Facebook has figured out how to circumvent ad blockers

[Nobina]

I'm the one they want to conform

No they don't. They offer a service. If you don't like the service, you are free not to use it.

They are the ones with a business model that apparently doesn't work

You are incorrect. It works well. They want to make sure it continues to work well.

I don't care how they conform as long as they accept the fact I'm not going to view their ads if I have a choice.

They have accepted the fact but have rejected giving you a billion dollar service for free. If you have a better way that people will love and flock to, whats stopping you from starting a "cliffbook"? Can you do this service for free? Or would you have to make money somehow? If not ads, how would you make money?

The whole point of facebook is to get as many people on it as possible, that's why it's free, that's their business model. And now you come and say that they are not trying to do everything to get us hooked. Imagine they don't care if we use their site or not, they would fail miserably.

Their site their rules? If Kim from North Korea decides to execute a bunch of people for no reason it's OK because his country his rules, right?

Also, facebook collects all of your data so it's not exactly free. Thats also part of their business plan. Now please take your 13 year old brain elsewhere.

 

[fktech]

I never buy based on interned adds. NEVER!!! I avoid sited that are in your face advertising or require you to watch something before you view the content. Internet was meant to be free. Too many free resources besides the internet to be annoyed by either paid content or in your face ~book advertising web sites.

Oh and I'll pay for the ad blocker before I will pay for content...

And I time shift TV with TiVo so I don't have to watch all those annoying ads too.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Pfft. They changed the ads so they are not blocked? It too bad ad blockers dont have a built in tool to block anything they dont catch by default....

Oh wait.

Facebook can complain all they want. Once they take responsibility, host their ads internally and make sure they are verified to not link to malware, and get rid of the autoplaying and video ads, then we'll talk.

And that goes for every website. If you are so dependent on that money, maybe you should have hosted those ads internally rather then farming them out to a third party that then gets infected and spreads malware through your site. After that happened, I'm never NOT using an ad blocker again. Websites can go cry in a corner.

 

[Rippleman]

The whole point of facebook is to get as many people on it as possible, that's why it's free, that's their business model. And now you come and say that they are not trying to do everything to get us hooked. Imagine they don't care if we use their site or not, they would fail miserably.

Their site their rules? If Kim from North Korea decides to execute a bunch of people for no reason it's OK because his country his rules, right?

Also, facebook collects all of your data so it's not exactly free. Thats also part of their business plan. Now please take your 13 year old brain elsewhere.

You are one lost individual. You know, techspot has ads... are you blocking them? Do you think they should shut down? The size of entitlement with your generation is staggering.

 

[Rippleman]

Pfft. They changed the ads so they are not blocked? It too bad ad blockers dont have a built in tool to block anything they dont catch by default....

Oh wait.

Facebook can complain all they want. Once they take responsibility, host their ads internally and make sure they are verified to not link to malware, and get rid of the autoplaying and video ads, then we'll talk.

And that goes for every website. If you are so dependent on that money, maybe you should have hosted those ads internally rather then farming them out to a third party that then gets infected and spreads malware through your site. After that happened, I'm never NOT using an ad blocker again. Websites can go cry in a corner.

So, do you support techspot? Do you block their ads? Why are you here using their service if you don't agree with how they make their money?

 

[Rippleman]

I'm the one they want to conform, they are the ones pushing ads. They are the ones with a business model that apparently doesn't work, or they wouldn't be screaming about it. I don't care how they conform as long as they accept the fact I'm not going to view their ads if I have a choice.

So, do you block techspot ads and use their site?

 

[ziffel66]

Jesus, Rippleman, do you work in the ad industry or something. You're like a rabid watchdog.

 

[CrazedLeper]

The article defines bad advertisements as "video ads that auto-play with the volume enabled, those for products you have zero interest in, ads that slow down page load times or ads that otherwise take away from the experience have a negative effect on non-intrusive ads that display products or services that you might actually be interested in."

The "bad" in advertising is not limited to mode of delivery. Advertisements, can be decent, but those are rare. On the whole, advertisements are racist and dishonest (to varying degrees of subtlety), and generally insulting to my considerable intellect. *I* don't want ANY advertisements before my face, and my interest in any given topic does not translate to advertisers' right to access to my sensibilities.

When I was (much) younger, I found advertisements to be entertaining. So much so, that I actually thought that I might want to enter the business. By happenstance, I ended up working for an advertising agency. I was still fairly young, and I only worked there a few weeks, so I didn't really learn anything about the business other than that they rely on a lot of large books full of numbers. That's all we are to them--a lot of numbers. That, however, wasn't the problem.

As I continued to grow, learn and dig, I found that I was able to reverse engineer the principles of advertising. It's an extremely insidious concept. For those 6 or 7 Bible readers out there, Refer to Genesis 3:1-5 for the world'd first commercial; all the principles are there. For the rest--continue to enjoy your blissful ignorance while the devil makes a playground of your mind.

 

[Rippleman]

Jesus, Rippleman, do you work in the ad industry or something. You're like a rabid watchdog.

I enjoy these "free sites" based on the fact they are supported by ads. What these numbskulls don't understand it that, by blocking the ads, you are "sneaking into the movie theater without paying"... which hurts the system. Example: I offer you a service and you pay X amount. If you receive the service and don't pay me, that's a scam. The makers of this site and other sites (like facebook), have an implied deal.. "if you want to view our site, we make it possible with you viewing our ads". Some people just don't get it that if everyone had "adblocker", most every free site on the web (guessing 80% of the web) would just close.


Logic should be enforceable by law.

 

[DAOWAce]

After being having been compromised from an infected ad on a website I trusted, I turned to adblocking to permanently remove any ad from the internet.

I go out of my way to block ads, and cease using services that somehow find a way to circumvent them, or do absolutely disgusting things (see: ad.fly).

Zero tolerance.

The only ads I'll ever accept are text based ones like google adwords. Everything else will be blocked.

Unless there's some mandate that bans non-text ads, adblock software will continue to be prevalent.

 

[cliffordcooley]

So, do you block techspot ads and use their site?

You are wasting your time. @Julio Franco knows I use an adblocker without white listing any sites. The topic has come up many times. He has access to the ban hammer any time he wishes. Content will be available regardless of which sites live or die. You obviously don't care how trashy the Internet becomes as long as people can monetize through ads. I don't support ads and I don't support your opinion that they should exist.

 

[Rippleman]

You are wasting your time. @Julio Franco knows I use an adblocker without white listing any sites. The topic has come up many times. He has access to the ban hammer any time he wishes. Content will be available regardless of which sites live or die. You obviously don't care how trashy the Internet becomes as long as people can monetize through ads. I don't support ads and I don't support your opinion that they should exist.

I do not know who this Julio guy is that you speak of. It was a question to see if you admit that you freeload on techspots dime. Is this a life style trait of yours in general? Using without paying?

 

[cliffordcooley]

I do not know who this Julio guy is

He is Administration of Techspot.

 

[Rippleman]

He is Administration of Techspot.

Why do you feel entitled to use techspots service at their cost?

 

[cliffordcooley]

Why do you feel entitled to use techspots service at their cost?

I don't and when their services are no longer available for free, I will either pay or go elsewhere. There are more ways to monetize than ads alone. You don't seem to get that. This conversation between us is over.

 

[EClyde]

But, if there was no money, there ALSO wouldn't be another Sally. I am always amazed at how your generation things everything should be free for you.

What's "My Generation"

 

[Rippleman]

What's "My Generation"

entitlement

 

[Yarrow]

First I find it ironic that I sign in to this site with facebook and I hate facebook... However having said that, I use an ad blocker, recently visiting a site that I enjoyed they asked that I turn off my ad blocker. Giving them the benefit of the doubt since I enjoyed their content I white listed the site, and their ads hung my browser. Ads have gotten out of hand. With most of the content on a page being ads and they take 75% of the time to load I can only bear surfing with an ad blocker... The content providers are the problem here... I must also note I pay Patreon for those site I like that have it and I pay for Hulu even tho I did not mind their commercials.

 

[Yarrow]

Why do you feel entitled to use techspots service at their cost?

I don't and when their services are no longer available for free, I will either pay or go elsewhere. There are more ways to monetize than ads alone. You don't seem to get that. This conversation between us is over.

I never thought I would ever agree with Mr Cooley on anything but I really do agree on this...

 

[Rippleman]

I never thought I would ever agree with Mr Cooley on anything but I really do agree on this...

So, freeload while you can (until the service closes) then move on to the next company to freeload off of (until they also close)? Sounds like cancer.

 

[Makson]

I quit using Facebook for many years. I even stated I wouldn't go back. Eventually I was persuaded to log in again by a gaming guild I was participating in. The first time I am annoyed by an ad I will stop logging in again. I don't browse the Internet to be annoyed by some *******s ad. Paying each other to display ads, gets nothing accomplished. Learn to make a living without annoying people, and quit whining when people choose not to see your ****.

how do propose a company to make money while giving you the service for free? get real.

YOU are the unreal person, do some research, Facebook are paid by everyone who logs in, EXTRA money is paid with advertising.
Advertising is a disease, spread by greedy scum and the ads are NEVER truthful because the products NEVER perform as advertised, look at a McDonalds hamburger ad, then purchase one, it looks like a sad mess compared to the ad!

I will pay a subscription or donate to any site to remove ads because everone deserves payment for their work, including TECHSPOT.

 

[Rippleman]

YOU are the unreal person, do some research, Facebook are paid by everyone who logs in, EXTRA money is paid with advertising.
Advertising is a disease, spread by greedy scum and the ads are NEVER truthful because the products NEVER perform as advertised, look at a McDonalds hamburger ad, then purchase one, it looks like a sad mess compared to the ad!

I will pay a subscription or donate to any site to remove ads because everone deserves payment for their work, including TECHSPOT.

1) So, do you pay techspot?
2) if not, do you allow ads?
3) If you do not pay techspot and do not allow ads, then you freeload their service?

What about other site you use? If they do NOT offer ad free service, do you simply not use them?

 

[GirlDownunder]

Half of these anti-ad-blocking schemes are scripts designed to detect which files haven't been loaded after a certain time delay, and then call up a "You're running an ad-blocker" frame. Ironically there are now anti-anti-ad-blockers designed to block such ad-block detection scripts from running. And on it goes... Likewise, "changing the signifiers that blockers use to detect if something is an ad or not" probably just means they're calling the ad images files something a little less obvious than adserver/ads/garbageadvert.jpg

As for Facebook, I've never actually used it. I have however, had to put up with Facebook trackers and stupid frames filled with strangers faces I'm supposed to "befriend" for no reason inserted into 3rd party websites despite not agreeing to that anywhere...

Is Facebook justified in trying to protect its revenue stream or are they going too far? Do you use an ad blocker? If so, what suggestions would you give to sites that use ads to pay their employees and provide you content? Would you rather pay a small monthly fee in exchange for an ad-free experience like Hulu offers its customers?

They're certainly justified, but it's like TV - they stuff more and more ads in and those commercial breaks creep up from 10m to over 22m per hour, then people start recording everything and skipping the ads. Then people get used to doing it by default and despite the "it isn't fair" complaints by the broadcasters, there's no going back. The only real solution is for advertisers to have better self-control & self-awareness in the first place, but that ship sailed decades ago...

As for suggestions, the main one for me is "keep the content original, and the ads "non-hostile" (no animations, audio, flash, video, trackers, low-CPU usage (battery friendly), etc). As far as tech sites are concerned, if there's some interesting articles not available elsewhere, that reinforces the value of the website a hell of a lot more than endless copy / paste news headlines.

Funnily enough, growing up in the late 60's- early 70's, the ads shown were actually entertaining, catchy, & made you "want to" watch them. Maybe they just need to work on ads that aren't so loud, vulgar, & in-your-face awful?

 

[Julio Franco]

Some heated arguments in the last week regarding ad blocking.

Some of you have asked for it so here is TechSpot's official stance on ad blocking. Your feedback is appreciated.

https://www.techspot.com/community/topics/techspots-stance-on-ad-blocking.229045/

 

[Yynxs]

I don't object to advertising. I object to tracking. The business model these web pages, and now the US government web sites, is built on, is stuff for the web site owner as long as I (the user) can be tracked and my privacy owned and sold by someone else. If this was your home and the only way to use the phone was to open all your windows 24/7, so others could watch you eat, sleep, have sex, and then sell you food, beds, and contraceptives or toys, the outcry would be horrendous by anyone older than 9. Instead Googlization has made this close quarter inspection effrontery 'normal' in digital communication.

There is a way to present advertising and not track, but that requires more and constant work from web site owners and loss of control by Google, et al. It's not going to happen because the pennies for the web site are billions for Google.

Because the users have been 'normalized' into accepting this 'necessary evil', there is even a controversy in front of the FCC because internet service, being paid for by the user, is not generating enough profit for the service providers. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-338679A2.pdf and, thank God, Wheeler doesn't seem to be backing down.

"The statement "Wheeler also believes that “When consumers sign up for Internet service, they shouldn’t have to sign away their right to privacy.” Although he admitted that many websites today track and store the same kind of information about their customers, he also thinks we have a choice in using those websites. We do not have such choice when looking for an ISP." (bold added) (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/fcc-privacy-protections-isp-tracking,31541.html)

I have a choice with Facebook and I don't use it precisely because of its tracking and privacy invasion. I buy online constantly and occasionally from web ads hard embedded in web sites without script linking: a)because I want the product, b)because it supports the web site. I don't use Google obviously, but equally I don't buy products from sites where the only way to obtain it is through Google or its locked purveyors. In real terms, that translates to about $9,500 or so last year that Google didn't have anything to do with, and yes I checked.

Not that much in scheme of things, but time will tell if others can make the choice on where and from whom they buy based on whether someone is spying on them.