ASUS Phones And Laptops Will Block Ads By Default

[jklinders]

I feel like I am taking a chance by commenting here but since the Escapist has seen fit to include a comment thread on this piece I am going to assume that the mods will act in good faith here.

I find it fascinating that the author of this piece has indicated that bandwidth isn't free in regards to paying to post content. Well that goes both ways in a mobile environment for an wireless phone user. Every time a video ad pops up on a mobile user that is data use that is not benefiting them going on their account.

My stance on ads has not changed since my first time on the internet. I have no problem with them so long as they do not affect my browsing experience (ads that cover the screen or have video or sound or any combination of the above are terrible), do not allow easy access to my computer for hackers (flash is a terrible security risk in this) and most importantly do not interfere with my attempts to use the site's services. If any of the above are true I have to seriously question my relationship with that site.

 

[Flames66]

Interesting. I like that adblock has an acceptable type of ad it lets through, but I'm not sure I agree with them on what is acceptable. Here's my list:

Acceptable:
-Banner ads on the top, sides and bottom
-Recommending something within the content (sponsored videos/articles (as long as it is clearly stated))

Unacceptable
-Any kind of tracking or targeted ad
-Any sound
-Ads in the way of what I want to look at
-Ads playing before a video
-Ads that link to other sites

I find it fascinating that the author of this piece has indicated that bandwidth isn't free in regards to paying to post content. Well that goes both ways in a mobile environment for an wireless phone user. Every time a video ad pops up on a mobile user that is data use that is not benefiting them going on their account.

The same problem exists for anyone using services with limited download capacity. Any ad is taking their bandwidth.

 

[Hagi]

Now imagine if websites were to restrict access to people who block their ads... have fun surfing the web on that phone!

That's literally impossible. Certain methods of ad-blocking might be detectable by the parent site but unless they're hacking the viewer's computer there's no way to be sure.

Even trying is just going to lead to the same problem we have with piracy. Those that block ads will do so with specialised software capable of tricking the site into believing they are viewing the ads and those that don't will occasionally have the entire site blocked due to false positives.

 

[IceForce]

Ad blocking <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8854-The-Adblock-Episode>has always been something of a touchy issue on the internet.

I find it quite funny that this Jimquisition episode should be linked here. "Touchy issue" is the understatement of the bloody century when you look at the comments thread on that video.

 

[Loonyyy]

It's a selling point, and ads are getting worse and worse. It's bad enough on sites like this one, but there are sites that are built as ad delivery venues. That's not just having poor judgement in advertising, that's that they spread image libraries over pages of clickbait to spam you with ads for as many clicks as possible. My friends have been discovering a couple and reposting them, and it is maddening. I just want to shake them, like, are you this fucking stupid? You can find the original on imgur, this is just a fucking ad.

It is a shame. Ads provided revenue to support websites, but as we've seen with Netflix, if you build it, they will come. If you have something that people really want, and are willing to pay for, and price it well, then people will pay for it. After that, I just can't go back to watching television, the ads are just fucking attrocious.

I'm willing to put up with ads. Banner ads, video ads before videos, even intermission ads for long videos. But the dodgy russian bride type ads, the "ONE SECRET TRICK" etc, that are at best, scams, and at worst, malware, are too much.

 

[bluegate]

Now imagine if websites were to restrict access to people who block their ads... have fun surfing the web on that phone!

That's literally impossible. Certain methods of ad-blocking might be detectable by the parent site but unless they're hacking the viewer's computer there's no way to be sure.

Even trying is just going to lead to the same problem we have with piracy. Those that block ads will do so with specialised software capable of tricking the site into believing they are viewing the ads and those that don't will occasionally have the entire site blocked due to false positives.

Far from impossible, actually. It is a trivial task to check whether ads have been properly loaded on a webpage.

 

[Hagi]

Now imagine if websites were to restrict access to people who block their ads... have fun surfing the web on that phone!

That's literally impossible. Certain methods of ad-blocking might be detectable by the parent site but unless they're hacking the viewer's computer there's no way to be sure.

Even trying is just going to lead to the same problem we have with piracy. Those that block ads will do so with specialised software capable of tricking the site into believing they are viewing the ads and those that don't will occasionally have the entire site blocked due to false positives.

Far from impossible, actually. It is a trivial task to check whether ads have been properly loaded on a webpage.

And loaded doesn't equal displayed. Hell you don't even have to actually load them. Just send the request to the ad-server then ignore the entire reply, no need to even load it into memory.

In the end the server, be it from the ads or the page itself, has absolutely no way to actually check what's on screen or even in memory.

Want to check load events on iframes that have ads? I'll write a plugin that triggers them constantly.
Want to check requests on the ad-server? I'll send as many as you want and ignore the replies.
Using actual postMessage communication between the ad and the page to verify? I'll just move the entire ad slightly offscreen and keep it there.
Going even further? People will fork chromium and/or firefox to counter whatever you're trying and communicate to your server as if everything went fine.

You can't control what's happening on a client unless you literally hack them. There's no magic method of checking what's actually on screen if the program doing that checking isn't under your control.

 

[bluegate]

And loaded doesn't equal displayed. Hell you don't even have to actually load them. Just send the request to the ad-server then ignore the entire reply, no need to even load it into memory.

In the end the server, be it from the ads or the page itself, has absolutely no way to actually check what's on screen or even in memory.

Using Javascript, one can easily check what is and what isn't being displayed on a page and where it is being displayed.

Sure, Javascript is executed on the client's machine and can thus be tempered with, however most average users don't bother with custom plugins and custom compiled applications in order to combat the more creative ways people could try and enforce ads on a website, especially not on a phone.

People using conventional ad blocking software can easily be found out, people who like to create their own custom plugins and what have you can also be found out, although it would take a little more effort, however, seeing as these kinds of people are small in number, putting this extra effort into it doesn't make much sense.

 

[Hagi]

And loaded doesn't equal displayed. Hell you don't even have to actually load them. Just send the request to the ad-server then ignore the entire reply, no need to even load it into memory.

In the end the server, be it from the ads or the page itself, has absolutely no way to actually check what's on screen or even in memory.

Using Javascript, one can easily check what is and what isn't being displayed on a page and where it is being displayed.

Sure, Javascript is executed on the client's machine and can thus be tempered with, however most average users don't bother with custom plugins and custom compiled applications in order to combat the more creative ways people could try and enforce ads on a website, especially not on a phone.

People using conventional ad blocking software can easily be found out, people who like to create their own custom plugins and what have you can also be found out, although it would take a little more effort, however, seeing as these kinds of people are small in number, putting this extra effort into it doesn't make much sense.

And what do you think is going to happen to conventional ad blocking software if measures like this are introduced?

They'll be updated to work around these new limitations. Then I'm sure new measures will be taken. And the ad blocking software will be updated again. The whole cycle repeating as often as needed.

And in that whole mess of additional validations there's going to be more and more false positives and users without ad-blocking software who still get blocked entirely.

In the end it'll be an arms-race without any winners. Because there's no validation that's absolutely certain, that's by definition impossible without full control of the client machine.

It's impossible to force ads on a machine you don't control. And for those lacking the knowledge there's going to be plenty of developers who do have that knowledge and are willing to share, just like happens now with current ad-blocking software.

Nothing will change except for a lot of essentially wasted development hours and false positives that negatively impact user experience.

 

[Glaice]

I'd say good for them, maybe others will follow suit and advertising companies will be forced to reevaluate not making intrusive or annoying ads. Maybe adding variation so it's NOT THE SAME AD ALL THE TIME would work because frankly, I'm tired of the same stuff showing up. This also applies to Youtube's video ads..mix it up for crying out loud!

 

[BoogieManFL]

Just think all you have to do is not design ads that don't:

Play Sound automatically
Open itself and shift around the actual website to make itself larger or force itself into view
Strobe or be garish in nature
Excessively invasive
Pop up in your face
Blanket the page making it a nightmare to click on what you want without fear of getting redirected


If only the people responsible for this disease on the internet would learn that people will accept your ads if they aren't just plain fucking annoying.

 

[senaji]

I'm not against advertising because it generates profits, but too much advertising kills advertising. but the problem of advertising is that they have no limits. on mobile, there is often more advertising on the screen than the real content.



______________________________________________________________________________
galaxy s5 prix [http://galaxys-5.fr/] galaxy note 3 [http://galaxynote-3.com/]