Adblockers stop publishers serving ads to (or even seeing) 1bn web users - Press Gazette
Technology
351
Beiträge
206
Kommentatoren
1.8k
Aufrufe
-
They call it "dark traffic" - ads that are not seen by tech-savvy users who have excellent ad blockers.
Not surprised that its growing. The web is unusable without an ad blocker and its only getting worse, and will continue to get worse every month.
Largest boycott in human history.
-
I didn't mind having a couple of static ads on a page. But now it's so much. So many dynamic ads, autoplaying videos, popups asking you to sign up to a newsletter, etc. No thanks.
I wouldn't mind unobtrusive ads targeted to the content of the page being viewed -but that doesn't happen. Modern ad networks all work on surveillance, and are indistinguishable from what we used to call "spyware". I have avoided spyware since the 90s.
I honestly wouldn't care if you put your mattress ad on a web page I'm reading about mattresses. I might even click on it!
-
They call it "dark traffic" - ads that are not seen by tech-savvy users who have excellent ad blockers.
Not surprised that its growing. The web is unusable without an ad blocker and its only getting worse, and will continue to get worse every month.
US trade association News/Media Alliance announced it had secured the takedown of 12ft.io
Oh thats why that stopped working. Bunch of jerks.
-
They call it "dark traffic" - ads that are not seen by tech-savvy users who have excellent ad blockers.
Not surprised that its growing. The web is unusable without an ad blocker and its only getting worse, and will continue to get worse every month.
GOOD. most people wouldn't care about blocking ads if they werent so keen on shoving them down your throat ever harder.
-
Even better: system-wide DNS adblocking on Android. Get rid of in-app ads too.
Rethink DNS
-
I have an adblocker but not an antivirus
You either have a mobile, a Linux device or Windows, which has defender by default. The amount of virus fir Linux is relatively low, and mobile...most antivirus are redundant for mobile anyway, so you're set.
-
They call it "dark traffic" - ads that are not seen by tech-savvy users who have excellent ad blockers.
Not surprised that its growing. The web is unusable without an ad blocker and its only getting worse, and will continue to get worse every month.
AdBlocker is the one who should get the Nobel Peace prize.
-
There is nothing like a free lunch.
You either have to directly pay for something or indirectly pay for it by selling your time or data.
Companies need to get their name out there and in the past you did that with a banner on your building, a space in the phone book and maybe your name on the side of the vans. Now we live in the digital world and we use digital advertisement. Heck a lot of companies sponsor certain event including charity events.
If we would totally remove advertisement, your local mom-and-pop shops will get more traffic, but in a lot of countries they would have basically a monopoly unless another competitor exists in the same region.
I don't really mind watching a bit of advertisement on something like a YouTube video or a banner ad on a site. Heck, buildings or vans with logos etc are fine as well in my opinion. My issue is more with the tracking and some forced advertisement (putting your logo on my clothing, vehicle etc).
We had advertising supported media for 100-ish years before surveillance capitalism, obtrusive pop-ups/overs, and ad-network distributed malware were a thing. No one cared about blocking ads on the Internet until those 3 things started either. Even today, if you put your mattress ad as a static <div> on some mattress review website, adblockers won't block it. It's just that no one does that.
-
They call it "dark traffic" - ads that are not seen by tech-savvy users who have excellent ad blockers.
Not surprised that its growing. The web is unusable without an ad blocker and its only getting worse, and will continue to get worse every month.
“And Scott Messer, founder of publishing adtech consultancy Messer Media, added: “Dark traffic is unlike anything we have seen before. It’s demonetising publisher content at scale without user consent.
“Publishers already face an existential-level threat in the face of AI reducing referral traffic. This is another slice that publishers cannot afford to lose.””
-
Sites are lazy and greedy. They throw dozens and dozens of 3rd party javascripts into their headers, that punish and annoy people for not using an ad blocker - they slow the site down, bloat the memory, consume energy, track the user and festoon the page with garbage. As soon as people hear that an ad blocker is a thing, then of course they leap at the chance of using one.
It would be straightforward for sites to insert ads into their content - make the ad urls, images and links indistinguishable from actual content. i.e. serve them up from the same domain, from non predictable paths and use html structure where ads and content are intermingled. Even if an adblocker wanted to block the ads, there are no patterns that work and every single site would require different rules. But that requires effort. I suppose we should be glad that sites don't do it.
Exactly, adblockers don't block a static <div> on the page with some text, an image and a link. It's only the user-tracking, obtrusive ad-networks they block. Every old-school form of advertising didn't track users and did just fine. Even today, billboards are priced based on the amount of traffic on the highway, not based on checking inside each car and building a profile on each driver (though I wouldn't put it past them trying to figure out how to do that soonish).
-
I feel like one thing doesn't get talked about enough is that websites feel the need to implement ad services that want to track the user in order to serve ads. Which I just find weird, the expectation to give up ones privacy, just to get served an ad.
Instead, the ads should just be relevant to the content of the page where an ad is embedded, which would automatically make it relevant to the reader, without tracking them.
I'm sorry for being a broken record in this thread but holy crap yes! Right now you can embed a static ad in a web page relevant to the page's content and adblockers will not block it!
-
Any good guides you know of to set that up?
Besides Pi-hole, there's Adguard. The "home" version works just like Pi-hole on a device on your network (but is a little slicker in my opinion), and a DNS service where you just set your router's or devices DNS to their service (less private, but no dedicated device required). That's an option that is not ideal, but far better than not blocking at the DNS level for anyone uncomfortable configuring a device on their network.
-
Seeing static banner ads on 2000s websites without popups or tracking:
️Blocking ads on Firefox after popups and other crap started:
Browsing the internet on Android before I realised the browser supports addons: 🤮
Blocking ads and tracking on Android via uBlock origin and Privacy Badger:
My feeling of guilt when scummy megacorporations miss out on ad revenue:
There are a couple of steps missing at the beginning. There was a time when we only blocked popups; other types of ad were fine, but popups were annoying enough that they needed special attention, and the popup-blocker was usually built-in to the browser without needing an extension. It took a couple of years for the non-popup types of ads to become obnoxious enough to warrant blocking.
-
I used to maintain a website for a bicycling club in my county that was great for getting people into biking, getting people out the house, making friends, and staying fit.
We had a banner ad along the top of the site for a local bicycle/bicycle repair shop that aided the club a lot and was very reasonable.
He got something out of it (publicity and a seal of approval towards the value/quality of his work), and we got something out of it (money to run the site, and a bit left over for things like puncture repair kits and the occasional celebratory drink after an arduous ride).
Nobody bats an eyelid to those ads. They are reasonable.
What we have now isn't that. What we have now is an insecure, malware-infested privacy nightmare that ruins webpages and stresses everybody out.
Use Firefox + uBlock origin for your own sanity. Don't let big tech make you feel guilty for not going along with their game.
Use Firefox + uBlock origin for your own sanity. Don’t let big tech make you feel guilty for not going along with their game.
100% this and also, consider allow-listing specific sites which deserve your support, or better yet, contribute directly if you can – e.g. your local bike club forum, your local newspaper, a blogger whose work you enjoy, etc., assuming of course, the ads are reasonable.
-
All ad networks, even the less intrusive ones, can be abused to distribute malware. In this day and age not having an ad blocker is like rawdogging internet strangers.
You could say the same thing about the webpage itself.
-
the web will die.
Maybe, but then who will supply the answers that Ai needs?
-
Maybe, but then who will supply the answers that Ai needs?
the AIs will just start their own circle jerks
-
They call it "dark traffic" - ads that are not seen by tech-savvy users who have excellent ad blockers.
Not surprised that its growing. The web is unusable without an ad blocker and its only getting worse, and will continue to get worse every month.
-
"Son, are those ads in my house!?"
dad, please, it's only a little marketing!
"NO SON OF MINE! GET MY BELT!"
dad, no!
"What's our DNS address!?"
dad, I don't kno-
"Count the licks, boy! I'll teach you the hard way!"
Wow. That is pretty violent. I do not envy your son.
-
Wow. That is pretty violent. I do not envy your son.
Alternate reality foss religions were not on my imagination list this morning but there ya go
