Let me know when you can't inject malware via ads....
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
I didn't mind having a couple of static ads on a page. But now it's so much. So many dynamic ads, autoplaying videos, popups asking you to sign up to a newsletter, etc. No thanks.
I wouldn't mind unobtrusive ads targeted to the content of the page being viewed -but that doesn't happen. Modern ad networks all work on surveillance, and are indistinguishable from what we used to call "spyware". I have avoided spyware since the 90s.
I honestly wouldn't care if you put your mattress ad on a web page I'm reading about mattresses. I might even click on it!
AdBlocker is the one who should get the Nobel Peace prize.
Only a billion. Need to quintuple that.
GOOD. most people wouldn't care about blocking ads if they werent so keen on shoving them down your throat ever harder.
This is easily solved by not using 3rd parties and tracking data for ads. If the ad was just part of the page (similar to an ad in the newspaper) then ad blockers would not be able to detect them at all. A YouTuber saying "before we get started, this video is sponsored by [relevant related company]" does not get blocked by ad blockers.
However, in order to do that websites would be responsible for the ads they display. If they don't do their due diligence they won't be able to pass it off as "we're not responsible for it, it's our ad company that put it there." They don't want to be responsible for the ads they show, but they want you to be responsible for the ads you don't watch.
A YouTuber saying "before we get started, this video is sponsored by [relevant related company]" does not get blocked by ad blockers.
Well, there's sponsor block which uses crowd sourced timestamps to skip those segments, but yeah you're right.
what is with p.i.p video everywhere. hate it. can't figure out how to block it. firefox
Sites are lazy and greedy. They throw dozens and dozens of 3rd party javascripts into their headers, that punish and annoy people for not using an ad blocker - they slow the site down, bloat the memory, consume energy, track the user and festoon the page with garbage. As soon as people hear that an ad blocker is a thing, then of course they leap at the chance of using one.
It would be straightforward for sites to insert ads into their content - make the ad urls, images and links indistinguishable from actual content. i.e. serve them up from the same domain, from non predictable paths and use html structure where ads and content are intermingled. Even if an adblocker wanted to block the ads, there are no patterns that work and every single site would require different rules. But that requires effort. I suppose we should be glad that sites don't do it.
Ads on websites are deals the sitemaker made with themselves. The internet is free.
I actually like how people are again on the wave of understanding that anarchism is right even if you've voluntarily consented to hierarchy. And other similar things.
Sometimes you need to break rules. Entropy and life are more important.