Are Ad-Blockers Saving Internet Users, or Ruining the Internet? | Motherboard

>Ad-blockers may seem like an answer to an internet user’s prayers. No annoying pop-ups, no promos before videos and no concerns about accidentally clicking on a virus. But for ad-driven websites, they’re a revenue leech that needs to be pried off.

>This is becoming one of the internet's biggest debates. More countries are cracking down on ad-blockers—the EU’s European Commission even proposed a rule this week that would allow media companies to ban users who use ad-blockers. The debate is no longer on the fringes with tech’s biggest names, including Facebook, weighing in.

>“Ads support our mission of giving people the power to share and making the world more open and connected,” Facebook Vice President of Ads & Business Platform Andrew Bosworth said in an August announcement last year.

>As of 2015, 500 million devices worldwide had an ad-blocker installed, including 181 million desktop users with an active ad-blocking plug-in or used a browser that automatically blocked ads, according to PageFair, an industry leader among advertising recovery—i.e. anti ad-block— companies.

>That led to an estimated loss of billions of dollars among websites and online services that rely on advertisements for their primary source of revenue. Nearly every corner of the internet relies on advertising to avoid charging consumers—everything from music streaming to video hosting to news outlets.

archive.is/gM2ZJ

Other urls found in this thread:

arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/millions-exposed-to-malvertising-that-hid-attack-code-in-banner-pixels/
adnauseam.io/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>That led to an estimated loss of billions of dollars among websites and online services that rely on advertisements for their primary source of revenue
maybe these shitbags should resort to t.v ads, as always? product placements in movies/shows... shit that actauly works.

ads on p.c download viruses and even cp.. if you force your nation to be vulnerable to this shit because you're going to get rich off it, isn't that the very definition of corrupt?

tl;dr eurocucks getting cucked again.
how much longer until the U.S starts giving them the freedom they don't deserve, but need.

Check out Maddox.xmission.com
he doesn't use adds but still manages to make a profit, why other people don't simply do what he did?

>modern day vice

fucking trash

If everyone runs adblock the internet will get fucked over
If everyone pirates instead of buying media the game/move/etc industries will get fucked over

But as long as it's just a few autists on the internet using it and the majority of people are still seeing ads, everything will keep running just fine. Just like with piracy.

Websites that can't survive without ads don't deserve to exist.

How old are you? Returning to a time before ads were so pervasive on the internet would be great. The internet in the 90s was mostly enthusiasts and hobbyists not looking to make a profit.

this is the most autistic and myopic comment ever, well done lad

Call me when ad networks are required to certify their ads are non-intrusive (i.e. no auto-playing videos) and free from malware/viruses. Until then they can suck my dick.

>revenue leech

thats not a real thing

How would the internet be worse off if everyone used an ad blocker? Only websites worth supporting would remain.

how did the internet exist before ads then

>Are Ad-Blockers Saving Internet Users, or Ruining the Internet?
Both. Obviously they are good for the users but they also the reason why some content creators turn to crazy and annoying shit to overcome them, also lower revenues tend to lower quality of the content and force sponsored content memes.

It's a lot like piracy and faggots take the easy way out instead of giving people the reason to want spending money/support their site.

Are you honestly that retarded and can't tell the difference?

what difference

> Are ad blockers ruining the internet?
> Yes
really gets the good old neurons all sending incredibly small electric pulses across the brain cortex

Shit I remember those partner banner frames linking to their friends or other interesting stuff.
Good times.

The people who provided content then and now? The people who consume it? The amounts?

Why are they making such a ig deal about adblocking?

There's now more mobile users than desktop users (dekstop continues to shrink) and I would say like 9% of mobile users don't use any sort of adblocker...

No, if sites are behind a paywall you no longer get success determined organically. Success will be determined by the best shills.

>Why are they making such a ig deal about adblocking?
When Apple added it to iPhone browsers by default, it opened up Ad-Blockers to normies.
People who would have no idea about ad-blockers otherwise now did and they investigated it on their desktop.

There's a lot of shit content out there including fake news. Adblockers will purge them out. Adblockers are curating the internet. We must protect adblockers.

It's just corporations lying to us and claiming that profits are necessary in order to provide good content on the web.

There's tons of good content that's generated by people who don't get paid to create it.

>Ruining the Internet?
Just the opposite. If all the money-grubbers on the web went out of business, it would greatly improve the Internet.

The web should be a cold and unforgiving place for those who want to make a profit. If they can eke out a profit, then yay for them. If not, then good riddance, we didn't want them and their fucking ads anyway.

what is the blue icon, user?

When its just clickbait garbage or wrongclicks, they can absolutely fuck themselves. If all a website can rely on is using these types of ads, they aren't doing it right.

Wew
Internet was already ruined in 2007. Name one application that you cannot pay for out of pocket.

>Forum
Easily payed for
>Tracker
Also easy
>Twitter Clone / Social Media
A Breeze
>IRC
depending on size, ezpz.
>XMPP
See above.
>E-mail
Dirt. Cheap.
>News Site which things information should cost money
OY VEY

> Adblockers will purge them out.
Just the opposite. It's dirt cheap to produce fake news, everyone can do it. To produce something valuable, you need time and money.

> DOUBLE THE POWER of last year's best processors!

It makes me sad that we'll never see anything close to that rate of speed increase again.

For the rest of my miserable, pathetic life, all I'll ever get to see is a new Intel generation with a 5% speed increase over the previous generation.

B-B-BUT MUH ENERGY EFFICIENCY

>being able to do same shit while using much lesser energy isn't amazing

There is no point to massively increase desktop/mobile performance for normal people, and spergs aren't a big enough market to bother, specially if there is no competition.

The massive advancements in ARM cpus are still there.

Big news outlets indulge in fake news for various reasons including but not limited to; clicks so eradicating adblockers is giving fake news a platform to make money on clicks instead of real journalism. An easy buck. Real content will be supported through platforms like patreon and shit content will die out. Adblockers are the Internet's savior.

>Just the opposite. It's dirt cheap to produce fake news, everyone can do it. To produce something valuable, you need time and money.

this is some stupid as fuck logic

>the EU’s European Commission even proposed a rule this week that would allow media companies to ban users who use ad-blockers. The debate is no longer on the fringes with tech’s biggest names, including Facebook, weighing in.
good thing this won't pass

They're as retarded as US senators who think you can link a IP to a name

>But for ad-driven websites, they’re a revenue leech that needs to be pried off
It's my computer, I run whatever the fuck I want and that includes javascript that runs in my browser.

There was a time when advertisements were acceptable but advertisements have become resource-intensive and malicious. I would be nice to passively support websites via advertisements and there was a time when I didn't mind my browser spending system resources to present me with advertisements but those days are long gone.

>Big news outlets indulge in fake news for various reasons including but not limited to; clicks
While smaller outlets like blogs or shit focusing on interest groups are even more sketchy and full of shit and bias.

>real content will be supported through platforms like patreon
It'll force the people making the content to abide to the "party line" providing news from a biased perspective to keep the echo chamber going and the customers paying. You're making news for richfags and got new leaks about tax evasion? Can't publish that because it will piss off your customers. You're running #black power news and there is a mass shooting by a black guy? Better keep it unpublished.

>GET RID OF THE AD BLOCKERS OR WE'LL REMOVE OUR CONTENT AND YOU'LL GO BACK TO THE DARK AGES

Jokes on them, I long for the days of GOPHER and actual interesting judenfrei content.

Don't want your precious shitty "content" stolen by people running ad-blockers? Put it out there on mediums that are resistant to ad-blocking.

Oh, that means not-the-internet? Shucks, guess you fucks are fucked.

>Adblockers are destroying innocent internet businesses guys, you need to stop
>t. scummy internet business

It's easy, don't push your annoying, intrusive, privacy-invading malware at me and then I won't block it, simple as that. Also don't replace your actual content with some shit ad, that's the reason I'm browsing your site, if you hide your content behind ads I'm obviously going to remove the ads.

Who exactly do you think you're talking to?

Last time I turned off my adblocker Windows Defender popped up saying it caught some shit. They can get fucked for all I care

>...
Exactly and that's the point because big news outlets are the same exact agenda-driven paid sketchy and full of shit and bias. Adblockers will purge that.

>...
But this is exactly what big news outlets are doing now and have been doing for decades. That's why we need the net to be an unforgiving place not driven by profit, you fucking degenerate kike. Ads = profit driven. No ads = real content gets promoted.

>Vice

Like I'm going to trust a Communist Jew run publication

keep protecting those horse-drawn carriage makers, faggot

>It'll force the people making the content to abide to the "party line" providing news from a biased perspective to keep the echo chamber going and the customers paying. You're making news for richfags and got new leaks about tax evasion? Can't publish that because it will piss off your customers. You're running #black power news and there is a mass shooting by a black guy? Better keep it unpublished.

Like the NYTimes right?

I'm of the belief that unsolicited ads are immoral because they dehumanize people, so I block all ads all the time.

And, if my actions actively contribute to some site failing because I cost them money on bandwidth without getting them the ad money they relied on, so much the better.

Its means you'll see more shit like this

>Are Ad-Blockers Saving Internet Users, or Ruining the Internet?
Ad blockers are saving the part of the internet I value, and ruining the part of the internet publishers value. I think publishers and me can agree on this, so that should be the end of the discussion.

If everyone used ad blockers all this clickbait shit will finally die out. And site creators will finally start to optimize size and performance of their shit to reduce server costs.

>plaster ads everywhere out of greed
>please turn ad blocker off Mister
>I'll be good I swear
Scrooge doesn't get to play tiny Tim.

Maddox has never made a profit, he pays out of pocket for his bandwidth. Maybe some tshirts fill in the gaps.

>ads on p.c download... cp..

Oh boy, just turned off my ad blocker.

Dick

Do I look like I want fucking malware

This is simple. If your site wont let me on with an ad-blocker, I wont use your service.

Mark my works. Instead of more ad revenue, they'll just see a huge dip in users. Which is probably worse.

Static ads? I have no fucks to give,

Auto-playing sound & video and shockwave take-over-your-PC ads ..?

I block everything (with wildcards) that originates at the root domain that hosts those.

Also, epileptic-coma inducing animated gifs. If that shit is blinking hideous colors at speeds to burn my retina, I can't read the fucking site anyway.

My adblock filter is pure custom, has about 200 entries in it, and I think I've only added one site in the past year. That should tell you something right there: it's a very few number of aggressive sites producing the vast majority of the worst ads, and they are the only ones whining about the adblocks.

Funny thing is, they're trying to blame adblockers on reducing customers instead of shitty ads that don't work.

I've run across about half a dozen sites that detect my adblocking and block me from their content. Guess what? I've blocked those sites and I never see them again.

Guess what again?

Haven't missed a single one of them. It's almost like they don't have critical content to begin with and there's this thing called the Internet where you can get the content without blowing your speakers out while surfing and listening to chill music.


No website has the "right" to rape my ears, my speakers or take over my computer because I clicked through on an interesting looking link to see what they offer. Blocking me from their content because I have to protect myself from that shit is just them shooting themself in the face in a fit of autistic rage.

The controversy about adblockers is hilarious considering it's like nobody remembers the awful days of pop-up ads. Those were the absolute worst, and they showed just how low both advertisers and web sites were willing to stoop. It got so bad that by 2004 even fucking MICROSOFT was automatically blocking that shit in IE. Internet adverts have always been engineered to be cancer.

Look I don't mind some banner ads around the content. Some static or low-key animations aren't terrible. But when you throw stupid shit like resource-intensive plugins, autoplaying video with sound, ads that change size, cover the fucking article, expand when I accidentally mouse over them, or just in general make using the website more difficult? Fuck you and fuck your website. And if you block Adblock users then fine. I'll just find another site.

Here's a clue, site owners: people wouldn't feel compelled to block your revenue stream if it didn't actively ruin their web experience.

> Are Ad-Blockers Saving Internet Users, or Ruining the Internet?
Because webpages contacting content of more than 20 domains next to the shitload of scripts are a blessing. No thanks.
Ads should go back to what they were before. A simple banner on a few spots on the page.

>proposed a rule this week that would allow media companies to ban users who use ad-blockers.
They weren't allowed to before? I was unaware of any law explicitly banning media companies from doing this.

as a former vice writer, i agree. i don't even list it in my cv anymore.

>the EU’s European Commission even proposed a rule this week that would allow media companies to ban users who use ad-blockers.
good, so i won't give them klicks anymore.

Simple steps:
-don't use invasive ads/pop-ups and shit
-don't use shady ad networks that put fucking trojans and other malware in their ads you fucking mongoloid

I only block the ads on sites managed by stupid fucking morons that have 325234 ads that rape my browser that in turn rapes my processor and ram, and that flashes and pops everywhere and prevents me from being able to read anything, and tries to put malware on my machine while giving me a seizure.

If you manage a site and don't fucking pay attention to what the ad company you're using puts on your site, or if you put too many ads that are too intrusive, you simply deserve to die.

lol, you're kinda late
and they usually download behind the original image so it's hard to see.

>mfw living in a EU country which not only encourages blocking ads but also doesn't give a shit and encourages torrenting
Feels good not to be German or a Brit

arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/millions-exposed-to-malvertising-that-hid-attack-code-in-banner-pixels/
>Millions of people visiting mainstream websites over the past two months have been exposed to a novel form of malicious ads that embed attack code in individual pixels of the banners.

>Researchers from antivirus provider Eset said "Stegano," as they've dubbed the campaign, dates back to 2014. Beginning in early October, its unusually stealthy operators scored a major coup by getting the ads displayed on a variety of unnamed reputable news sites, each with millions of daily visitors. Borrowing from the word steganography—the practice of concealing secret messages inside a larger document that dates back to at least 440 BC—Stegano hides parts of its malicious code in parameters controlling the transparency of pixels used to display banner ads. While the attack code alters the tone or color of the images, the changes are almost invisible to the untrained eye.

>The malicious script is concealed in the alpha channel that defines the transparency of pixels, making it extremely difficult for even sharp-eyed ad networks to detect. After verifying that the targeted browser isn't running in a virtual machine or connected to other types of security software often used to detect attacks, the script redirects the browser to a site that hosts three exploits for now-patched Adobe Flash vulnerabilities.

>To execute the hidden payload, the malicious ads load a heavily modified version of Countly, an open-source package for measuring website traffic. That JavaScript extracts the hidden code out of the image and executes it. Because there's nothing per se malicious in the JavaScript, ad networks fail to detect what's happening. Referring to an ad located at hxxps://browser-defence.com/ads/s/index.html?w=160&h=600

servers aren't free though

it's not just about profit, it's about sustainability

>arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/millions-exposed-to-malvertising-that-hid-attack-code-in-banner-pixels/
>The ads promote applications calling themselves "Browser Defence" and "Broxu" and targeted people who visited the news sites using Internet Explorer browsers
IE strikes again

I would kek if it's because IE handles alpha channels in kernel mode or something

Never noticed the minimum bullshit

All I know is:
FUCK ADDS!

If youbelieve this you're really sucking corporate cock.
my company has a very busy website and its hosted on a 3$/month 500gbps VPS with a 8$/year domain name.
This is literally chump change a homeless person could raise with a cup in 15 minutes
The internet is basically free lad, the only thing that costs money is paying the "journalists" that are writing sponsored articles anyway.

fuck off you filthy communist

>I am entitled to the work of others

>disable ad blocker
>see millions of ads for stuff i won't buy anyways
literally creating money out of nowhere.

>website blocks you from visiting because you have ad-block
>read it anyways thanks to archive.is

>don't use shady ad networks that put fucking trojans and other malware in their ads you fucking mongoloid
Do non-shady ad networks even exist?

>but moooooom the free market is bankrupting my inefficient service in an over-over-saturated industry

protip: The sole reason why there are so many shitty """"""news"""""" websites who publish whatever the fuck they want without even reviewing it is because they have an artificial source of income that shouldn't exist in the first place. It's basically like taking a group of disfigured mice, helping them stay fed and well via artificial means (you handing out food they never earned), and letting those incapable mice reproduce and pollute the genepool - they weren't fucking meant to survive in the first place. It's the same with those websites - if they are incapable of providing daily content for which people would gladly pay a sub, then they fail to be competitive in the saturated market and should stop impairing its progress by stealing traffic from the websites who actually do manage to provide it.

For an example, for the financial news there are many good websites that are far superior to the free ones, like WSJ (zero ads, charges sub for the good articles). For political news, there is the ads-free and zero-propaganda Stratfor, which also provides far more detailed and well-researched news by people who actually know what they're talking about. Websites who revert to blocking adblockers or straight up lobbying the government to enact laws against them do not increase their quality, but continue to saturate the market, further damaging the profitability of the quality ones, damaging both them and any other potential quality news outlet that would charge a sub. They're basically amputees who demand to earn as much as non-amputee workers, and go into a childish and illogical rage once that doesn't happen.

Currently, the people who shill the hardest and post fake news win.

>I am entitled to the malware of others

>the EU’s European Commission even proposed a rule this week that would allow media companies to ban users who use ad-blockers.
Media companies can ban users for literally any reason or no reason whatsoever, what the fuck is this all about? I don't remember it being illegal to ban eutotrash from your site for no reason.

this. fuck these clickbait ads

>TV ads are the same cost as online ads
>product placement is cheap for a starting business

This guy.

I like how the question isn't, "How do we find better sources of revenue?" but rather it's, "How do we force people to watch ads?"

If I'm not, why do they keep offering it to me for free? Why do they keep their servers open and try to attract the largest number of people they can?

As I've said in the past, I wouldn't have a problem with ads as long as they were static images (no js, no flash, etc.), hosted by the site's own server, and/or the site displaying the ads had to take full liability for any scams or malware distributed via said ads.

If Google finds a way to permanently block adblockers i'm done with the internet. They're trying to turn it into the new cable television.

>they’re a revenue leech that needs to be pried off
Entitlement. It's like setting up a business and being outraged that you have to pay taxes. Being outraged that you don't get government grants to cover your startup costs or overheads.

You weren't forced to open a clickbait website. Several years ago people hosted websites for hobbies or as professional business websites, and they covered the costs themselves, and didn't rely on traffic ad clicks.

Why haven't ads grown out of scamming people into clicking them mentality? Even legit ads remind me of penis enlargement ads. I haven't seen someone complain about seeing electronic component ads on electronics forum (edaboard for example). But usually they're freaking irrelevant and worse intrusive or directly scams.

>tfw ad-blocking becomes a felony

You can get ublock on mobile firefox. They know that the mobile feeding frenzy isn't sustainable.

>rate of speed
>rip in peace
Speed is already a rate you moron, the only possible meaning of rate of speed would be acceleration, and from the context it's clear you weren't talking about that and nor is anyone else who says rate of speed. Fucking kill yourself.

Idea:

A program that runs in the background and whenever you're not actively using your computer it randomly chooses a popular website, crawls it, and clicks all ads it can find

Once a certain number of people use it, prices per click take a nosedive and advertising leeches are forced to change their tactics or retreat from advertising altogether

Of course it should do so via proxy or vpn or neighbour's wifi

I wonder what they think of users like me who use web browsers such as links2 or dillo that do not support JS.

They could just remove them from the Chrome store and 95% of desktop and non-iPhone internet users would suddenly don't use adblockers anymore.

I would also have absolutely zero problems simply eliminating 95% of internet websites today and just keep a few which are worth paying for to me. I think quality of life for lots of people would improve, including me.

Holy shit that's genius

I remember running my own adsense blog back in the day, and every time a newbie one came up that potentially threatened me with a similar blog (or if I simply hated him) I'd falseflag-click his ads via different proxies, getting him permanently banned from adsense. This stuff will DEVASTATE any ad-running website. Someone please code it, I'd gladly run it while sleeping

I don't mind ads. I mind shitty ads. The moment Hiro added these shitty new ads to Sup Forums I started blocking them. Stick to banners that don't come from an ad network that tracks my shit and I'll allow them.

If someone puts content on a physical billboard, I'm not obliged to read all of it.

Best fucking idea I've ever seen on Sup Forums, or Sup Forums, or many other places.

Someone do this. I would but don't know how to code. Have an option to select targets too.

Maybe you should use distributed systems instead of centralized shitheaps then.

Maddox is a one-man blog where he complains about stuff in a comedic way. That's not a business model. If he's making any money at all, he isn't exactly rolling in it. Probably just enough to pay for his page's bandwidth, which has been the same simple HTML since the late 90s.

It's very simple.

>Download an ad blocker.
>Have it block ads for every site you visit.
>Enable ads on sites you regularly visit and want to support.

Was that too fucking hard you retards?No I don't want to support cancerous sites with popups and intrusive/malware bait shit.

Already been done to some degree. It got banned from google.
adnauseam.io/