Web lists-archives.com

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon




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
general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general