Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Sailfish-4
REF:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race
Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/mz2xpcw

[excerpt quote=\"
This means advertisers and publishers can simply change the code they
use to deliver their ads to defeat them. This type of ad-blocking is
often easily detected by anti ad blockers, which are deployed on the
sites of more than 50 popular publishers. Finally, traditional ad
blockers fail to block native ads that look like normal content, which
is why your ad blockers won't detect and block sponsored posts on Facebook.

...

Perceptual ad-blocking, on the other hand, ignores those codes and those
lists. Instead, it uses optical character recognition, design
techniques, and container searches (the boxes that ads are commonly put
in on a page) to detect words like "sponsored" or "close ad" that are
required to appear on every ad, which is what allows it to detect and
block Facebook ads.
\" /]

Seems to me that these new detection techniques, once incorporated,
could be countered by ad agencies by disconnecting the "sponsored" or
"close ad" display DIVs from the actual ads themselves and it's not
clear how they will be able to stop sites that don't display rendered
hints as to forthcoming ad content.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Jeff Barnett
Sailfish wrote on 4/16/2017 12:39 AM:

> REF:
> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race 
>
> Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/mz2xpcw
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> This means advertisers and publishers can simply change the code they
> use to deliver their ads to defeat them. This type of ad-blocking is
> often easily detected by anti ad blockers, which are deployed on the
> sites of more than 50 popular publishers. Finally, traditional ad
> blockers fail to block native ads that look like normal content, which
> is why your ad blockers won't detect and block sponsored posts on Facebook.
>
> ...
>
> Perceptual ad-blocking, on the other hand, ignores those codes and those
> lists. Instead, it uses optical character recognition, design
> techniques, and container searches (the boxes that ads are commonly put
> in on a page) to detect words like "sponsored" or "close ad" that are
> required to appear on every ad, which is what allows it to detect and
> block Facebook ads.
> \" /]
>
> Seems to me that these new detection techniques, once incorporated,
> could be countered by ad agencies by disconnecting the "sponsored" or
> "close ad" display DIVs from the actual ads themselves and it's not
> clear how they will be able to stop sites that don't display rendered
> hints as to forthcoming ad content

If those words/warnings are absent mightn't that make the host site
responsible for the contents of those ads? Those words loosely translate
to "not my claim so don't blame me if you're fool enough to act on what
you see!"
--
Jeff Barnett
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Sailfish-4
My bloviated meandering follows what Jeff Barnett graced us with on
4/16/2017 12:02 PM:

> Sailfish wrote on 4/16/2017 12:39 AM:
>> REF:
>> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race 
>>
>> Perceptual ad-blocking, on the other hand, ignores those codes and
>> those lists. Instead, it uses optical character recognition, design
>> techniques, and container searches (the boxes that ads are commonly
>> put in on a page) to detect words like "sponsored" or "close ad" that
>> are required to appear on every ad, which is what allows it to detect
>> and block Facebook ads.
>> \" /]
>>
>> Seems to me that these new detection techniques, once incorporated,
>> could be countered by ad agencies by disconnecting the "sponsored" or
>> "close ad" display DIVs from the actual ads themselves and it's not
>> clear how they will be able to stop sites that don't display rendered
>> hints as to forthcoming ad content
>
> If those words/warnings are absent mightn't that make the host site
> responsible for the contents of those ads? Those words loosely translate
> to "not my claim so don't blame me if you're fool enough to act on what
> you see!"

Yes, for mainstream reputable sites but for the vast majority, they
wouldn't care or even be aware of the requirement. but, even for
reputable sites, they could play tricks like defining a named DIV box
that would be sized to contain the "sponsored" or "close ad" identifiers
but whose content be an overlay ad box be added elsewhere. Thus, the
required words would be next to the ad (top or bottom) but the actual
add content would be positioned via DHTML to appear as though it was
withing the ad identifier box.

I guess the point was attempting to make is that I'm unsure whether
there will ever be a silver bullet solution to ad blocking.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Mr. Ed-2
In reply to this post by Sailfish-4
On 04/16/17 2:39 AM, Sailfish wrote:
REF: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race
Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/mz2xpcw

[excerpt quote=\"
This means advertisers and publishers can simply change the code they use to deliver their ads to defeat them. This type of ad-blocking is often easily detected by anti ad blockers, which are deployed on the sites of more than 50 popular publishers. Finally, traditional ad blockers fail to block native ads that look like normal content, which is why your ad blockers won't detect and block sponsored posts on Facebook.

...

Perceptual ad-blocking, on the other hand, ignores those codes and those lists. Instead, it uses optical character recognition, design techniques, and container searches (the boxes that ads are commonly put in on a page) to detect words like "sponsored" or "close ad" that are required to appear on every ad, which is what allows it to detect and block Facebook ads.
\" /]

Seems to me that these new detection techniques, once incorporated, could be countered by ad agencies by disconnecting the "sponsored" or "close ad" display DIVs from the actual ads themselves and it's not clear how they will be able to stop sites that don't display rendered hints as to forthcoming ad content.

KISS.  My simple solution to the ad problem is to use the hosts file.  Most of the sites you are browsing do not have the ads embedded in them  They use links to the ads.  Placing the address of the ad links into the hosts file redirect them to an internal to your system (or wherever you would like) that does nothing, but allows the original site to think the ad has been placed on your screen.  For a ready made hosts file and explanation of how it works see:  http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

-- 
"This is America!  You can't make a horse
 testify against himself!"      Mister Ed    

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Sailfish-4
My bloviated meandering follows what Mr. Ed graced us with on 4/17/2017
3:32 AM:

>
> On 04/16/17 2:39 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF:
>> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race
>> Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/mz2xpcw
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> This means advertisers and publishers can simply change the code they
>> use to deliver their ads to defeat them. This type of ad-blocking is
>> often easily detected by anti ad blockers, which are deployed on the
>> sites of more than 50 popular publishers. Finally, traditional ad
>> blockers fail to block native ads that look like normal content, which
>> is why your ad blockers won't detect and block sponsored posts on
>> Facebook.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Perceptual ad-blocking, on the other hand, ignores those codes and
>> those lists. Instead, it uses optical character recognition, design
>> techniques, and container searches (the boxes that ads are commonly
>> put in on a page) to detect words like "sponsored" or "close ad" that
>> are required to appear on every ad, which is what allows it to detect
>> and block Facebook ads.
>> \" /]
>>
>> Seems to me that these new detection techniques, once incorporated,
>> could be countered by ad agencies by disconnecting the "sponsored" or
>> "close ad" display DIVs from the actual ads themselves and it's not
>> clear how they will be able to stop sites that don't display rendered
>> hints as to forthcoming ad content.
>>
> KISS.  My simple solution to the ad problem is to use the hosts file.  
> Most of the sites you are browsing do not have the ads embedded in them  
> They use links to the ads.  Placing the address of the ad links into the
> hosts file redirect them to an internal to your system (or wherever you
> would like) that does nothing, but allows the original site to think the
> ad has been placed on your screen.  For a ready made hosts file and
> explanation of how it works see:  http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
>
Thanks, I actually have that very file and it works for sites like
Google search results sponsored ads, producing a "Unable to connect" if
clicked on. However, it doesn't block all of them which is the reason I
use ABP, as well. For TLD sites that I frequent often and are not
irritatingly spamming, I whitelist them in ABP.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Mr. Ed-2
On 04/18/17 12:46 AM, Sailfish wrote:
My bloviated meandering follows what Mr. Ed graced us with on 4/17/2017 3:32 AM:

On 04/16/17 2:39 AM, Sailfish wrote:
REF: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race
Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/mz2xpcw

[excerpt quote=\"
This means advertisers and publishers can simply change the code they use to deliver their ads to defeat them. This type of ad-blocking is often easily detected by anti ad blockers, which are deployed on the sites of more than 50 popular publishers. Finally, traditional ad blockers fail to block native ads that look like normal content, which is why your ad blockers won't detect and block sponsored posts on Facebook.

...

Perceptual ad-blocking, on the other hand, ignores those codes and those lists. Instead, it uses optical character recognition, design techniques, and container searches (the boxes that ads are commonly put in on a page) to detect words like "sponsored" or "close ad" that are required to appear on every ad, which is what allows it to detect and block Facebook ads.
\" /]

Seems to me that these new detection techniques, once incorporated, could be countered by ad agencies by disconnecting the "sponsored" or "close ad" display DIVs from the actual ads themselves and it's not clear how they will be able to stop sites that don't display rendered hints as to forthcoming ad content.

KISS.  My simple solution to the ad problem is to use the hosts file.  Most of the sites you are browsing do not have the ads embedded in them  They use links to the ads.  Placing the address of the ad links into the hosts file redirect them to an internal to your system (or wherever you would like) that does nothing, but allows the original site to think the ad has been placed on your screen.  For a ready made hosts file and explanation of how it works see:  http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

Thanks, I actually have that very file and it works for sites like Google search results sponsored ads, producing a "Unable to connect" if clicked on. However, it doesn't block all of them which is the reason I use ABP, as well. For TLD sites that I frequent often and are not irritatingly spamming, I whitelist them in ABP.

Note that his file http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ does not contain ALL ad sites.  This file he maintains is updated very frequently by him from reports of new ad sites from people like you and me but it's hard to keep up with them as new sites are springing up all the time.  You can also add your own sites (those YOU don't care about even if they're not ads).


-- 
"This is America!  You can't make a horse
 testify against himself!"      Mister Ed    

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

caver1-5
On 4/18/17 7:05 AM, Mr. Ed wrote:

> On 04/18/17 12:46 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what Mr. Ed graced us with on
>> 4/17/2017 3:32 AM:
>>>
>>> On 04/16/17 2:39 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>> REF:
>>>> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race
>>>> Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/mz2xpcw
>>>>
>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>> This means advertisers and publishers can simply change the code
>>>> they use to deliver their ads to defeat them. This type of
>>>> ad-blocking is often easily detected by anti ad blockers, which are
>>>> deployed on the sites of more than 50 popular publishers. Finally,
>>>> traditional ad blockers fail to block native ads that look like
>>>> normal content, which is why your ad blockers won't detect and block
>>>> sponsored posts on Facebook.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Perceptual ad-blocking, on the other hand, ignores those codes and
>>>> those lists. Instead, it uses optical character recognition, design
>>>> techniques, and container searches (the boxes that ads are commonly
>>>> put in on a page) to detect words like "sponsored" or "close ad"
>>>> that are required to appear on every ad, which is what allows it to
>>>> detect and block Facebook ads.
>>>> \" /]
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me that these new detection techniques, once incorporated,
>>>> could be countered by ad agencies by disconnecting the "sponsored"
>>>> or "close ad" display DIVs from the actual ads themselves and it's
>>>> not clear how they will be able to stop sites that don't display
>>>> rendered hints as to forthcoming ad content.
>>>>
>>> KISS.  My simple solution to the ad problem is to use the hosts
>>> file.  Most of the sites you are browsing do not have the ads
>>> embedded in them  They use links to the ads.  Placing the address of
>>> the ad links into the hosts file redirect them to an internal to your
>>> system (or wherever you would like) that does nothing, but allows the
>>> original site to think the ad has been placed on your screen.  For a
>>> ready made hosts file and explanation of how it works see:
>>> http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
>>>
>> Thanks, I actually have that very file and it works for sites like
>> Google search results sponsored ads, producing a "Unable to connect"
>> if clicked on. However, it doesn't block all of them which is the
>> reason I use ABP, as well. For TLD sites that I frequent often and are
>> not irritatingly spamming, I whitelist them in ABP.
>>
> Note that his file http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ does not contain
> ALL ad sites.  This file he maintains is updated very frequently by him
> from reports of new ad sites from people like you and me but it's hard
> to keep up with them as new sites are springing up all the time.  You
> can also add your own sites (those YOU don't care about even if they're
> not ads).
>
>
> --
> "This is America!  You can't make a horse
>   testify against himself!"      Mister Ed
>


https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
Extends and consolidates hosts files from several well-curated sources
and removes duplicates.
--
Caver1
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by Mr. Ed-2
My bloviated meandering follows what Mr. Ed graced us with on 4/18/2017
4:05 AM:
>
> Note that his file http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ does not contain
> ALL ad sites.  This file he maintains is updated very frequently by him
> from reports of new ad sites from people like you and me but it's hard
> to keep up with them as new sites are springing up all the time.  You
> can also add your own sites (those YOU don't care about even if they're
> not ads).
>
Yes, that is the nature of the hosts file.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by caver1-5
My bloviated meandering follows what Caver1 graced us with on 4/18/2017
6:30 AM:

>> Note that his file http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ does not contain
>> ALL ad sites.  This file he maintains is updated very frequently by
>> him from reports of new ad sites from people like you and me but it's
>> hard to keep up with them as new sites are springing up all the time.  
>> You can also add your own sites (those YOU don't care about even if
>> they're not ads).
>>
Nice. I see it was updated yesterday, as of this post.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Christian Riechers-3
In reply to this post by Sailfish-4
On 04/16/2017 08:39 AM, Sailfish wrote:

> REF:
> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race
>
> Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/mz2xpcw
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> This means advertisers and publishers can simply change the code they
> use to deliver their ads to defeat them. This type of ad-blocking is
> often easily detected by anti ad blockers, which are deployed on the
> sites of more than 50 popular publishers. Finally, traditional ad
> blockers fail to block native ads that look like normal content, which
> is why your ad blockers won't detect and block sponsored posts on Facebook.
>
> ...
>
> Perceptual ad-blocking, on the other hand, ignores those codes and those
> lists. Instead, it uses optical character recognition, design
> techniques, and container searches (the boxes that ads are commonly put
> in on a page) to detect words like "sponsored" or "close ad" that are
> required to appear on every ad, which is what allows it to detect and
> block Facebook ads.
> \" /]
>
> Seems to me that these new detection techniques, once incorporated,
> could be countered by ad agencies by disconnecting the "sponsored" or
> "close ad" display DIVs from the actual ads themselves and it's not
> clear how they will be able to stop sites that don't display rendered
> hints as to forthcoming ad content.

From the author of the Adblock Plus extension:

"... that’s where we are with undetectable ad blocking: possible in
theory but completely impractical."

https://palant.de/2017/04/19/is-undetectable-ad-blocking-possible
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Sailfish-4
My bloviated meandering follows what Christian Riechers graced us with
on 4/19/2017 1:55 PM:
> On 04/16/2017 08:39 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF:
>> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race
>>
>> Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/mz2xpcw
>>
<snip article quote/>

>>
>> Seems to me that these new detection techniques, once incorporated,
>> could be countered by ad agencies by disconnecting the "sponsored" or
>> "close ad" display DIVs from the actual ads themselves and it's not
>> clear how they will be able to stop sites that don't display rendered
>> hints as to forthcoming ad content.
>
> From the author of the Adblock Plus extension:
>
> "... that’s where we are with undetectable ad blocking: possible in
> theory but completely impractical."
>
> https://palant.de/2017/04/19/is-undetectable-ad-blocking-possible

Excellent article in response, danke

[excerpt quote=\"
Altogether this means that the cost of the layout calculation will be
doubled for every page, both in terms of CPU cycles and memory  — only
because at some point the web page might try to detect ad blocking. Add
to this significant complexity of the solution and considerable
maintenance cost (the approach might have to be adjusted as new APIs are
being added to the web platform). So I would be very surprised if any
browser vendor would be interested in implementing it. And let’s not
forget that all this is only about ad hiding.
\" /]

REF:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-ad-blocking-feature-in-popular-chrome-browser-1492643233
Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/lw96w9z

[excerpt quote=\"
*Google Plans Ad Blocking Feature in Popular Chrome Browser*

In one possible application Google is considering, it may choose to
block all advertising that appears on sites with offending ads, instead
of the individual offending ads themselves. In other words, site owners
may be required to ensure all of their ads meet the standards, or could
see all advertising across their sites blocked in Chrome.
\" /]

It seems that Google had it's own, self-serving, response in waiting.
It's unclear whether their approach would truly excise, or attempt the
more difficult task of hiding the ad, (I suspect the former base on your
article's position.) However, what I suspect is really the goal of *the
largest ad revenue company in the world* is to focus on non-displaying
pages that don't adhere to certain agreed on standards, perhaps with
some confusing error display and, worst case, threaten to blacklist said
sites from Google SERPs.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Ron Hunter
On 4/20/2017 12:10 PM, Sailfish wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Christian Riechers graced us with
> on 4/19/2017 1:55 PM:
>> On 04/16/2017 08:39 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> REF:
>>> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race 
>>>
>>>
>>> Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/mz2xpcw
>>>
> <snip article quote/>
>>>
>>> Seems to me that these new detection techniques, once incorporated,
>>> could be countered by ad agencies by disconnecting the "sponsored" or
>>> "close ad" display DIVs from the actual ads themselves and it's not
>>> clear how they will be able to stop sites that don't display rendered
>>> hints as to forthcoming ad content.
>>
>> From the author of the Adblock Plus extension:
>>
>> "... that’s where we are with undetectable ad blocking: possible in
>> theory but completely impractical."
>>
>> https://palant.de/2017/04/19/is-undetectable-ad-blocking-possible
>
> Excellent article in response, danke
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Altogether this means that the cost of the layout calculation will be
> doubled for every page, both in terms of CPU cycles and memory  — only
> because at some point the web page might try to detect ad blocking. Add
> to this significant complexity of the solution and considerable
> maintenance cost (the approach might have to be adjusted as new APIs are
> being added to the web platform). So I would be very surprised if any
> browser vendor would be interested in implementing it. And let’s not
> forget that all this is only about ad hiding.
> \" /]
>
> REF:
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-ad-blocking-feature-in-popular-chrome-browser-1492643233 
>
> Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/lw96w9z
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> *Google Plans Ad Blocking Feature in Popular Chrome Browser*
>
> In one possible application Google is considering, it may choose to
> block all advertising that appears on sites with offending ads, instead
> of the individual offending ads themselves. In other words, site owners
> may be required to ensure all of their ads meet the standards, or could
> see all advertising across their sites blocked in Chrome.
> \" /]
>
> It seems that Google had it's own, self-serving, response in waiting.
> It's unclear whether their approach would truly excise, or attempt the
> more difficult task of hiding the ad, (I suspect the former base on your
> article's position.) However, what I suspect is really the goal of *the
> largest ad revenue company in the world* is to focus on non-displaying
> pages that don't adhere to certain agreed on standards, perhaps with
> some confusing error display and, worst case, threaten to blacklist said
> sites from Google SERPs.
>
I don't like ads on websites, mainly because they are intentionally
distracting, and tend to be annoying as well.  If they flash, they are
gone.  If they play video, or sound, they are gone.  If they just put up
a text box, in an unused (for website data) area, they are tolerable.
But I am sure that the limitations I mention wouldn't be satisfactory to
any advertiser.  It's an arms race that no one can win.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Wolf K.
On 2017-04-21 02:52, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 4/20/2017 12:10 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what Christian Riechers graced us with
>> on 4/19/2017 1:55 PM:
>>> On 04/16/2017 08:39 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>> REF:
>>>> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/mz2xpcw
>>>>
>> <snip article quote/>
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me that these new detection techniques, once incorporated,
>>>> could be countered by ad agencies by disconnecting the "sponsored" or
>>>> "close ad" display DIVs from the actual ads themselves and it's not
>>>> clear how they will be able to stop sites that don't display rendered
>>>> hints as to forthcoming ad content.
>>>
>>> From the author of the Adblock Plus extension:
>>>
>>> "... that’s where we are with undetectable ad blocking: possible in
>>> theory but completely impractical."
>>>
>>> https://palant.de/2017/04/19/is-undetectable-ad-blocking-possible
>>
>> Excellent article in response, danke
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> Altogether this means that the cost of the layout calculation will be
>> doubled for every page, both in terms of CPU cycles and memory  — only
>> because at some point the web page might try to detect ad blocking. Add
>> to this significant complexity of the solution and considerable
>> maintenance cost (the approach might have to be adjusted as new APIs are
>> being added to the web platform). So I would be very surprised if any
>> browser vendor would be interested in implementing it. And let’s not
>> forget that all this is only about ad hiding.
>> \" /]
>>
>> REF:
>> https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-ad-blocking-feature-in-popular-chrome-browser-1492643233
>>
>> Itsy: http://tinyurl.com/lw96w9z
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> *Google Plans Ad Blocking Feature in Popular Chrome Browser*
>>
>> In one possible application Google is considering, it may choose to
>> block all advertising that appears on sites with offending ads, instead
>> of the individual offending ads themselves. In other words, site owners
>> may be required to ensure all of their ads meet the standards, or could
>> see all advertising across their sites blocked in Chrome.
>> \" /]
>>
>> It seems that Google had it's own, self-serving, response in waiting.
>> It's unclear whether their approach would truly excise, or attempt the
>> more difficult task of hiding the ad, (I suspect the former base on your
>> article's position.) However, what I suspect is really the goal of *the
>> largest ad revenue company in the world* is to focus on non-displaying
>> pages that don't adhere to certain agreed on standards, perhaps with
>> some confusing error display and, worst case, threaten to blacklist said
>> sites from Google SERPs.
>>
> I don't like ads on websites, mainly because they are intentionally
> distracting, and tend to be annoying as well.  If they flash, they are
> gone.  If they play video, or sound, they are gone.  If they just put up
> a text box, in an unused (for website data) area, they are tolerable.
> But I am sure that the limitations I mention wouldn't be satisfactory to
> any advertiser.  It's an arms race that no one can win.

There is a solution: pay directly instead via advertising. TANSTAAFL.

--
Wolf K.
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
4/20/2017 11:52 PM:

> On 4/20/2017 12:10 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>
>> It seems that Google had it's own, self-serving, response in waiting.
>> It's unclear whether their approach would truly excise, or attempt the
>> more difficult task of hiding the ad, (I suspect the former base on
>> your article's position.) However, what I suspect is really the goal
>> of *the largest ad revenue company in the world* is to focus on
>> non-displaying pages that don't adhere to certain agreed on standards,
>> perhaps with some confusing error display and, worst case, threaten to
>> blacklist said sites from Google SERPs.
>>
> I don't like ads on websites, mainly because they are intentionally
> distracting, and tend to be annoying as well.  If they flash, they are
> gone.  If they play video, or sound, they are gone.  If they just put up
> a text box, in an unused (for website data) area, they are tolerable.
> But I am sure that the limitations I mention wouldn't be satisfactory to
> any advertiser.  It's an arms race that no one can win.
>
REF: https://www.betterads.org/standards/

[excerpt quote=\"
Initial Better Ads Standards: Least preferred ad experiences for desktop
web and mobile web
\" /]

You should be pleased to know that tose and more are part of he proposed
new standards (through link in WSJ in my last post).

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon

Sailfish-4
My bloviated meandering follows what Sailfish graced us with on
4/21/2017 7:02 AM:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 4/20/2017 11:52 PM:
>> On 4/20/2017 12:10 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems that Google had it's own, self-serving, response in waiting.
>>> It's unclear whether their approach would truly excise, or attempt
>>> the more difficult task of hiding the ad, (I suspect the former base
>>> on your article's position.) However, what I suspect is really the
>>> goal of *the largest ad revenue company in the world* is to focus on
>>> non-displaying pages that don't adhere to certain agreed on
>>> standards, perhaps with some confusing error display and, worst case,
>>> threaten to blacklist said sites from Google SERPs.
>>>
>> I don't like ads on websites, mainly because they are intentionally
>> distracting, and tend to be annoying as well.  If they flash, they are
>> gone.  If they play video, or sound, they are gone.  If they just put
>> up a text box, in an unused (for website data) area, they are
>> tolerable. But I am sure that the limitations I mention wouldn't be
>> satisfactory to any advertiser.  It's an arms race that no one can win.
>>
> REF: https://www.betterads.org/standards/
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Initial Better Ads Standards: Least preferred ad experiences for desktop
> web and mobile web
> \" /]
>
> You should be pleased to know that tose and more are part of he proposed
> new standards (through link in WSJ in my last post).
>
Looking over the Members more carefully, I notice that neither Microsoft
(Bing and IE) not Mozilla (Firefox) are included. If this group is
deciding ad standards, it seem important that they should include both
of them; otherwise, they will be giving Google a significant competitive
advantage in providing agreed on solutions before either of the other
two will have a chance to catch up.

I'm left wondering whether this was an open buy-in membership and
Microsoft and Mozilla declined to participate or was it not even
offered. Anyone know the specifics?

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Loading...