/privacybadger

Because Privacy Badger is primarily a privacy tool, not an ad blocker. Our aim is not to block ads, but to prevent non-consensual invasions of people's privacy because we believe they are inherently objectionable. We also want to create incentives for advertising companies to do the right thing. Of course, if you really dislike ads, you can also install a traditional ad blocker.

If more people used this type of plugin, it would provide incentive for advertisers and advertising to behave better while still allowing for the existence of add-supported business models.

I don't even see any mentions of that plugin in the comments on this page? Are people not aware of it? Do they not like it?

I do find that it isn't perfect. Some of the scripts that is blocks are sometimes required for website funcitonality. When page is broken I sometimes have to check and modify the rules for that page. This isn't ideal for normal users, but should be acceptable by people with sufficient technical ability (such as users of this site). As more people use it, I am sure this feedback will improve the rulesets that privacy badger uses.

ypcx• 11 years ago

One could say that Google has killed the internet, in the sense that information is fabricated, copied, rehashed and stolen with the exclusive aim of getting a "click" or a "page view". However, the drive to push or peddle information - to convince someone of something - is intrinsic to human behavior or consciousness. And in fact, every piece of information delivered from a brain of one individual to the brain of another individual can be broadly classified as a marketing of sorts, e.g. a parent marketing good behavior to his/her child. In that sense, in the internet domain, we have primary marketing/propaganda in the form of the main article text, and secondary marketing in the form of what we call "ads". This secondary (or even meta) approach has never really worked that much (despite appearing so, given the sheer size of internet), and due to aggressive optimization and competition it has gotten out of hand to the point where people, and now big business, are reacting against it. Given all that, what I think will happen, is that the force behind the secondary type (ad, popup, flash) of marketing will regroup into the more stealth (and more effective) primary form of marketing, and new ways of tracking the success of it will have to be developed.

psychomotikon• 11 years ago

Seems to me that ad blocking, if it becomes widely adopted could push advertisers and publishers to work together to place ads in a more dedicated way with individual publishers, skipping the ad server networks altogether. This would put user data back, and the control over ads back into the hands of the publishers and advertisers. Maybe not efficient at first, but closer to the original model that the writer describes for print ads.

The adblocking revolution is months away

Related Stories