Skip to content

Adblockers stop publishers serving ads to (or even seeing) 1bn web users - Press Gazette

Technology
338 203 104
  • I used the internet for a long time before ad blockers even existed. Everybody simply ignored ads, instead. But that wasn't good enough for the advertisers. They weren't happy unless we were forced to look at the ads. Extraordinarily obtrusive ads. Popup ads. Popunder ads. That's when people started blocking ads. When you realized that your browser always ended up with 20 extra advertising windows.

    Nobody really cared about blocking ads until advertisers forced us to. They made the internet annoying to use, and sometimes impossible to use.

    Advertisers couldn't just be happy with people ignoring their ads, so they forced our hands and fucked themselves in the process. Now, we block them by default. I don't even know any websites that have unobtrusive ads because I never see their ads in the first place.

    Now, they want to go back to the time when we would see their ads but ignore them. Fuck off. We know we can't even give them that much. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

    the big turning point I remember was a combo of popups and interstitial ads

    Popups we all know and hate as they still exist and are disgusting. They were obviously gross and ate up ram and stole focus and shit

    But the interstitial ads were also gross. You’d click a link and then get redirected to an ad for 10 seconds and then redirected to content. Or a forum where the first reply was replaced with an ad that was formatted to look like a post

    Like adblocking was a niche thing prior to the advertising industry being absolute scumbags. The original idea that allowing advertising to support free services like forums and such wasn’t horrible, put a banner ad up, maybe a referral link, etc. but that was never enough for the insidious ad industry. Like every other domain they’ve touched (television, news, nature, stores, cities, clothing, games, sports, literally everything a human being interacts with).

    The hardline people that blocked banner ads way back when and loudly complained allowing advertising in any capacity on the internet would ruin everything were correct. We all groaned because no one wanted to donate to cover the hosting bills (which often turned out to be grossly inflated on larger sites by greedy site operators looking to make bank off their community) but we should have listened

  • I used the internet for a long time before ad blockers even existed. Everybody simply ignored ads, instead. But that wasn't good enough for the advertisers. They weren't happy unless we were forced to look at the ads. Extraordinarily obtrusive ads. Popup ads. Popunder ads. That's when people started blocking ads. When you realized that your browser always ended up with 20 extra advertising windows.

    Nobody really cared about blocking ads until advertisers forced us to. They made the internet annoying to use, and sometimes impossible to use.

    Advertisers couldn't just be happy with people ignoring their ads, so they forced our hands and fucked themselves in the process. Now, we block them by default. I don't even know any websites that have unobtrusive ads because I never see their ads in the first place.

    Now, they want to go back to the time when we would see their ads but ignore them. Fuck off. We know we can't even give them that much. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

    The main clencher that got me running a blocker were the few sites whose payload was 90% ad related and as long as the page was open it kept feeding me more ads until a gigabyte of RAM and 5% of my CPU were dedicated to something I wasn't even looking at.

  • The trade body called it “illegal circumvention technology”

    Lol. Fuck off.

    What should be considered illegal circumvention is allowing articles behind a paywall to be included in search results.

  • I used the internet for a long time before ad blockers even existed. Everybody simply ignored ads, instead. But that wasn't good enough for the advertisers. They weren't happy unless we were forced to look at the ads. Extraordinarily obtrusive ads. Popup ads. Popunder ads. That's when people started blocking ads. When you realized that your browser always ended up with 20 extra advertising windows.

    Nobody really cared about blocking ads until advertisers forced us to. They made the internet annoying to use, and sometimes impossible to use.

    Advertisers couldn't just be happy with people ignoring their ads, so they forced our hands and fucked themselves in the process. Now, we block them by default. I don't even know any websites that have unobtrusive ads because I never see their ads in the first place.

    Now, they want to go back to the time when we would see their ads but ignore them. Fuck off. We know we can't even give them that much. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

    Preach!!!

  • I used the internet for a long time before ad blockers even existed. Everybody simply ignored ads, instead. But that wasn't good enough for the advertisers. They weren't happy unless we were forced to look at the ads. Extraordinarily obtrusive ads. Popup ads. Popunder ads. That's when people started blocking ads. When you realized that your browser always ended up with 20 extra advertising windows.

    Nobody really cared about blocking ads until advertisers forced us to. They made the internet annoying to use, and sometimes impossible to use.

    Advertisers couldn't just be happy with people ignoring their ads, so they forced our hands and fucked themselves in the process. Now, we block them by default. I don't even know any websites that have unobtrusive ads because I never see their ads in the first place.

    Now, they want to go back to the time when we would see their ads but ignore them. Fuck off. We know we can't even give them that much. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

    Ads used to be static text in the sidebar that the site owner manually put there. They didn't have any tracking and didn't slow down the loading time. Once they started adding images, I started using an ad blocker. I was stuck on dial-up until 2008 and a single, small image could add 10 or more seconds to the page loading time.

  • Raw-dogging the internet without an adblocker is about as irresponsible as not using contraception

    Perfection!

  • Advertising should be illegal. Huge waste of money and everyone's time.

    Like "back in the day" on TV: turning the volume of the ads up to be louder than the program you are watching; bells, horns, alarms; extremely misleading ads (people doing things absolutely stupidly, but suddenly better with product)... Loud and abusive scams is too much of it!

  • The main clencher that got me running a blocker were the few sites whose payload was 90% ad related and as long as the page was open it kept feeding me more ads until a gigabyte of RAM and 5% of my CPU were dedicated to something I wasn't even looking at.

    Ex was mad that my PiHole was blocking some FB stuff so I turned it off.

    "The internet's slow."

    Looked over her shoulder and pointed to her (still loading) screen:

    "Ad, ad, ad, ad, ad, ad, ad, ad..."

    "FINE! Turn it back on!"

  • It's an interesting stance, but ask yourself, where is the line between advertising and promotion or sponsorship.

    I think that requiring that advertising is factual might be a better way to address the issue.

    Ultimately as a society we haven't come up with a better way to communicate the existence of products and services to each other, and we've been using advertising for 5,000 years or so.

    Here's how you make people aware of your products.

    You sell a quality product for a reasonable price.

    That's it.

    Instead, capitolism has become this game of cat and mouse where the consumers ALWAYS lose. Just a game of shrinking product sizes, reducing quality, and raising prices. Little by little.

    It's most obvious when you haven't had a product in a while, maybe years, and you grab it again. Only to realize they've gone through several iterations of enshitification.

    When I was a kid, Andy Capps Cheese Fries used to be about as long as my pinky, and they were thick. Now it's like the length of my pinky until my second knockle, and it's like the same thickness as a pretzle stick. Sure, it's technically the same product, but everytime I buy them I realize why I was disappointed the last time I bought them. And I won't buy them for another 5 years. Maybe by then they'll be the length of my pinky nail and as thick as a sewing pin, but cost 8 dollars instead of the 25 cents it was when I was a kid.

    They did a durability test on hammers. In one side was an old rusty hammer. It had a date of 1931 on it. In the other was a brand new hammer bought that same day from Home Depot.

    The new hammer crumbled long before the 1931 hammer did. This test was done in 2017.

    But I never buy products because they advertise. I buy them because I remember how good it was the last time.

    Except now, you're advertising BAD memories. Because when I go in expecting this much, with this quality, and instead I get a fraction of it, with only a fraction of the quality.....congradulations. You saved money on production costs. You also pushed your customer away from being a repeat customer.

    All this business schools, and all the data they have I'm sure shows that their way is better. So explain to me why it seems businesses these days struggle to make the line go up, but when I was a kid business was booming?

  • Likewise, I can prevent anything from even entering my network that I don't want on it.

    That's more to the point!

  • Also, aren’t most folks using apps these days? I have elders and younger relatives that literally don’t know how to use a web browser.

    I wouldn’t want to be a web publisher right now…

    Whats not to know?

    Step 1) Open the browser.

    There is no step 2. Just go wherever you want, and read. Or watch videos. If you don't know where something is, search for it. The browser does all the work. That's like saying you don't know how to use a microwave.

  • 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 🖕🏻

  • I still whitelist sites with sensible, unobtrusive ads. Axios for instance, which are mostly 1st party. But that’s increasingly the exception.

    I had to rip APNews out when Google Ads tried to serve me malware.

    What was the malware?

  • 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.

    I have said it before and I'll say it again.

    Adblockers are a critical part of any modern computer's security suit, and everyone should use them.

    I won't even consider removing mine unless the owners of a site with ads take full responsibility for any dammage to my computer coming from visiting their site with out an adblocker.

    This is due to the fact that ads can be hijacked and infect your computer with malware just by accessing the site.

    I have also experienced my browser being hijacked by clicking a link that was compromized, it redirected my browser in a loop, then opened a javascript password popup box that took all focus from the browser window and refused to go away, while the page below displayed a message that I needed to call tech support.

    It was very annoying to resolve, Firefox would by default restore any pages that was open in a tab if the browser crashed, and since the password prompt was stealing focus from the browser window, I had to kill it through the Task manager, which restored the page on start up....

    I had to create a new profile, then it it solved 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.

    Besides the trackers and malware, ads can be categorised as a flaw in technology. A kind of software parasite that uses a computer's resources without providing any additional functionality to the user.

  • 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.

    Almost 70. Spent way too many years watching cable shit tv. I hate ads. I fucking hate ads with a nuclear passion. I have ad blockers, pirated shit and some services that do not show ads so far.
    If there are ads I find an alternative or read a book. Our teen son screams ad every time he sees one that sneaks through ad just to get me going.

  • 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.

    The only site I allow ads on is photopea.net because it's awesome and I use it regularly. Fuck ads otherwise

  • Raw-dogging the internet without an adblocker is about as irresponsible as not using contraception

    No glove block, no love browse

  • Ads used to be static text in the sidebar that the site owner manually put there. They didn't have any tracking and didn't slow down the loading time. Once they started adding images, I started using an ad blocker. I was stuck on dial-up until 2008 and a single, small image could add 10 or more seconds to the page loading time.

    2008! Bro I feel for you, retrospectively.

  • Besides the trackers and malware, ads can be categorised as a flaw in technology. A kind of software parasite that uses a computer's resources without providing any additional functionality to the user.

    Ads are malware (software maliciously made to do something the user doesn't want), yes. :3

  • Using Clouds for too long might have made you incompetent

    Technology technology
    87
    165 Stimmen
    87 Beiträge
    527 Aufrufe
    M
    I was recruited as an R&D engineer by a company that was sales focused. It was pretty funny being recruited like a new sales hire: limo from the airport, etc. Limo driver didn't work direct for the company but she did a lot of work for them, it was an hour drive both ways to/from the "big" airport they used. She said most of the sales recruits she drove in were clueless kids, no idea how the world worked yet at all - gunning for a big commission job where 9/10 hires wash out within a year. At least after I arrived on-site I spent the day with my prospective new department, that was a pretty decent process. The one guy I didn't interview well with turned out to be the guy who had applied to the spot I was taking and had been passed over. As I was walking in on my first day he was just finishing moving his stuff out of the window-office desk he was giving up for me, into a cube. I can understand why he was a little prickly.
  • Algorithmic Sabotage Manifesto.

    Technology technology
    19
    1
    25 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    134 Aufrufe
    V
    How can you write so many words but say so little.
  • 254 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    243 Aufrufe
    dojan@pawb.socialD
    It is a direct result of structural racism, as it's a product of the treatment of white men as being the default. You see it all the time in medicine. There are conditions that disproportionately affect black people that we don't know enough about because time and money hasn't been spent studying it. Women face the same problem. Lots of conditions apply differently in women. An example of this being why women historically have been underrepresented in e.g. autism diagnoses. It presents differently so for a while the assumption was made that women just can't be autistic. I don't think necessarily that people who perpetuate this problem are doing so out of malice, they probably don't think of women/black people as lesser (hell, many probably are women and/or black), but it doesn't change the fact that structural problems requires awareness and conscious effort to correct.
  • 33 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    53 Aufrufe
    G
    Yes. I can't imagine that they will go after individuals. Businesses can't be so cavalier. But if creators don't pay the extra cost to make their models compliant with EU law, then they can't be used in the EU anyway. So it probably doesn't matter much. The Llama models with vision have the no-EU clause. It's because Meta wasn't allowed to train on European's data because of GDPR. The pure LLMs are fine. They might even be compliant, but we'll have to see what the courts think.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    287 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Tech Company Recruiters Sidestep Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    43 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    G
    "Hey ChatGPT, pretend to be an immigration attorney named Soo Park and answer these questions as if you're a criminal dipshit."
  • Nextcloud cries foul over Google Play Store app rejection

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    6 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet