Here's a short update on what happened since then:
1. DMCA takedowns did not destroy ad blocking (thank god), but there were a couple more times when it was tried, nothing huge though.
2. Streisand effect is a thing and the domain in question was blocked by everyone and everywhere. There was even a special filter list and later a browser extension which only purpose was to block such domains. It got some traction but later got abandoned: https://github.com/paulgb/BarbBlock. If something like that happens again I am pretty sure it can be revived very quickly.
3. The corporations still try different angles to prohibit ad blocking. The last example I know about is something like this: Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright.
> So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright.
That seems absurd. I just reject their request to fetch some _additional_ information, I don't modify the "text of their request" as such. If that breaks their sites (as it usually does), that's their problem - not mine.
> Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright.
Suppose it's true and that they are copyright holders for all these ads (they are not). Now, when the publisher gets a newspaper out, the content is just as they wanted. But when I take that newspaper home and decide to tear out a page or whatever fragment of it, it's none of their business. The filtering is being done locally, EasyList is not publishing an adless version of their websites.
Thanks for the update. Do you have any insight into wether a copyright claim like the one used by Axel Springer stands on valid legal ground (wether in Germany or elsewhere)?
Reminds me of a recent discovery on my device. I found out it's not possible for me to take screenshots on Netflix or Prime Video unless I go into Chrome settings and turn off hardware acceleration. It turns out that newer displays have DRM baked into them that prevents you from taking screenshots of your own freaking screen. I feel stupid for never having known that, but more importantly completely violated. This is my machine, and I choose what do on it, and how did I never know about this before? I feel the same way about sites that turn off right-click or text copying.
> Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright.
In answer, I should probably invoke accessibility laws, asserting that ads make my blood pressure rise and induce vomiting.
Also, since parodies have been deemed fair use since about forever, what I’m reading is fine parodies, which are exactly the originals except they don’t have ads.
While the article is from 2017, the relevance is high today.
Large adtech companies are coalescing and supporting a single browser framework that gives them a modicum of control around how adblockers are integrated into the extensions, while also funding directly or indirectly realistic browser competition through Firefox (sorry Brave and Vivaldi... still a ways to go market share-wise). The economist in me thinks there is formal and informal coordination to make this ad "market" exist (no one wants ads, really, they want search engines with relevant results) and there is exercise in market power to the detriment of businesses purchasing advertising (and waste to society writ large).
Ad blocking is by definition attacking ads and all the companies and interests that revolve around that.
So ad blocking is and always will be "under attack", that was always expected, "small" players, like individual news sites for example have been fighting ad blocking for years, now big players are feeling the heat too and since ad blocking is an "existential threat" ( Meta just learned that ), they no longer ignore it or "kinda deal with it".
It always has been a war. And like every war, there are endless philosophical theories and discussions about the "sustainability" of the Web "without ads", the tracking, etc.
Even though some folks would like to make it illegal to crack phones, they can't. They are, however, allowed to release patches and updates that "crack the crack," so to speak. As long as these patches don't violate the law, then it's a simple, perfectly-legal arms race.
For myself, I don't run an adblocker. When I go to a site that's overrun with ads, I don't return. Hasn't happened too often. I also have Reader Mode, which works on most sites.
I refuse to project my own values onto others. I really don't care whether or not anyone else runs adblockers, as I don't profit from ads, and I don't run them, myself, for my own reasons, which no one really cares about.
Controversial opinion: if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. Otherwise you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living. If you consider ads to be psychological assault or other characterizations like this that I've heard before in this forum, stop going to those websites. You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff?
More hypocritical than that is that I know many such people who then go to create their apps and as soon as they have enough traffic, they'll add adsense to their apps but keep blocking it in others. There's also the argument that you block ads due to privacy, again here I'd say, don't use those websites. If you know there's a security camera at the bank branch and you don't want to be recorded, you don't go to the bank branch, no normal person would think to put a hood on their head to still go.
I bet this is going to get downvoted to shit, because I've been in HN for a few years and it's predictable where the crowd goes, but it seems very odd to me how we so easily deny other developers of creating free to use tools just because we think we have some moral higher ground.
No. The agreement is that my browser will issue HTTP requests, their web server will return some HTML. There's a legal requirement that neither payload is intended to cause harm, but the agreement - unless I've signed a contract - does not go further than that.
If someone wants to feed ads into that content, that's their right. If I want to change the way that content displays, that's my right.
You don't know what websites have ads until you visit them.
But the problem isn't the presence of ads. It's that the ads are served by advertising networks, that track users across multiple websites and build profiles of users.
And that the original websites have very little control over the content of the ads, which may be irrelevant or contain malware.
The ads are often animated images, sometimes with sound, which are distracting.
The ads are often deceptive ("Your computer is infected. Install this program now!") or clickbait.
Some sites don't distinguish the ads from the content, which makes it confusing.
If you want a blast from the past, disable the popup blocker on your web browser and see how many sites still fill your screen with intrusive popups and notifications.
Also, people have used video recordings of live television to skip commercials. Some devices even have a commercial skip function. Or people just mute the television while commercials are playing. If this is acceptable, then why not block ads on websites?
I would see that as a reasonable view (not the one I agree with, but a reasonable viewpoint) in the late 1990s where people wrote their own web pages and hosted them on different servers.
Now that we have a coordinated oligopoly on content distribution "if you do not like it do not use it" does not work anymore. Today, if someone wants to say something using the web they will see that content monetized via algorithmics and attention grabbing ads.
I feel no moral constraints on pushing back. My 2c.
Controversial opinion: I don't serve ads to my customers - I feel absolutely zero fucking sympathy for site owners when I block ads.
If you don't want me to block ads - pick a different model. Preferably one where I'm a customer, and you're catering to my needs instead of selling me off to the highest bidder.
Second controversial opinion: Ads should be banned entirely, legislatively, because the industry is a breeding ground of misaligned incentives, data abuse, corruption, and generally scummy behavior. Will that remove a lot of free services? Sure - I don't care. I think the net will be a win.
Third controversial opinion - your "controversial opinion" leads to a dystopia where people are forced to view ads everywhere. They are manipulated non stop for the benefit of someone else. I don't just think you're wrong - I think you're malicious.
How do you propose I know whether a website displays ads before I visit it? I'm not going to maintain a blocklist of every ad-using website on every device I use. I'm just going to use an ad blocker. Their crappy business model isn't my problem.
They want to deny the control of some parts of the system to the user, and that as much as possible.
The worst case is video game consoles. Here, it is related to the "web", namely via ultra-huge complexity and size of web engines (with their SDK) with obfuscation of script code.
I think a lot of the issue with ads on the internet is that they are increasingly user-hostile; Minimal communication of the utility of the advertised product, heavy use of psychological manipulation, ads masquerading as genuine content, excessive length, etc. The pervasive use of surveillance to target these ads and make them more manipulative is also a major issue. The result is that users block ads, which means ads become even more numerous and aggressive, which results in a feedback loop. A lot of this could be reverted if advertisers used more informational ad styles, similar to those used in the mid-20th century, and used only context-based targeting, but I doubt marketing executives would go for that.
Also noticed that adblocking on youtube has recently (~week) gotten much less effective. Usually updating the list and restarting chrome fixes it but not anymore
There's a setting in uBo "Suspend network activity until all filter lists are loaded" that isn't checked by default. If you check it and restart the browser it should work. Solved it for me at least.
I’ve noticed this as well. I’ve had AdGuard on my phone for almost a year, and it blocked YouTube ads very effectively… until about 2 weeks ago. Still investigating…
I was trying to use good old hosts file blocking the other day for my wife and realized this doesn't work anymore.
Does anyone know how I can block a website like Facebook on a Mac with whatever new tech they've rolled out? I know Self Control does it, so there's definitely a way.
FWIW I just reject any outgoing attempt to these range from my firewall using a file I version and update once in a while.
EDIT: I've also got a PiHole running and I'm pretty sure it's also blocking a huge lot of FB related ad domains.
I could automate the whois query and check if it's different from the current list I'm using but I don't bother (so far).
There is nothing fundamental preventing advertisers to create unblockable ads that are served from the same domain as the website and embedded in the pages. It's more convoluted and needs to setup a back-channel to the website, but it's definitely doable. See for example Facebook and Twitter ads, they are very hard to block without customized, site-specific extensions.
What stops advertisers form going through the hassle is the minority of users who use ad-blocking and even those can be easily detected and annoyed with warning pop-ups.
But make no mistake about it, when website owners decide you need to see their ads because their existence depends on it, you most definitely will.
> advertisers to create unblockable ads that are served from the same domain as the website
Why would I visit an advertisers web site? :)
Ads inline with content are usually "sponsorships". I have no issue with ads where it's the case that a publisher has a relationship with a product. And this isn't what ad blocking seeks to address.
They would be harder to block. But it is no challenge really for a browser extension. But again - such "sponsorship ads" don't bother me in the least.
One day someone is gonna make a machine learning thing that kills all forms of advertising in real time. Including brands in videos and other hardcoded stuff.
Now please correct me if I'm wrong but this is only an issue because these blocklists are constantly updated with new domains spreading malware. If we only wanted to block the major ad companies of the world we would not need such a high frequency of updates and everyone could manage with a stale list for months before an update would make a difference.
Personally I use noscript and other ways to protect myself against malware, so I'm only interested in blocking the major ad companies. Which I could do happily for months using any stale old list.
Can someone please help me understand, in my ignorance? I gather that the files are stored, in GitHub (or X), and that X is likely a corporation in the United States, hence the DMCA applies.
What happens if said files are stored in Y jurisdiction, and not with a service, or cloud provider located in something US related. A fine example would be a privacy centric cloud in Sweden such as Bahnhof. Doesn't this (small) part of the war on advertising simply disappear?
If they want to show ads “better” or be more unblockable they should just be smarter about it. Use web assembly, bake ads directly into videos by encoding them server side, just like how in a world without IP law companies would have to make their secrets actually harder to discover and reverse engineer.
Since yesterday, Instagram is able to circumvent ad blockers probably by no longer using a different domain for ad "posts". I had to write a (tampermonkey) script to filter out the many ads between posts.
Why everything must go through GitHub? This adblocking thing begs for a decentralized solution, like a torrent or something. We rely too much on all those tech behemoths anyway.
[+] [-] ameshkov|3 years ago|reply
Here's a short update on what happened since then:
1. DMCA takedowns did not destroy ad blocking (thank god), but there were a couple more times when it was tried, nothing huge though.
2. Streisand effect is a thing and the domain in question was blocked by everyone and everywhere. There was even a special filter list and later a browser extension which only purpose was to block such domains. It got some traction but later got abandoned: https://github.com/paulgb/BarbBlock. If something like that happens again I am pretty sure it can be revived very quickly.
3. The corporations still try different angles to prohibit ad blocking. The last example I know about is something like this: Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright.
[+] [-] tazjin|3 years ago|reply
That seems absurd. I just reject their request to fetch some _additional_ information, I don't modify the "text of their request" as such. If that breaks their sites (as it usually does), that's their problem - not mine.
[+] [-] hdjjhhvvhga|3 years ago|reply
Suppose it's true and that they are copyright holders for all these ads (they are not). Now, when the publisher gets a newspaper out, the content is just as they wanted. But when I take that newspaper home and decide to tear out a page or whatever fragment of it, it's none of their business. The filtering is being done locally, EasyList is not publishing an adless version of their websites.
[+] [-] kekebo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] garfieldnate|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WesolyKubeczek|3 years ago|reply
In answer, I should probably invoke accessibility laws, asserting that ads make my blood pressure rise and induce vomiting.
Also, since parodies have been deemed fair use since about forever, what I’m reading is fine parodies, which are exactly the originals except they don’t have ads.
[+] [-] netr0ute|3 years ago|reply
This exact thing happened with Nintendo decades ago, and it turned out to be a nothing burger.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tomrod|3 years ago|reply
Large adtech companies are coalescing and supporting a single browser framework that gives them a modicum of control around how adblockers are integrated into the extensions, while also funding directly or indirectly realistic browser competition through Firefox (sorry Brave and Vivaldi... still a ways to go market share-wise). The economist in me thinks there is formal and informal coordination to make this ad "market" exist (no one wants ads, really, they want search engines with relevant results) and there is exercise in market power to the detriment of businesses purchasing advertising (and waste to society writ large).
[+] [-] PedroBatista|3 years ago|reply
So ad blocking is and always will be "under attack", that was always expected, "small" players, like individual news sites for example have been fighting ad blocking for years, now big players are feeling the heat too and since ad blocking is an "existential threat" ( Meta just learned that ), they no longer ignore it or "kinda deal with it".
It always has been a war. And like every war, there are endless philosophical theories and discussions about the "sustainability" of the Web "without ads", the tracking, etc.
But the reality is: It always has been a war.
[+] [-] ChrisMarshallNY|3 years ago|reply
Even though some folks would like to make it illegal to crack phones, they can't. They are, however, allowed to release patches and updates that "crack the crack," so to speak. As long as these patches don't violate the law, then it's a simple, perfectly-legal arms race.
For myself, I don't run an adblocker. When I go to a site that's overrun with ads, I don't return. Hasn't happened too often. I also have Reader Mode, which works on most sites.
I refuse to project my own values onto others. I really don't care whether or not anyone else runs adblockers, as I don't profit from ads, and I don't run them, myself, for my own reasons, which no one really cares about.
[+] [-] vasco|3 years ago|reply
More hypocritical than that is that I know many such people who then go to create their apps and as soon as they have enough traffic, they'll add adsense to their apps but keep blocking it in others. There's also the argument that you block ads due to privacy, again here I'd say, don't use those websites. If you know there's a security camera at the bank branch and you don't want to be recorded, you don't go to the bank branch, no normal person would think to put a hood on their head to still go.
I bet this is going to get downvoted to shit, because I've been in HN for a few years and it's predictable where the crowd goes, but it seems very odd to me how we so easily deny other developers of creating free to use tools just because we think we have some moral higher ground.
[+] [-] stickfigure|3 years ago|reply
If someone wants to feed ads into that content, that's their right. If I want to change the way that content displays, that's my right.
[+] [-] rrwo|3 years ago|reply
But the problem isn't the presence of ads. It's that the ads are served by advertising networks, that track users across multiple websites and build profiles of users.
And that the original websites have very little control over the content of the ads, which may be irrelevant or contain malware.
The ads are often animated images, sometimes with sound, which are distracting.
The ads are often deceptive ("Your computer is infected. Install this program now!") or clickbait.
Some sites don't distinguish the ads from the content, which makes it confusing.
If you want a blast from the past, disable the popup blocker on your web browser and see how many sites still fill your screen with intrusive popups and notifications.
Also, people have used video recordings of live television to skip commercials. Some devices even have a commercial skip function. Or people just mute the television while commercials are playing. If this is acceptable, then why not block ads on websites?
[+] [-] RunSet|3 years ago|reply
1. If someone doesn't want their content to be publicly available, they should not put it on a public web server.[0]
2. The question should not be whether ad blocking is ethical, but whether it is a moral obligation.[1]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew
[1] https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-...
[+] [-] ptero|3 years ago|reply
Now that we have a coordinated oligopoly on content distribution "if you do not like it do not use it" does not work anymore. Today, if someone wants to say something using the web they will see that content monetized via algorithmics and attention grabbing ads.
I feel no moral constraints on pushing back. My 2c.
[+] [-] horsawlarway|3 years ago|reply
If you don't want me to block ads - pick a different model. Preferably one where I'm a customer, and you're catering to my needs instead of selling me off to the highest bidder.
Second controversial opinion: Ads should be banned entirely, legislatively, because the industry is a breeding ground of misaligned incentives, data abuse, corruption, and generally scummy behavior. Will that remove a lot of free services? Sure - I don't care. I think the net will be a win.
Third controversial opinion - your "controversial opinion" leads to a dystopia where people are forced to view ads everywhere. They are manipulated non stop for the benefit of someone else. I don't just think you're wrong - I think you're malicious.
[+] [-] coldpie|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hobs|3 years ago|reply
This a poor argument, no HN crowdthink required.
[+] [-] Kelteseth|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sylware|3 years ago|reply
They want to deny the control of some parts of the system to the user, and that as much as possible.
The worst case is video game consoles. Here, it is related to the "web", namely via ultra-huge complexity and size of web engines (with their SDK) with obfuscation of script code.
[+] [-] janef0421|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] p0pcult|3 years ago|reply
https://pi-hole.net/
$15 solution. I'm sure HN readers can tackle this.
[+] [-] Havoc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnull|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adgjlsfhk1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bambax|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meter|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psnehanshu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aliqot|3 years ago|reply
its like 2014-> never happened.
[+] [-] wincy|3 years ago|reply
Does anyone know how I can block a website like Facebook on a Mac with whatever new tech they've rolled out? I know Self Control does it, so there's definitely a way.
[+] [-] TacticalCoder|3 years ago|reply
whois to find all their IPs range and block all these? They change once in a while but not every day.
See here for the whois command:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11164672/list-of-ip-spac...
FWIW I just reject any outgoing attempt to these range from my firewall using a file I version and update once in a while.
EDIT: I've also got a PiHole running and I'm pretty sure it's also blocking a huge lot of FB related ad domains. I could automate the whois query and check if it's different from the current list I'm using but I don't bother (so far).
[+] [-] agilob|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChoGGi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markx2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manholio|3 years ago|reply
What stops advertisers form going through the hassle is the minority of users who use ad-blocking and even those can be easily detected and annoyed with warning pop-ups.
But make no mistake about it, when website owners decide you need to see their ads because their existence depends on it, you most definitely will.
[+] [-] intrasight|3 years ago|reply
Why would I visit an advertisers web site? :)
Ads inline with content are usually "sponsorships". I have no issue with ads where it's the case that a publisher has a relationship with a product. And this isn't what ad blocking seeks to address.
They would be harder to block. But it is no challenge really for a browser extension. But again - such "sponsorship ads" don't bother me in the least.
[+] [-] matheusmoreira|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] INTPenis|3 years ago|reply
Personally I use noscript and other ways to protect myself against malware, so I'm only interested in blocking the major ad companies. Which I could do happily for months using any stale old list.
[+] [-] scarface74|3 years ago|reply
When they are sued, take the “offending” sites out of the list of blocked sites and post another list of “sites we had to remove because of DMCA”.
Then add functionality “import list from text file”.
And let Barbara Streisand take care of the rest.
Edit: I see the original author did exactly this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33356940
[+] [-] cik|3 years ago|reply
What happens if said files are stored in Y jurisdiction, and not with a service, or cloud provider located in something US related. A fine example would be a privacy centric cloud in Sweden such as Bahnhof. Doesn't this (small) part of the war on advertising simply disappear?
[+] [-] luxuryballs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sentrms|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pentagrama|3 years ago|reply
But anyone here use their Ad-blocker? Why I should consider it over uBlock Origin?
[+] [-] EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] intrasight|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kube-system|3 years ago|reply