1. 63
  1.  

  2. 93
    • Every Major Criminal Organization Is Blasting Law Enforcement For Arresting Them
    • Every Major Vampire Coven Is Blasting Farmers For Growing Garlic
    1. 18

      “Garlic doesn’t kill vampires - vampire killers kill vampires”

      (disclaimer: I like garlic and I’m not a fan of vampires)

      1. 32

        “Look,” responded Count Seekowens, “while vampires may be annoying to some, our immortal lifespans bring with them a very long-term vision. We’ve been instrumental in keeping society stable and keeping violence down over the past several hundred years. Garlic threatens that stability.”

    2. 60

      This is ironically the best ad I could imagine on how effective the new ad blocking tech must be.

      1. 34

        In an open letter expected to be published this afternoon, the groups describe the new standards as “opaque and arbitrary,” warning that the changes could affect the “infrastructure of the modern internet” […]

        The tears I have are not of joy. Really. No, really. I just happens when I laugh a lot.

        1. 16

          Does sound like what we’ve been telling them all these years, eh? Should also increase battery time or life. Meanwhile, the mobile battery and utility companies are in boardrooms somewhere projecting significant losses. They’re coming up with their own plea to Apple.

        2. 18

          When ad-blocking was obscure, we could free-load off of the majority who fund services by viewing ads… now Apple is taking my free lunch! :/

          1. 18

            I clicked on the article. It came up and I started reading it. I didn’t get very far when the window turned black, and said I had to rotate the screen to view it “properly” on my phone. First, I’m not on a phone, thank you very much. Second, I’m on an iPad, using it in landscape mode because I’m using it as a laptop [1].

            Fine, I turn the iPad to portrait mode. Page loads with this #@%@#$@$ vertical ad, covering the article, with no way to dismiss it. Thank you so very much. Thank you so very much that I’m not going to read your sob story about how blocking ads will destroy the Internet.

            [1] No power. Using iPhone as hot spot. Still waiting for power company to restore power after Hurricane Irma.

            1. 5

              Upvoted for your honesty. That’s exactly what ad-blocking is. The malware reduction argument some respond with is bogus. If they were about paying for what they consume and didn’t like malware, they’d just not use the ad-supported services. Free shit rocks, though, right? ;)

              1. [Comment removed by author]

                1. 21

                  I worked at a streaming media company. A lot of our ads were supplied by brokers like Google. They were mostly harmless. Frequently, however, we’d get custom ads for special events (launch events for movies, TV shows, and games).

                  The code in the special-event ads was a disaster. If I could, I’d clean it up so that it still worked. Problem mostly mitigated.

                  However, in many of the embed snippets we’d receive the code was a script that would pull the real ad from the advertising company’s servers. Complete crap. Almost all of them would engage in some kind of DOM manipulation. If you didn’t isolate the ads they would break the layout.

                  The ad code would often try to include its own trackers for unique-visit tracking. Flash ads were very popular. So the companies would try page-takeover techniques to block everything and force you to view 15 seconds of crap. (And let’s not forget pop-over and pop-under ads.)

                  Very few companies were content with a simple image and an anchor tag to let the user follow-up for further information.

                  And that’s the chief problem with online ads. They try to be way too smart. Many want to interact with the user, or worse, “demand” you pay attention. Advertisers frequently have an attitude of “I paid for this, you’re going to give me some time.” They’ll say they just want to inform the public. But no. They want ROI.

                  And these are the “legit” advertisers. After that there are the skeezy “b” players (remember “X10”) who aren’t trying to rob you but are more like the used car salesman of the internet. Then there are the porn advertisers and lastly the purveyors of drive-by malware. This last group doesn’t even pay for ad space. They steal it.

                  And don’t forget the ad networks and information aggregators who want to build detailed dossiers about everyone (Google and Facebook are the most public of these). Who do you think invented persistent cookies?

                  No. Being suspicious of online advertising isn’t a sign of paranoia. It’s sensible.

                  1. 4

                    Why aren’t ads just regular websites served in an iframe? That way, their shitty code couldn’t break anything about your website. Each site could have their own ID, sent in a query parameter in the iframe URL, to track which websites provide impressions. The ad could still be as flashy and interactive as it wants. The ad’s code could be as shitty as it wanted, and it wouldn’t have a negative impact on any users.

                    1. 9

                      That would make sense, but many ad networks ban displaying ads in iframes because they can’t check the contextuality of the ad to the page the user sees. The ban also helps mitigate fraud. If the ad could only “see” the iframe around it, it would make it easy to load the ad via techniques as simple as using curl, to more sophisticated uses of multiple javascript xhr requests.

                      Google still ban it today (AdSense Policy FAQ). Common phrasing for this is “posting on a non-content page”.

                      The online advertising industry created the cesspool and now they’re whining that Apple, Google, Mozilla, and dozens of ad-blocking companies are trying to force them to clean-up.

                      On a related note, it might seem weird that Google would try to force better practices with Chrome when they make their money on advertising. But for the most part, Google run a pretty tight ship and force advertisers to adhere to some reasonable standards.

                      Weeding out the worst players keeps the ecosystem sustainable. The last thing Google want to see is an end to online advertising. And it doesn’t hurt their chances of winning more advertising dollars from the gap left by their departure.

                      1. 6

                        because they can’t check the contextuality of the ad to the page the user sees.

                        Well they can: IFrame “busters” have been available for a long time, and since the ad network is usually more trustworthy than the publisher (to the Advertiser anyway) they could provide an interface to look up the page the user is on well before location.ancestorOrigins (and generate errors if parent!=top).

                        Indeed most of the display networks used to do this – all of them except Google, and now AdSense has edged everyone who wants to do impressions out.

                        On a related note, it might seem weird that Google would try to force better practices with Chrome when they make their money on advertising. But for the most part, Google run a pretty tight ship and force advertisers to adhere to some reasonable standards.

                        Google is probably the worst thing to come to advertising and is responsible for more ad fraud and the rise of blocking crap JavaScript than any other single force.

                        Google will let you serve whatever you want as long as their offshore “ad quality team” sees an ad. Everyone just rotates it out after 100 impressions and Google doesn’t care because they like money.

                        Google still lets you serve a page as an iframe – even if it has ten ads on it. Buy one ad, sell ten. Easy arbitrage. Even better if you can get video to load (or at least the tracking to fire). This has been trivial to stop for a long time, but hey, Google likes money.

                        Googles advertising tools are amongst the worst in the world (slow, buggy, etc) and make it difficult to block robots, datacentres, businesses, etc. using basic functionality that other tools support.

                        What’s amazing is Google’s PR. So many people love Android, good search, that quirky movie about an Intern, the promise of self-driving cars, and so on, that they don’t educate themselves about how Google actually makes their money out of fleecing advertisers and pinching publishers.

                        1. 1

                          Iframe busting is a technique for content in the iframe to “bust out” and replace the page with itself. It’s primarily used for ad-takeover and to prevent clickjacking. It’s not a technique for accessing the DOM of the parent. Browser bugs aside, accessing the DOM of the parent requires the child have the same origin as the parent (or other assistance).

                          location.ancestorOrigins might not give the ad network or advertiser the contextual information they want if the page the user is viewing varies by status (guest, authenticated user, basic membership, premium membership).

                          It’s easier (and better for data gathering) for ad networks to demand they’re on the same page the user is viewing. Whether that’s a good thing for the end user probably doesn’t matter to many content providers as long as the ad network isn’t serving up malware (or causing other issues that might hurt the provider/user relationship).

                          In short, you want to monetize your site, you find a way to convince users to pay, or you get advertising which means you play by the ad-networks’ rules.

                          Google definitely has issues, but they’ve made it easy enough and, compared to their competitors, less problematic such that many content providers accept it.

                          1. 1

                            Iframe busting is a technique for content in the iframe to “bust out” and replace the page with itself. It’s primarily used for ad-takeover and to prevent clickjacking. It’s not a technique for accessing the DOM of the parent.

                            The same API ad servers provide to iframes for doing these rich media operations, also carry other capabilities, e.g. EyeBlaster’s _defaultDisplayPageLocation

                            Since (hypothetically) the ad network is more trustworthy than the publisher, this could have been used to trivially unmask naughty publishers.

                            The only reason I can come up with for the sell-side platforms not doing this is that they like money.

                            Google definitely has issues, but they’ve made it easy enough and, compared to their competitors, less problematic such that many content providers accept it.

                            They don’t really have any display/impression competitors for small sites anymore… although I’ve been thinking about making one.

                  2. 4

                    Well, I respect you for trying to avoid freeloading. I should also add I think it’s ethical for people to use ad blockers for security who otherwise avoid ad-supported site. Just trying to stop any sneaky stuff.

                    1. [Comment removed by author]

                      1. 2

                        That’s reasonable. Similar to AdBlocks Acceptable Ads where being obnoxious or sneaky is unacceptable but ads themselves are OK.

                  3. 5

                    I disagree with that viewpoint. It’s right up there with, “Our service would be secure if people would just stop requesting these specific URLs.”

                    I just don’t see ad-blocking as freeloading. It doesn’t make any sense to pay for something when there’s an equally good free alternative.

                    I’m a happy paying customer of GitHub, Fastmail, SmugMug, Amazon Prime, Flickr, Netflix, and probably some services I’m forgetting. At the same time, I’m not stupid, and I’m not going to be annoyed and look at ads.

                    1. 1

                      ““Our service would be secure if people would just stop requesting these specific URLs.””

                      It’s certainly not. Managing the risk your product or service has for consumers is totally different than getting a good you know is ad-supported, has ads built-in by default, and stripping the benefit to the other party while enjoying the content. They’ve put work into something you enjoyed and a way to be compensated for it. You only put work into removing the compensation.

                      “ It doesn’t make any sense to pay for something when there’s an equally good free alternative.”

                      I agree. I then make the distinction of whether I’m doing it in a way that benefits the author (ads, patreonage, even a positive comment or thanks) or just me at their expense since they didn’t legally stop me. I’m usually a pirate like most of the Internet in that I surf the web with an ad blocker. I’m against ad markets and I.P. law, too broke to donate regularly, and favor paid/privacy-preserving alternatives where possible (i.e. my Swiss email). When I get past financial issues, I’ll be using donations for stuff where possible. I still do that occasionally. Meanwhile, you won’t catch me pretending like I’m not freeloading off the surveillance profiles of others on top of whatever they have on me.

                      1. 6

                        These anti-adblock sentiments seem to always assume the content creator will get paid if I don’t block the ads. But that assumes that either (1) they get paid by impression – which is vanishingly rare or (2) I would click on ads, which I won’t blocked or not.

                        1. 1

                          Now that’s a good counter worth thinking about. It still fits into my overall claim of freeloading, though.

                    2. 2

                      Mostly it doesn’t which is why most of the time I don’t bother to look for ways to pay for it. But setting aside vast majority of websites where I might visit only once or twice why should I go out of my way to avoid sites that don’t offer any (to me) reasonable way of paying for them?

                      From practical point of view using ad-blocker I don’t even know about most websites approach to monetisation if there is one. I do bail on those that notify me about my ad-blocking which I guess is ethical in your book?

                      For what is worth I do pay for a bunch of online services, few patrons and sponsor/subscribe to a couple of news media organisations.

                      1. 2

                        why should I go out of my way to avoid sites that don’t offer any (to me) reasonable way of paying for them?

                        A good point. The authors concerned with money should at least have something set up to receive easy payments with a credit card or something. If they make it hard to pay them, the fault is partly on them when they don’t get paid.

                    3. 3

                      While I agree content needs to be paid for in some manner - network ads use a not insignificant amount of bandwidth which I pay for on my mobile data allowance and at home through my ISP. The infrastructure costs of advertising, and spam email are not all bourne by the producers of that content. From my perspective the advertisers are not funding the content that I want…

                      1. 1

                        Well, that’s interesting. I can relate on trying to keep the mobile bill down. It still falls in with freeloading where you don’t agree to offer back what they expect in return for their content. Yet, it’s a valid gripe which might justify advertisers choosing between getting ads blocked or something like progressive enhancement for ads. They offer text, a pic, and/or video with what people see determined by whether a browser setting indicates they have slow or expensive Internet. So, they always serve something but less bandwidth is used when less is available.

                    4. 11

                      And they don’t even block visible ads. I think if they just hid visible ads but allowed cookies, “advertising groups” wouldn’t be that upset, because showing ads became secondary in “adtech”, and tracking is primary.

                      1. 8

                        Part of me seriously wonders if this is Apple playing privacy advocate, or if this is Apple playing Google hunter.

                        Also, super cookies anyone?

                        1. 13

                          Part of me seriously wonders if this is Apple playing privacy advocate, or if this is Apple playing Google hunter.

                          I mean, yes? Both things are certainly concerns of Apple’s, and any distance than can put between themselves and the attention economy is good for them long term.

                          1. 3

                            any distance than can put between themselves and the attention economy is good for them long term.

                            Is this true of every company, or a statement about Apple specifically?

                            That is, is the attention economy a race-to-the-bottom kind of thing that no company should want to be a part of? Or are you saying this is a smart strategy to boost Apple’s market share among the privacy-minded? Or that Apple is in a unique position to dictate industry trends, and that getting close to ad companies will somehow dilute that power?

                            1. 8

                              Apple makes money by selling its goods and services to the people who use their phones. This is good in two ways; it aligns their interests and those of their customers, and also allows their users to exert market pressure on them. Making obvious the incentive misalignment between Google’s users and Google is obviously a tactic they are in a unique position to use.

                              1. 1

                                As a die hard Android user these sort of features make me wish Google wanted me to have the best phone possible, not “a tracking device that also happens to have phone features I can use”.

                                1. 2

                                  I got an Android phone for work (a Pixel) and it’s very nice, but yeah, there’s that all-enveloping sense that everything is working towards getting my personal information in from of advertisers all the time, even as the side-effect of that creeping is genuinely useful.

                          2. 4

                            My first thought was that this is a way to push facebook and google’s heads underwater a bit. It’s also fairly standard contrarian market positioning.

                            1. 3

                              google went evil. they’re open season.

                            2. 8

                              I tried to read the article but a full page ad blocked things.

                              Maybe I should have been using safari.

                              1. 6

                                I worked in online advertising for a long time, and I met a lot of small publishers who rely on ad revenue for their livelihood. I’m not making a judgEment call about if ads are good/bad or on ad supported sites/services, but objectively stopping ads working will put small publishers at the margin out of business. (Personally I think the best approach is to make sure that your favourite small ‘free’ things are sustainable)

                                1. 13

                                  Also having worked in advertising for years, these smaller publishers were never making enough money through ads to begin with. CPCs/CPMs are pitiful for these little guys, as the big networks play all the favors for the bigger guys. You would need millions of eyeballs on your content each month to make it worth it, and that typically requires (ironically) a lot of marketing.

                                  1. 1

                                    CPC is really not a good model for blogs and content because it incentivises users to leave.

                                2. 6

                                  I’ve been using Brave browser for a few months.

                                  The problem is not the ads, and not the cookies.

                                  The problem is ubiquitous JavaScript tracking that consumes most of the CPU long after the page has finished loading.

                                  I don’t really care all that much with being tracked or receiving targeted ads.

                                  I do care that I don’t have to wait a few seconds for the website to unfreeze, or for the scrolling to work smoothly.

                                  It sounds like what Safari will be doing is a simple inconvenience to the developers and some users with obscure workflows, and, surprise, more JavaScript usage to detect and workaround these limitations (remember, it’ll be dozens of vendors working around this on each page on their own at the same time).

                                  I don’t use Brave to block the ads or cookies. I use it to easily block event-driven JavaScript tracking to get my web performance, CPU-temperature and battery-life back.

                                  1. 5

                                    I wonder how much more content will be pushed behind paywalls because of this.

                                    1. 5

                                      First order thought: Maybe this will drive a lot of content behind paywalls.

                                      Second order thought: Maybe this will kill off a lot of the extreme left/right publications that are inflaming American passions at the moment.

                                      OR

                                      Maybe it will drive traditional media behind paywalls and leave click-happy, sensationalist media with lower budgets, but more eyes. (Now with 50% less fact checking!)

                                      1. 4

                                        Extremist media don’t seem to have much trouble raising funds from rich benefactors domestic and foreign. See: Sheldon Adelson’s Israeli newspapers, Mercer family’s investments in Breitbart, etc.

                                    2. 5

                                      On the one hand, I hate what online advertising has become. On the other hand, I really like that I can browse 99% of the web without having to directly pay anything. Bandwidth and hosting and writing code all costs money, and I’d prefer that I didn’t have to pay $0.002 every time I loaded up Reddit or whatever.

                                      1. 3

                                        The points they outline are exactly why I want this technology.

                                        1. 3

                                          Considering that this is supposed to be such a big deal where are the other browsers (Firefox, Chrome/Chromium, Edge?) on blocking 3rd party cookies?

                                          1. 1

                                            At this point in time, all of the major browsers support blocking third-party cookies. Google is even

                                            testing an ad blocker within Chrome that could be used more broadly by next year.

                                            1. 4

                                              an advertising company is the last thing i trust to implement an ad blocker.

                                          2. 2

                                            “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” — Franklin D Roosevelt

                                            1. 1

                                              How do I stay logged on without cookies?

                                              1. 6

                                                The article is about cross-website tracking cookies, not same-site cookies.

                                              2. 1

                                                It is worse for advertisers that what implied in the text. The third party cookies are not at all stored for top level domain that users don’t interact a month long not a single day. reference: https://webkit.org/blog/7675/intelligent-tracking-prevention/