Axel Springer Goes After iOS 9 Ad Blockers In New Legal Battlle (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Germany's Axel Springer, owner of newspapers like Bild and Die Welt, is pursuing legal action against the developers of Blockr, an ad blocker for iOS 9. Techcrunch reports: "In October, Axel Springer forced visitors to Bild to turn off their ad blockers or pay a monthly fee to continue using the site. Earlier this month, the publisher reported the success of this measure, saying that the proportion of readers using ad blockers dropped from 23% to the single digits when faced with the choice to turn off the software or pay. 'The results are beyond our expectations,' said Springer chief exec Mathias Döpfner at the time. 'Over two-thirds of the users concerned switched off their adblocker.' He also noted that the Bild.de website received an additional 3 million visits from users who could now see the ads in the first two weeks of the experiment going live."

Comments

Don't evolve your business model

[OrangeTide]

Litigate instead!

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[AHuxley]

It will be interesting to see what a user is allowed to run on their own computer in their home when connecting to a site on the internet :)

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[fustakrakich]

Hey, whatever works... This is the system we built.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[TWX]

And users that are tired of browser hijacks and computer security intrusions will continue to block "ads" forever.

Fool me once, shame on you.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Mashiki]

Well, the lame excuse about intrusive ads does not apply here, according to TFS. Either pay a subscription fee and eliminate ads or view ads. I guess most freeloaders don't want to pay for the subscription or view ads.

Sure it does. A lot of people wouldn't mind the ads if they're not going to hijack their machine and would turn off adblocking software. But the content that said sites offer, do not promote a persons desire to pay for it. Especially since large numbers of news services simply use wire content to fill out their pages. That site in question doesn't offer any unique content that people can't find elsewhere.

The business model is broken, because companies don't want to take responsibility for the ads. And users are refusing ads, because they're the most common source of machine hijacking.

Re: Don't evolve your business model

[Anonymous Coward]

Precious little, in a while. There's more and more support to the idea that any device to be connected to the internet will have to be"audited" for "potentially harmful" software and "certified" by "authorities". I know it sounds unacceptable right now but give it time and everybody will simply shrug and say "it's for our own safety and besides, what can we do?"

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[mwvdlee]

You mean evolve to a paid subscription model or such?
Because that would be completely novel for a newspaper!
Also; they're still using that business model.

Any ideas as to the direction in which they should evolve?

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[aaaaaaargh!]

I have no problems with subscription fees. I just don't subscribe to them. So?

Re: Don't evolve your business model

[Kjella]

Precious little, in a while. There's more and more support to the idea that any device to be connected to the internet will have to be"audited" for "potentially harmful" software and "certified" by "authorities". I know it sounds unacceptable right now but give it time and everybody will simply shrug and say "it's for our own safety and besides, what can we do?"

I heard pretty much the exact same thing when the "I love you" virus was making the rounds, just saying...

Re: Don't evolve your business model

[Anonymous Coward]

The little difference is that back then there was no way to implement it. Now? Amnesty period, give up all your PCs, you get a nice locked down tablet or such as a replacement. They even back up your data for you free of charge. But you can never own a general purpose computer anymore. With the widespread shift to tablets and smartphones, there will be little to no resistance and what can a bunch of hobbyists and nerds to against the might of the government and industry combined? "But programming is my hobby!" you will cry. They will answer "find yourself another hobby." And that will be it.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[reboot246]

For people who read the site regularly those two choices are fine, but for those who might visit the site only three or four times a year, ad blocking seems to be the only choice.

There are a lot of news sites that I visit only a handful of times a year. I'll be damned if I pay for access when I rarely use it.

Re: Don't evolve your business model

[Anonymous Coward]

How very odd it is, the number of "we're all sheep, all helpless, don't even try to change things" -type posts that there are when it comes to gov't and big business interests. And how many are AC too.
Almost as if it's ... something done deliberately.
No. Surely it can't be.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[dwillden]

It does still apply. For regular readers of a site a subscription may apply. But far more readers come following shared links. For those readers a subscription is not worth it. If advertisers would show some responsibility about their ads the demand for adblockers would not be as high. Get rid of the autoplay videos and animated ads, get rid of the interstitial's that pop up on top of the page, requiring those on mobile devices to try to scroll around to find the tiny x to close it. A few ads splitting up the text (as long as it's not requiring a new page load for every other paragraph.) are tolerable, as are banners at the top and bottom as long as they don't interfere with scrolling and navigation.

These businesses go after the ad-blockers yet refuse to acknowledge that it's their behaviors and the ads they allow that inspire blockers.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[AmiMoJo]

I imagine that the argument will be copyright infringement by the app developer. Taking the Bild web site, making some changes to it and then presenting it to the user in exchange for the $0.99 price of the app. Essentially they see it as taking a copy of their free newspaper, cutting the ads out with scissors and selling it on for a profit.

Of course, it's a stupid argument. The web doesn't work that way. They could replace their web site with a PDF and maybe have the beginnings of a point, but HTML is not designed to provide a fixed rending on screen or printout. It's a mark-up language, and the browser interprets it depending on the user's preferences. For example, when printing it might remove background images to save ink. It might invest colours or increase contrast and font size for the visually impaired.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[murdocj]

It's not about what you are "permitted to run". The question is whether users can access content in a way that deprives the content creator of any source of revenue. It's not some horrible crime that a company isn't going to give away their content completely for free, anymore than it's a crime that most people would like compensation for doing work.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[drinkypoo]

Of course, it's a stupid argument. The web doesn't work that way.

Even if you had a third-party server doing the ad removal it shouldn't work that way, because you are permitted to transfer modified copies of copyrighted works so long as you transfer all copies, modified or not, when you transfer the original.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[ThosLives]

No, that's not really the question; it's just posed that way to incite an emotional response.

I do agree that companies are under no obligation to provide websites for free. However, if a company does provide a website, I don't feel there is any reasonable assumption that someone visiting a site will request any particular resource or follow any particular link on that website. So crying foul if someone visits a site but doesn't request some ad resource is a little disingenuous.

If a site really wants either a subscription or ad-supported model that is fine, but don't scream if you are willing to respond to an HTTP request and people make that HTTP request.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[beerbear]

... because you are permitted to ...

It's not even clear which country's law applies. General statements like that are most certainly wrong.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[beerbear]

Have to eat my own words. German court, so probably German law.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[kbonin]

Exactly this. Unless the advertising industry can 100% guarantee safety or warrant and accept 100% liability for repair of systems infected by drive-by exploits, I'll block ads. And due to overly complex systems implemented by too many poor coders and poorly tested leading to a never ending stream of 0-day attacks, this won't end. Google is making noise about trying, but its too late...

Re: Don't evolve your business model

[Oligonicella]

The foil, it is wrapped around this one.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Merk42]

He did evolve the business model. He offered the option to remove ads for a monthly fee.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[squiggleslash]

...which according to TFS is an overwhelming success which raises the question why are they suing?

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Mashiki]

What exactly is the business model for "gimme gimme gimme"? Adblockers have existed before all the JavaScript tracking. Even if it were a simple static image you'd bitch that it was take bandwidth, and even if it were just text you'd bitch it was taking up space on your monitor.
Tracking is just a scape-goat, the real issue is people are self-entitled and too used to getting things 'for free'.

Well first, you can put down the weed. Second, you can then realize that my comment didn't have anything to do with tracking. That, is something completely different.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Merk42]

What exactly do you mean by 'hijacking' then?

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Dutch Gun]

I never voluntarily turned off Slashdot's ads previously. I used to run no-script, but now that every page requires Javascript to work, I ended up removing it and replacing it with an ad-blocker. Why? It's 100% safety driven. You see how infected ads are the prime way of infecting computers (straight Javascript is pretty safe these days), and since my computer is critically important to my work as an independent contractor, I just can't risk it.

For many years I lived without Flash-related content, because it was such a dangerous vector as well. I had to give up content from at least one site I really enjoyed watching, because it was only offered via Flash video. I was actually able to recently re-install it because it now can be selectively enabled (I have to click explicitly to run), so I can control it and prevent a random Flash ad with malware from infecting my machine.

Maybe other people blocked ads because of bandwidth and annoyance. I can only speak for myself. For me, it was purely a safety issue. The fact that the web is generally less annoying, loads faster, and looks better... well... that's just a bonus, I guess?

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[edtice1559]

So people block ads because they are so concerned about security. But then when faced with the choice of turning off the ad blocker or paying money, they turn it off. I don't see how we can say that these users care about security. Also 'hijacking' isn't an issue on iOS devices. If you could successfully do this, the bounty is US $1 Million. You wouldn't drive-by install a root kit on the devices, you'd just take the reward. Ad blocking on iOS makes sense to save bandwidth but even then only if you are on a metered connection. It doesn't save anything on WiFi except annoyance. The choice offered here seems reasonable. View the ad, pay money, or go away. The fact that people overwhelmingly view the ads is a pretty solid piece of evidence that the world isn't how many of us wish it to be.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Mashiki]

What else do you call a PC/cell/laptop/tablet that has malware installed and becomes a part of a botnet?

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Merk42]

When does that actually, and more importantly, deliberately by the web site, happen?

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[KGIII]

While true there's the caveat as you're utilizing property, namely a computer, that doesn't belong to you. I'm of the mind that they're free to say that I can't access their site unless I disable my adblocking software. It's their property and they should be able to set the terms and conditions for accessing that property. I am, of course, free to abide by those choices or simply press the back button.

Much like they've no right to force you to run code, you've no right to access their property without their permission. If their permission requires the ability to run code on your machine then your answer should (or could) be to simply not visit. If you don't like their terms, do not use their site. It's pretty simple, really.

If enough people don't visit then they'll either do as you suggest - adapt their model or users will accept their terms. If you can't accept their terms then, by all means, don't use their product. If you're using their product without adhering to their terms then maybe you are violating the law and maybe litigation is required. If I tell you that you can come into my house but you can't steal my silverware then you should adhere to those rules. If you don't then I'm likely to ask you to leave. If you insist on entering my house and stealing my silverware then I have a right to seek legal redress.

Optionally, if your goal is to acquire silverware, don't do it at my house. Or, you know, find a house where they'll let you take their silverware (but it's not really stealing it - if they've given permission). I guess, in the real world, I'd probably just buy you a set of silverware if you didn't have any but, frankly, I think that this tortured analogy is best off dead at this point.

I use adblocking software. I have since the very early days of the WWW. If a site doesn't like it then I either turn it off (unusual) or I leave (typical). I also control what scripts I allow and disallow. If a site tells me that I can not do so then I do not do so. It is their property to decide and my property to decide. I've no right to their content and they've no right to my machine. What we do have is the ability to make decisions as to what we'll allow and disallow. Some folk decide to allow it all, some to allow none, and I prefer to make a choice based on the site, my desire for the content, and how much permission they're asking for.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[KGIII]

You are not necessarily permitted to do so. I can not, for example, take a book and modify it a little bit and then transfer copies of it even if I include the original. It's rather subjective and it's hard to say but I suspect that this will not fall into the "fair use" case much like it wouldn't likely succeed as a fair-use case if they stripped out ads and packaged it anew with ads of their own or similar things.

This is the German courts, however. No telling how they'll go. It does have the required bits to make it an interesting case, so there's that. I'm going to have to ask for a citation for your conclusion that such is legal provided you include "all copies, modified or not, when you transfer the originals." You don't even have a *right* to transfer it and, as far as I know, German law is the same in these regards. For instance, you can not just print out their site and hand it out to people - as a general rule. There are some exclusions where you have certain rights but selling an application isn't likely one of those areas.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[KGIII]

The solution is not to take use their content without adhering to their terms but to simply not use their content. This is not a difficult or situational-ethics topic. It's pretty cut and dry. They don't have a right to run code on your machine. You do not have a right to their content.

As such, a couple of things are in play...

They can say, if you want to access B then you must allow A and C. They then can serve up the content if you allow that content to run.

You can say, I do not want to allow C. You can then elect to find a different resource or create your own.

Ideally, you'd be able to access B without needing to access A and C but it's their toy and they don't have to let you play with it. They're not obligated to share and you're not obligated to let them access your computer. If you don't like their terms then don't use their services. Unless you're using Firefox, you probably have a back button. If not, then you probably have an address bar.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[pr0fessor]

There is the problem if you must insist that users disable their ad-blocker in order to access your services you must also be liable for any advertising presented. If it contains malicious software then you are liable for the damages.

A good business would have tasteful ads free of malicious software, they would remind people that the service they are using is ad based when detecting an ad-blocker, and also give them the opportunity to have an ad free paid subscription.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[pr0fessor]

The fact that people overwhelmingly view the ads is a pretty solid piece of evidence that the world isn't how many of us wish it to be.

The example here is a newspaper... chances are people are not turning off their ad-blocker for just any old site they are picking and choosing the ones they trust or are willing to spend the bandwidth on if they are using something with a bandwidth cap.

Re: Don't evolve your business model

[Coren22]

If it means APK will finally not be able to distribute his crapware, it might just be worth it.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Coren22]

You can't buy a book, write in the front cover "From the library of KGIII", then later on sell it on to a used book shop?

This is what you just said as far as I can understand it, so I am not sure how that would be illegal.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Coren22]

Ads do this quite often, it is called a drive by exploit.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/...

It happens quite a lot. Most of your malware infestations come from drive bys, thought there are other exploit vectors as well.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Coren22]

That comment comes from the newspaper. The more likely scenario is that the people running ad blockers just went to a different news site as there is nothing special about these news web sites, they don't even have independent content.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[JesseMcDonald]

I'm of the mind that they're free to say that I can't access their site unless I disable my adblocking software. It's their property and they should be able to set the terms and conditions for accessing that property. I am, of course, free to abide by those choices or simply press the back button.

That is, of course, one option. However, I'm of the mind that by setting up a server on the public Internet which responds to arbitrary unauthenticated HTTP requests, they've effectively given permission to access their site to everyone on the Internet, regardless of any claims to the contrary in their terms of service.

If they want to enforce terms and conditions, they are welcome to require users to register and log in before presenting any content.

Re: Don't evolve your business model

[The-Ixian]

Well, we still have Microsoft in the game with Continuum around the corner.

Tablet, phone, PC, device, all in one.

All of them general purpose computers.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[KGIII]

Now that's taking it to an extreme level and you missed the finer points... Intentionally? Willfully? Did you intentionally skip the part about fair use and retaining certain rights?

Also, note that it is more like buying a book, writing "From the library of KGIII" and then making multiple copies and selling those. The two are NOT the same.

Sheesh... I know you're smarter than this. ;-) I *do* hold you to a higher standard than most but, c'mon now!

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[KGIII]

I'm inclined to agree that that *should* be the case but this is, still, private property with the various rights associated with it as well as copyright. This is, of course, open to debate as to changing it but, until those are altered, they may have legal standing. I'm not sure where I'd fall in the opinion range as to changing property rights but I can see changing copyright laws. Even if the store is open, they can still insist you neither take stuff that doesn't belong to you AND insist you wear a shirt and shoes. They can probably even insist that you wear a green shirt. While silly and not a good business model, I do support their right to make bad choices.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[JesseMcDonald]

I'm inclined to agree that that *should* be the case but this is, still, private property with the various rights associated with it ...

I don't see this as a property-rights issue. You're sending them a message with a request for one or more URLs; they're sending messages back with the content. At no point do you have possession of or control over any of their property. Their property is doing exactly what they deliberately programmed it to do: send their content to any arbitrary unauthenticated user on the Internet who requests it. If they did require authentication and you claimed to be someone else in order to gain access then a case could be made for fraud. However, so long as they send out the content to anyone who asks for it, I don't see any problem with making the request.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Merk42]

Sounds more like an issue with a security vulnerability with Flash than with the concept of advertising.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[suutar]

I read the links. The only bit I can find about why Axel Springer SE is suing boils down to "ad blockers threaten our revenue". Is there something else somewhere I'm overlooking, or is that about the size of it?

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Coren22]

I would say I guess it is more along the lines of:

Removing the dust cover, crossing out some words/sentences and selling it on. Or even possibly adding in some notes in the border. I have gotten college textbooks in that shape off the used book store before, and not really seen much issue with it.

Perhaps it is all about scale, but at least in the US, I can't see any legal rational for what this newspaper is doing.

I was being hyperbolic though, I just don't see their legal reasoning that says that a modification of their intended page is somehow illegal, especially when it is a matter of not requesting certain portions of the page that you don't want. If they succeed in this lawsuit where others have failed, it will mean a huge change in the internet. These lawsuits have plagued adblock plus as well, they have been sued and won a few time, I believe even in Germany.

https://adblockplus.org/blog/r...

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Coren22]

There have been numerous examples of drive by exploits, that particular one is flash, but java and javascript have happened as well. When a site requires scripting, a drive by can use that to exploit the machine.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Mashiki]

When does that actually, and more importantly, deliberately by the web site, happen?

Often enough that if you're letting ads be served to you, you're just waiting to get malware from something. Whether it's via flash, java, javascript, silverlight, css vulnerabilities, or one of two dozen other things.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Coren22]

I don't see where the multiple copies is coming from. You don't really make a copy of a web page, you request a copy from them and the Ad blocker passes it on to your computer. I don't see the ad blocker also sending Charlie the web page when Bob requests the web page from Alfred.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[OrangeTide]

The freeloaders, parasites really, are the ones buying and selling my personal information for targeted advertising.

I have (almost) no ads now, but for the last few years I still manage to buy services and content. Sites like /. would be in trouble of course, and they might have to move to a wikipedia-like funding/shaming model. Eventually the stuff people aren't willing to pay for will wither and die, and we'll have to learn to accept that. I'm not willing to let my PC participate in blasting me in the face in ads.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[KGIII]

Each person is making a copy on their local computer, in cache at bare minimal. Why ya being obtuse? I know that you know how computers work. Hell, you probably know more about 'em than I do. Without a copy, they're not viewing the page. This is definitely a copy and almost certainly in violation of copyright laws in the US and, I'm pretty sure, Germany. Hell, I'm so certain that I'll bet on it. :D The company will either be found guilty (of property or copyright laws) or will settle out of court which may include shutting down, filing for bankruptcy, and dumping any assets they can before they make it to court.

Ya just can't do this. It's against the law. Sheesh. I know you know better. :P It's too early in the morning to go making me think. LOL I woke up to AmiMojo responding, having to dig out their old reply, and then reading their response saying they didn't say what they said they said (I'd quoted it, without editing it, in full), and claiming that I had reading comprehension issues. :/ I shoulda stayed in bed longer but the hotel's noisy.

I'm leaving on Friday so, I guess, you can know my current address.
usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2015/11/20/76125050/

That's why it's so noisy around here. They've got a giant-ass gingerbread house in the lobby. People keep coming to check out the display. I guess they did this as a tradition but, recently, had stopped it and have just started doing it again. Thus there are reporters, tourists, locals, and general mayhem and noise. I don't know if it was the cause of the noise that woke me up but I'm resentful.

Anyhow, of course there's a copy - even if it's just a temporary copy in cache. There's a damned copy and you know it - hell, you probably know more about it than I do, how it was specifically written to memory, and how it is isolated from memory, if there was any cache stored on disk, etc... And no, no I'm not gonna play "what if they modified their phone so that it was live and there was no cache-state!" No! Have you no shame?!? Sheesh... Sheesh, indeed.

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Merk42]

So because there is a non-zero chance of a third party maliciously infecting a website, you block all ads everywhere?
Why not just not use the Internet at all since any website can be compromised in ways other than ads?

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Toshito]

Just like I can take a pair of scissors and cut out every ad in a newspaper before reading it, I can receive their HTML and CSS on MY machine (which uses hardware I bought and electricity I pay for) and choose what I want to display on MY screen.

Just like I can fast forward ads on recorded tv shows, or get up and take a pee on live tv, ignore billboards, mute the radio while there are ads...

They can lock down their website and require payments, I won't try to circumvent that. If they really offer outstanding content, I'll pay for it (but it's probably the same old crap as anywhere else).

Re:Don't evolve your business model

[Mashiki]

So because there is a non-zero chance of a third party maliciously infecting a website, you block all ads everywhere?
Why not just not use the Internet at all since any website can be compromised in ways other than ads?

That's easy, websites that serve malware are exceptionally rare. Ads that serve malware are not. Why do you think there's a proliferation of ad blocking software.

Target audience

[mattwarden]

Congrats. You now have a group of people seeing your ads that wanted to not see them so bad they bought an app. I'm sure this business model will work out for you in the long run.

Re:Target audience

[Mashiki]

It didn't work out for the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star here in Canada, so you'd be right it didn't work. Then again, news papers are bleeding print subs and online viewership everywhere. Mainly because the media is either shilling for their buddies w/o disclosing it, or people can find exactly the same news on 3 or 4 other sites, that don't have a paywall of some kind.

Re:Target audience

[Princeofcups]

Congrats. You now have a group of people seeing your ads that wanted to not see them so bad they bought an app. I'm sure this business model will work out for you in the long run.

Doesn't matter to him. He knows it's all BS, but companies are willing to pay him hard cash for eyes on their ads. Doesn't matter if those eyes actually purchase anything.

Re:Target audience

[Opportunist]

It's both. The average "newspaper" (more accurate would be "rough, ink-bleeding TP") contains paid ads thinly disguised as articles, shilling for their favorite party and to make that mix go down a little more smoothly they sprinkle in some copy/pasted press agency messages.

Care to inform me what anyone needs that kind of "newspaper" for? Especially online where you can't even use it as TP.

Re:Target audience

[Opportunist]

Yes. I would. It would show how many people actually want THIS paper enough to pay for it and how many just want news.

I have a hunch how this would end.

Re:Target audience

[I'm New Around Here]

It worked for the print version for decades.

Re:Target audience

[Mashiki]

Lining bird cages of course. But some papers actually do have a good opinion/columnist/consumer affairs section, and for some newspapers that's their only redeeming part.

Re:Target audience

[BitZtream]

Wrong. You are assuming too much. They've marketed that number at you.

saying that the proportion of readers using ad blockers dropped from 23% to the single digits when faced with the choice to turn off the software or pay.

They didn't say those people turned off their ad blockers and they didn't say those people paid for a subscription.

What they said was that 'when you can't view our site with an ad blocker, people with ad blockers stopped viewing our site' ... meaning they probably just lost all of those readers completely. They simply no longer bother viewing the site at all.

And the fact that they lost all those readers is why they are now suing.

They cut off their nose to spite their face and it worked nearly flawlessly, now they're suing the guy who made the knife because they just now realized the actual effect their actions were going to have.

Re:Target audience

[edtice1559]

There are plenty of people who will pay for the news. I'm one of them. Of course I only buy Kindle subscriptions, not dead trees. The problem with the news business right now is that everybody is writing up the same high-level summaries of the same stories. How many different accounts do we need of one event? In the meantime, not too many organizations are digging deep. That's harder to do as a daily than a weekly, but still needs to happen. The web killed the market for reworking wire stories, but there are whole new growth areas available. From what I understand, papers with a local focus are doing much better since they are on the right track.

Re:Target audience

[munch117]

They have a group of people who appreciate their site so much that they bought an app to improve the experience. It stands to reason that the same people - at least some of them - might be prepared to pay for a subscription.

I'm sure this business model will work out for you in the long run.

I don't see why not. It's not like the "customers" they lose are bringing in any revenue.

Re:Target audience

[JesseMcDonald]

The comment was addressed not to Axel Springer, but to the advertisers, who now have more ad "impressions", but probably no more sales than before. They're advertising to people who were willing to pay money to avoid seeing their ads. Those users were doing the advertisers a favor by removing themselves from the viewer pool. Rather than simply not being seen, those ad impressions will now create negative associations for their brands.

Unfortunately there's a delay in the feedback, allowing sites to profit from this for a while at the advertisers' expense. Eventually, though, this effect will cause the payment per ad impression to drop, leading sites to show even more ads to compensate, which in turn drives the price per ad down even further while simultaneously alienating what users they had left.

Chase is doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

When trying to log into my chase online account today I noticed they prevent it unless you allow www.ru4.com which is an advertising/spying/tracking cookie. Needless to say once my affairs are in order I won't be a chase customer any longer.

Re:Chase is doing it too

[EzInKy]

OMG, ru4 is a Russian tracking cookie. Run from them like hell!! I have personally had no problems using Chase with an adblocker and noscript. Seriously, you have been compromised.

Re:Chase is doing it too

[amxcoder]

I ran into something similar with my Healthcare provider's website. I run Ghostery, Adblock and Ublock in my browser and when I logged in, I couldn't perform the necessary tasks I needed to without turning off Ghostery's blocking.

It wasn't ads they were trying to use, it was several tracking/analytics (like Google and a couple others) that were forcing. When these analytics redirects were blocked, it broke their site.

I should also point out that this is for a service that I pay $1700 USD per month for. In case anyone is wondering, the Healthcare provider is Kaiser Permanente, which serves California.

Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts)

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Speaking of ads, SlashDot, what's with these brain-dead, demographic-curdling "paid posts" you're running? The one I see on your home page now, and I swear I am not shitting thee, reads:

>> Poor, misunderstood cloud computing. As it turns out, most Americans have no idea what it actually is. (Hint: it has nothing to do with the sky.)

Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts)

[Harlequin80]

Where are you seeing that?

I don't see anything like that on my system. Viewing in Chrome on a linux box running uBlock.

Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts)

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Here's a screenshot https://anonimag.es/i/f5eda892...

Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts)

[Maxo-Texas]

ha ha! I see your game... a clever new way to get people with adblockers to look at adds!

Well! You'll not fool me! I'm not a cat!

I'll be releasing "xxxJohnBoyxxx (565205) blocker next week!

Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts)

[Harlequin80]

Oh yuck. I must be blocking it somewhere but I'm not sure where. I had ghostery as well and that is blocking a chunk but even with ublock, ghostery and flashblock disabled I'm still not seeing them.

Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts)

[Harlequin80]

This is what I am seeing - https://anonimag.es/image/nlt

I've left it so you can see the plugins

Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts)

[gweihir]

Poor, misunderstood cloud computing. As it turns out, most Americans have no idea what it actually is. (Hint: it has nothing to do with the sky.)

Huh? I thought cloud computing was basically "Hot Vapor", i.e. promising people the sky and then not delivering?

Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts)

[gl4ss]

slashdot probably doesnt know either.
they dont know what ads get displayed where.

which is why people use adblockers. for example, every now and then the mobile version of slashdot has ads that auto-open hoax update pages to install crap. I think it's because slashdot doesnt check what their page looks from different countries.

Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts)

[ncc74656]

Where are you seeing that?

I don't see anything like that on my system

I don't think they show up in the RSS feed either. I pretty much never go to /.'s homepage anymore. ttrss grabs the summary for me, and if it's interesting, I'll click through. It and Full-Text RSS have also been useful for some sites with broken layout that won't show up properly in desktop browsers anymore (National Review, I'm looking at you).

Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts)

[Harlequin80]

Sorry.... I didn't see ads there either.... I had never heard of them as an image host till Johnboy used them.

Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts)

[Obfuscant]

Speaking of ads, SlashDot, what's with these brain-dead, demographic-curdling "paid posts" you're running?

What's more insidious is /. now logging me out at random, where the probability is about 50%. Often when I've clicked "preview" to make sure something I'm writing has the tags in place correctly. Instead of seeing just my preview, I get an ad-laden page with an amazing top banner ad that expands into a page-filling piece of crap advertising Fred Meyer, which has no visible way of getting away from it.

This is how /. "thanks" people for making the service great and "rewards" them for opting out of ads.

And the bastards did it again when I clicked "preview" for this posting.

two thirds of users...

[Anonymous Coward]

LEFT the site, he means... the extra traffic was from the publicity in the media, on slashdot, reddit, digg, etc ('wtf is this site? never heard of it before', 'does it really block adblock?' -- no it first discriminates against those with scripting disabled.. scripts are what they use to target adblockers, browse with css and scripting off it sorta works).. and that extra traffic has long since faded... so lets stir up another rats nest and controversy and target mobile users because any publicity is better than no publicity.

even with scripting off and adblock on the fucking bild.de site still dropped 2 megs of crud (57 files, 1855 kb gzipped, 2626 kb uncompressed.. according to webdev toolbar), all to display the 'noscript' dialog and hide everything else.... 300 bytes of a plain html doc would have done the same thing.

for me... if he wants to pay the percentage of shit vs content (aside from actual images in content, its probably over 95% shit and 5% content) on his sites of OUR internet bills (about $204 usd monthly)... sure, i'll send him a bill every month, expect immediate payment, and then turn off adblockers to visit his sites. until then... they simply do not exist. bild.what?

Re:two thirds of users...

[T-ice]

It's pretty typical of what you see in a news site running noscript. The big blocking portion of the page, not the crap underneath. I read a lot bouncing around a bunch of sites I've never heard of, but I don't run a lot of javascript. I used to use dev options to make the page readable, until I realized how few keystrokes it took to disable stylesheets. I've been reading a lot of vanilla html ever since. Remember when websites used to choose their sponsers? Those were better days.

Lying with statistics

[complete loony]

the proportion of readers using ad blockers dropped from 23% to the single digits when faced with the choice to turn off the software or pay ... Over two-thirds of the users concerned switched off their adblocker.

Did they? Or did they simply not come back?

Of course with the developer tools built into browsers these days, it only takes a few clicks to delete the nag layer and get to the underlying content. I wonder how they count me in their statistics?

Re:Proxy servers

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see a new business for add-sinking proxy servers. It would be even better if merged with TOR, so that when browsing through TOR, all bandwidth sapping cruft disappears in a puff of electron smoke.

It's coming from inside the house. http://www.privoxy.org/

Re:Is there a list of sites they own so I can put

[BronsCon]

Just use APK's Hosts File Engine, I'm sure he's already got their domains in the list.

Re:If only idiocy were fatal

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems rather unethical to make it so quick and painless on them all.

Just another ignorant user.

[Demena]

Thanks for the tip. I will just route it to /dev/null instead of the screen. Or better still his personal email.

Re:Three things to know

[93 Escort Wagon]

I think Jen may have been looking at bild.de here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Not so simple

[l2718]

Of course with the developer tools built into browsers these days, it only takes a few clicks to delete the nag layer and get to the underlying content. I wonder how they count me in their statistics?

It used to be easy to read the content off the html – no developer tools needed! Today, many websites are constructed to not serve the underlying content until the you've been served the ad.

By the way, I don't think there's anything wrong with what Springer is doing. Readers can pay cash, or pay by viewing ads. They can also choose not to read.

Re:Not so simple

[AmiMoJo]

There is another problem with this method. If his website is hard to access or hostile, people won't link to it. He could be losing a lot of traffic because of that.

so...

[symes]

Earlier this month, the publisher reported the success of this measure, saying that the proportion of readers using ad blockers dropped from 23% to the single digits when faced with the choice to turn off the software or pay. 'The results are beyond our expectations,'

So 23% of these sensible people left and went to a different mediocre news source? Hard to know without the denominator available. But that's the nature of modern mediocre journalism.

Re:How many people...

[Z00L00K]

That's the most interesting part.

And how much of the Anti-AdBlock measures were circumvented within a few minutes?

Most of Anti-AdBlock is easily circumvented, and if it can't be circumvented the site goes off the list of sites worth to visit.

There are a few exceptions of sites where AdBlock isn't needed because the ads are minor and the value of the site is high, but the papers Bild and Die Welt aren't on that list.

"the choice to turn off the software or pay"

[The Cisco Kid]

Nah, I'd go with option 3 - find a different site.

Maybe the next generation of ad blockers will download the ad content, let the site think the ad was shown, and then just not display it.

Plain text ads like google uses would be fine.

Popovers? Animated ads? Anything that covers or obscures other content? No thanks.

Re:How many people...

[Opportunist]

The bull the average Axel Springer tabloid offers ain't even worth the bandwidth to check whether your adblocker works.

Not showing ads

[phorm]

Various adblockers already have the option to load but not display ads. It's a waste of bandwidth, but likely defaults this measure and at least reduces the annoyances/infections.

Adblocker blocker blocker

[jolyonr]

Just they wait until I release my Adblocker blocker blocker app. Then you'll be able to see the site again. At least until they deploy an Adblocker blocker blocker blocker which I guess will be inevitable.. However I have an idea about how to deal with that...

required reading

[Tom]

What you need to know about BILD:

It's the most popular (by far) newspaper "for the lower classes" in Germany. It is massively influential on public opinion, and thus required reading for politicians and such. Several german chancellors are known to have checked the BILD headlines first thing in the morning to know what the people will wake up to.

It is also rumours to be funded by the CIA, at least during its early, post-war years, and to this day is fanatically pro-american, conservative and anti-communist.

With that in mind, you understand who the readership is and why they are more likely than, say, the /. crowd, to turn off their adblockers.

Re:required reading

[sabbede]

So, it's the German version of the New York Post?

Re:required reading

[Tom]

Amazing, that is precisely what I wanted to say, you just put it so much more eloquently and removed all that superfluous factual information that only confuses people. Thanks so much.

Re:required reading

[Tom]

So what do the higher classes read if not BLD?

There are plenty of other newspapers in Germany, Die Zeit, Die Welt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung being some that come to mind immediately, than plenty of other regional and topical newspapers like Hamburger Abendblatt, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Handelsblatt, die tageszeitung and many, many more.

Or you could stop being dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Just saying. Stop with the creepy spying, tracking, malware vectoring, pop over/under, click diverting, animated, noisy, bandwidth hogging, mouse tracking, key-stroke logging, data aggregating/selling, scummy excuse for a business model and just provide adds for people to out on webpages and the key objection I and many others have to your dodgy little business will evaporate. As, ironically, will our ability to block your adds, assuming adds are static images served locally.

Oh wait, that's right, you've built yourself a whole house of cards with that crap. Oh well, time to kick it down then I guess.

Move your money now!

[EzInKy]

If you can't use Chase's site without allowing scripts from non-Chase sites you are seriously fucked.

Ads are malware vectors, period

[TheDarkMaster]

Nowadays blocking advertising is required to prevent malware infections.

Re:Ads are malware vectors, period

[worf_mo]

Mod this up.

Here in Italy you can be signed up to costly "services" by simply and inadvertently clicking on an ad on your phone. No sign-up process - just click on an in-app ad and you receive an SMS "You have subscribed to [shady sex chat service]. Each message you receive has a cost of [x Euro]". No - the ad did not advertise any such service. And no, the app itself had nothing to do with it except for serving up ads - this crap comes from the ad networks. Then the messages start to roll in and your friendly phone company automatically bills you for each message you receive. This has happened to various friends and family members. How can someone you never willingly shared your phone number with start billing you via your phone company for a service you never requested in the first place? (rhetoric question) Usually, after complaining with your service provider they will block those messages, some will also pay back the amount. Until one happens to fat-finger the next ad and everything starts again.

Blocking ads is the only sensitive thing to do. Also, I prefer to pay for apps I'm interested in and avoid the free-but-with-ads apps.

I have no problem if a site won't let me view their content without ads -- I don't think they are being clever, but it's their rules on their playground. I'll simply leave and look for alternatives. This means I could never subscribe to such a site, even if they offered something interesting.

Re:Ads are malware vectors, period

[Cro Magnon]

Recently, they had to give me a new hard drive on my work computer, and I had a virgin install of Firefox (no adblocker). I was on the web while waiting on work, and the anti-virus warned of a possible virus from one of the sites (might have been /. but not sure). The adblocker is back on.

Pay and you still see ads

[Laxator2]

The problem is that the well is irreversibly poisoned.
You can pay for access to the site, and you still get bombarded with ads. From the point of view of the those running the site, they already got your money. Then if they get a bit of extra profit from the advertisers, all the better.

Same if you pay to have any data stored in the atmospheric water vapor formations and kept "private". It will still be sold to 3rd parties, except that it will command higher prices.

"Hey, this guy is paying to keep your nose out of his data, so if you want to stick your nose in it, it will cost you extra." And they get your money as well.

This business model pushes everyone to be a freeloader. Since you get the freeloader treatment anyway, why pay for it ?

Re:Pay and you still see ads

[AmiMoJo]

There is an alternative model: paywalls. History has shown that most people won't pay for this shitty, near worthless content though. Only specialist papers like the Financial Times managed to do okay with paywalls.

That's the basic problem that all generic news outlets face. The same news is widely available for free elsewhere. The only attractions are things like some included soft porn*, some opinion pieces that match the reader's existing view and give them comfort, and the format. None of those are particularly compelling any more, so those newspapers are dying.

* Sure, you can get an infinite supply of free porn on the interweb, but for n00bs they worry about browser history, and somehow soft newspaper porn is less shameful to look at, and they sometimes have pictures of celebrities showing a bit of nipple from 800m away.

How can these people not know how to handle PR?

[Cley Faye]

If people are taking active measures to hide your ads (going as far as paying for an adblocker!), then maybe you should review how your website handle this.
Litigating in this case can only do harm; best case scenario they win, and (app store) adblockers get removed. Who's gonna say "hey, I wanted an adblocker, but this company sued them out of existence, so I'll keep using their services"? In the end, will they sue people for not going to their site anymore after pissing them off?

Re:How many people...

[fisted]

If those sites weren't off your list in the first place...sigh.

Learn from print media

[WinstonWolfIT]

Intermixing ads with content is bloody infuriating, especially when it's animated in some form. Newspapers for centuries sold ads which were contained separate from the content; a buyer interested in the specials at the local market would flip through, it was seriously win win. A mild neutral link to deals on offer from advertisers achieves the same goal, and if the advertiser is relevant to my interests, I'd actually click on it. I've bought tons of stuff from promotions, e.g. 60" TV promoted locally, and I've never ever not once clicked through on some damn clown bouncing across my screen screaming buy this!!

Re:Learn from print media

[sabbede]

And for centuries, newspapers have had ads strewn about everywhere. Read down the column and at the end of the story is an ad for braziers. Or find a coupon for washing machines between a stories about an earthquake and a church bake-sale.

Nazis

[Vinegar Joe]

I hate those guys.

Re:iOS is for cows.

[Vinegar Joe]

But what does the fox say?

Give up PCs? Not likely...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think you forgot all the people who use general purpose PCs to create the content that the smartphone/tablet brigade so enjoy consuming. Oh, and almost the entire business world.

If any government were foolish enough to attempt something like what you describe, enough people and businesses who wanted/needed to use technology sensibly would relocate that the economic damage alone would probably bring down that government at the next election.

Re:Give up PCs? Not likely...

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't live in a compartimentalized world anymore. It's a global economy. Moreover, businesspeople would be the first to require mandatory registering of all developers: it would be mean less competition and no more freeware. No more. Ever. You don't work for a business, you don't get a license. You don't have a license, you cannot buy a "developer's workstation" (a general purpose PC) which are now classified as "weapons grade materiel". All developing can only be done at licensed firms, by a handful of registered programmers who do not dare walking off for fear of losing their license. Big business wins, hands down. Now, are you still thinking it will not happen?

Re:Give up PCs? Not likely...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Now, are you still thinking it will not happen?

Yes, I'm still thinking it will not happen. For one thing, it's completely unrealistic that governments would co-ordinate such a move effectively in that global economy you mentioned. It takes them years to put together a big trade deal, with plenty of controversy and opposition in many cases. Heck, they still haven't managed to close the gaping tax loopholes used by multinationals, despite every government except the tax havens saying for years that they want to.

Even at a single country level, huge amounts of business also relies on that free software to do things like... Well, almost everything. The moment CIOs at Fortune 500 companies start explaining to the board that it will no longer be possible to do (insert 9-figure-revenues project here) because no-one is offering the software to do it without a 10-year lock-in and 8-figure per annum support contract, people are going to start noticing what they've lost, and 8/9 figure political lobbying efforts to reverse the madness will immediately start. Not to mention the billions in lost tax revenues from small tech businesses that can't afford to continue, the millions of unemployed developers who all have a vote, and so on.

Re:Give up PCs? Not likely...

[Dagger2]

I feel you are overly optimistic.

If we want to do this kind of lockdown, we'd need some way to make computers only run authorized software. We'd need a standard for digitally signing OSs, and the BIOS would need to check the signature and enforce that only signed OSs can run. Then the OSs would need to run only whitelisted software.

How hard would it be for governments to coordinate getting a lockdown feature like that into every computer? Well... they don't need to. We already have it. MS has already bludgeoned everybody into supporting Secure Boot, which is exactly this feature/misfeature, in all new computers that ship with Windows (which is most of them -- and the rest support it too because nobody's going to make a separate motherboard just for computers that ship with Windows).

Sure, you can disable Secure Boot... except for when you can't. There are machines (often, not always, laptops) out there right now which don't let you disable Secure Boot, so you're stuck running only approved OSs on them. (MS do the approving, in case you were wondering.) It wouldn't take much at all to expand that to every machine; all it'd take would be MS adding "in order to keep machines secure, don't allow disabling Secure Boot" to the Windows Hardware Certification requirements

Given that we already have systems that will only run approved OSs, it doesn't seem like such a huge leap to "you can only run the software we let you run", especially when all the technology to make that happen is already in place. And, for that matter, being used routinely on tablets and phones.

The coming war on general-purpose computing and The Coming Civil War over General Purpose Computing are a good idea to read. I really wish I had my tinfoil hat on here, but sadly this is looking all too realistic.

Re:Give up PCs? Not likely...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If we want to do this kind of lockdown

For the record, that's a mighty big "if".

It wouldn't take much at all to expand that to every machine; all it'd take would be MS adding "in order to keep machines secure, don't allow disabling Secure Boot" to the Windows Hardware Certification requirements

And the resulting monopoly-related lawsuits in every nation that would support them, not to mention almost inevitable regulatory action in jurisdictions like the EU, would most likely be the final nail in the MS coffin.

Even if that didn't do for them, Intel and the major manufacturers of Intel-related motherboards and other hardware within the same architectural family are already under pressure from tablets (most of which are sporting ARM-based hardware) at the casual end of the market. The last thing they want to do is put all their eggs in one basket, particularly a basket as wobbly as Microsoft has been in recent years.

There are so many existential threats to the businesses that would need to participate in such a move, and so many well-funded organisations including many in governments that would have a lot to lose, that I still think it's completely unrealistic for the mainstream Wintel ecosystem to go that way. If anything were to lead to that sort of result it would more likely be a steady creep from the direction of smartphones and tablets where relatively closed and inflexible ecosystems are the norm, but even there the signs are that the initial glow is fading as users both become more aware of the pros and cons of such devices and tire of the cost and hassle caused by the lock-in effects.

The coming war on general-purpose computing and The Coming Civil War over General Purpose Computing are a good idea to read.

They were thought-provoking articles back when they were written, but again I'd say the recent evidence is that people are increasingly tired of these games. A new generation has grown up never not knowing what it's like to have their own PCs and consoles and mobile devices, and fast near-permanent Internet access, and a huge range of software available at the tap of a finger, and all that comes with this kind of technology. They've also grown up more aware of related issues like privacy and security, and wise to a lot of the problems that caught older generations off guard, even as the patience of the older generations themselves is wearing thin and they become less tolerant of the ever-worsening experience as tech businesses try to squeeze ever more profit out of them.

Consequently, there's been a lot of talk recently about things like on-line privacy and ad-blocking. Perhaps more telling than the talk are the moves by some of the biggest businesses in tech to actively support such things, even if means shifting industry norms or taking on governments. In fact, there is even a hint that some in those governments are finally becoming aware of the issues -- there have, at long last, been some substantial steps recently to bring copyright laws and on-line consumer rights at least a little closer to the 21st century in some major jurisdictions, for example.

I do think the writing is on the wall for some tech firms at this point, but from my perspective it is because their customers are becoming less tolerant of junk and starting to demand better quality for their hard-earned cash. Firms that ship software that doesn't work or causes security problems, businesses that leak personal data like a sieve, content distributors that try to double-dip with subscriptions and then ads, communications networks that over-charge and under-provide, on-line businesses that offer minimal customer service... All of these are increasingly on borrowed time unless they change their ways, and that's just in the B2C world. As soon as you go B2B, there are many more examples of long-standing schemes that are under threat in our increasingly open and competitive world, and consequently businesses are likely to be even less tolerant of attempts to lock down what they can do than private individuals.

Re:Give up PCs? Not likely...

[Dagger2]

It's a big if, sure. But phrase it as something we need to do to stop terrorists/paedophiles, and suddenly you'll have lots of support from people that don't know better. "EFI firmware should check PCs for known checksums of child porn and report them to the authorities, and why would you want to disable that unless you're a paedophile yourself?"

And the resulting monopoly-related lawsuits in every nation that would support them, not to mention almost inevitable regulatory action in jurisdictions like the EU, would most likely be the final nail in the MS coffin.

Yet we have none of this for the machines that are locked down today. (After all, it's not even MS's fault that these machines come with unconfigurable Secure Boot. They just set the Secure Boot requirement for Windows certification, they didn't force anybody to put it in!)

A new generation has grown up never not knowing what it's like to have their own PCs and consoles and mobile devices

The sad part is that this isn't true any more. A lot of children these days grow up with only a mobile phone, not a PC... and you can hardly call the phone theirs when it's so locked down that it may as well still belong to the manufacturer. And they consider that normal, because that's what they grew up with, and probably won't see how bringing the same situation to the desktop would be any worse.

I realize I'm being pessimistic here, and I really, seriously hope that you turn out to be right, but I fear I'm just going to discover that I'm not being pessimistic enough.

Re:Give up PCs? Not likely...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

"EFI firmware should check PCs for known checksums of child porn and report them to the authorities, and why would you want to disable that unless you're a paedophile yourself?"

"This technology isn't reliable. Just today another security flaw was found in the phone-home software that was supplied by a major PC brand, and it's the third one they've had recently. Cyber-crime is the fastest growing type of law-breaking and your bank spends a lot of money on IT security. Do you really want to force your bank to leave back doors so the hackers can get in and empty your account? What about hospitals? A back door there could mean the next big terrorist attack is breaking in and stopping all the equipment working so your loved ones die, without ever leaving their hideout on the far side of the world. Back doors let evil people into important systems to do evil things. The people who want your computer to include a back door are evil and you can't trust them."

Yet we have none of this for the machines that are locked down today.

But most machines sold today don't have this problem. There is still plenty of choice for those who want an alternative. Try locking things down so small businesses can't run Linux servers any more and have to pay a fortune to MS for approved Windows versions, and see how long your plan lasts.

The sad part is that this isn't true any more. A lot of children these days grow up with only a mobile phone, not a PC...

Well, I don't know where you are, but I recently had an interesting conversation about my old school. Back in the '90s, we had a dedicated computer room with maybe 1 PC for every 25 kids in the school. Today, I'm told, the ratio of computers to kids is almost 1:1, and the kids are actively taught how to use these tools in classes, including things like programming, making a simple web site, and so on. Being able to write a mobile app is something a lot of the kids enjoy, because they all relate to that kind of software now in a way that was reserved for the geeks in my generation.

Of course, I have no idea how representative that anecdote might be. It's based on second-hand information, and it's about one school that has always been successful, in one education district of one country. But if it's even close to the wider reality, surely that is a promising sign for the future. Enjoying the benefits of modern technology shouldn't be reserved for the privileged few.

Re:Give up PCs? Not likely...

[Dagger2]

"This technology isn't reliable. [...] The people who want your computer to include a back door are evil and you can't trust them."

Sure, that's the actual situation, but most people are just going to hear "secure boot" and think it makes them secure. Mix in a bit of "I don't do anything complicated with my computer, so it's ok if nobody can do anything complicated with their computers" and oh dear.

Today, I'm told, the ratio of computers to kids is almost 1:1

My old school is similar, but all their computers are heavily locked down, with an application whitelist that limits what you can run to just authorized binaries. Which is a pretty good example of the problem.

Micropayments?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

One potential solution to this would be an efficient micropayment system, but unfortunately that seems to be the idea that eternally "has potential". I don't know what's holding it back in reality. Maybe it's financial regulations in different countries, maybe it's pressure from the existing payment industries, maybe it's that no-one has found UI with sufficiently low friction yet, or maybe too many people just want everything for free to give a critical mass of early adopters.

In any case, I'm actually kinda hoping that the increasingly bitter ad-wars will force us to fix that. I believe it would be good for society to move back to the kind of model where producers of good, original content can actually generate a useful level of revenue directly as their incentive, and where they in turn can concentrate on presenting that content in a useful and attractive way to their readers instead of distorting the presentation to maximise ad revenues.

Re:Micropayments?

[I'm New Around Here]

One problem I would have with micropayments at random sites is how the payment is made. I'm not going to give every site my credit card info, I use Paypal for what I get off ebay, but wouldn't want to use that on every random site either. I don't use Bitcoins, Appple Pay, Google Wallet, or any of the other electronic payment programs, and I'm not going to start just to access those same sites.

Re: Micropayments?

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, part of it is that even a small payment can still incur a psychologically large cost. If each user post here on /. cost one cent to read, would you want to have them load automatically? Probably not, many of them are not worth that much, and you could quickly run up a bill of a few hundred dollars a year on that sort of thing from this site alone. So instead you'd have to take more time to think about what was worth spending even a little on, because it adds up and the price doesn't really match the value to you of the thing you'd be paying for.

Something similar happens when people have metered or capped Internet usage compared to at least nominally unlimited usage.

You really can't avoid this problem unless the micropayment is so small that it is likely not worth the cost to implement. I suppose if I knew that a year's worth of micro payments for me, for everything I use, was no more than about a dollar a year in total, it wouldn't be so much that it would feel like I was wasting money on the Internet. But because the average user doesn't want to spend a noticeable amount ever, and there really aren't that many users in comparison to sites, the resulting pie of money wouldn't be much to split up. (Especially once you reduce the amount to account for lower average incomes elsewhere in the world)

Re:Micropayments?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Yes, the payment mechanism would be the big question.

Personally, I suspect anything more complicated than 1-2 clicks using a preconfigured payment tool that it integrated into the browser is likely to be too much friction.

On the other hand, if you could actually have a system where, say, you get to read the first section of a long form article and then there's a button you can click to pay them x cents to immediately access the rest via that payment tool, I could see that working and I think you could build a useful degree of standardisation, flexibility and safeguards on top of that basic model.

Re:Micropayments?

[Dutch Gun]

Another potential solution would be some specialized web extensions designed specifically for the needs of advertisers. Essentially, instead of granting a third-party site blanket permission to load and execute arbitrary Javascript (insanely dangerous, since it can do anything), this mechanism only allows extremely specialized content to be loaded from a third-party - just enough to load a static image and enough smarts to check for a view or a click, and one that respects the "do not track" flag.

No animated ads. No audio. No arbitrary Javascript. No pop-ups. Static text and images only. And the content it still hosted by third-parties, so view and clickthrough metrics can be collected. The browsers' image handling libraries have been hardened long ago, and the other functionality would be small, simple, and easy to harden as well. This would mean static banner ads could be displayed with all the functionality advertisers want (minus universal tracking hopefully), but would be much more resistant to attack. You can't really say 100% safe, but it should be close to it.

If the industry were to universally adopt such a practice, then I'd feel a lot better about disabling ad-blocking (for these "safe" ads) for sites I wished to financially support. What stops me from doing it right now is the safety issue. When sites like HuffPost or Forbes are found to be serving malware via Google's Doubleclick or AOL, you know the ad industry has a pretty big problem. And while they're starting to talk about the annoyance and intrusive factor, they rarely talk about the safety issue, because I don't think they have a good solution for that yet.

Re:Micropayments?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I agree with you that ad blocking is also a safety issue. I have only ever been hit by a virus once that I'm aware of. It was a zero-day in a well-known plug-in, on a system that was fully patched and running AV software, navigating a big name site you would have expected to be completely safe, via a popular link aggregator/discussion site.

I now have a 100% ad-blocking policy. I don't turn the blocker off for anyone, and if a site doesn't like that then I say fair enough and go elsewhere. I have some sympathy for sites I use regularly that lose out because of this, but it was two of those sites that led to my system being compromised so I don't have that much sympathy. I might pay a reasonable amount to support such sites if there were a convenient and safe way of doing so, but my policy on blocking ads and similar third-party content is never going to change as long as anything resembling the current software and web landscape is the norm. My feelings on this are only being strengthened by the evolving software and firmware situation, since these days if a machine is compromised you can't even count on a total reformat and reinstallation clearing the infection.

That being the case, and knowing that others will be similarly stubborn, I can't help thinking that your suggested approach would be fundamentally undermined because it relies on people to actively opt-in to receiving ads. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of users would choose to do so, and surely someone would produce a browser that had these ads off-by-default and use that as a competitive advantage.

Re: Micropayments?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Well, part of it is that even a small payment can still incur a psychologically large cost.

That's certainly true in my experience. It's probably the second thing you rapidly discover when building your first B2C web site, right after "If you build it, they probably still won't come."

I think the main requirements for a micropayment system to be successful would probably be simplicity and transparency. Anything that requires lots of interactions, like paying x cents for each and every post on a site like Slashdot, is doomed before it even starts because it's far too much hassle. On the other hand, something where the user's experience was reading a one-liner that said access to the site for a week cost x cents and then making literally one or two clicks to accept this might actually catch on, particularly if there was a very limited number of payment types and all participating sites were required to comply with some simple, transparent, universal terms set by the micropayment service so users could trust that they weren't getting scammed.

I think given such a simple but effective foundation, you could then build sensible policies about access control, security, and the like on top. But I think you need simplicity, transparency, and of course trust in the system before anything else matters.

So, what's the problem?

[sabbede]

Publishing costs money. These outlets have a bottom line to consider, and they're offering a choice between subscriptions and ads.

The only real issue I see is the risk of malicious or compromised ads. An issue that only exists because the responsibility for the content of the ads is unclear, so everyone involved says it isn't them. Fortunately, if the issue is pressed, it will be resolved. This is how it gets pressed.

Re:Is there a list of sites they own so I can put

[beerbear]

Ssssssshhhhhhhh don't say his name! You may attract him. And nobody wants to read his crap anymore.

Axel Springer: "Boo hoo, poor widdle me!"

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Then:
Users: hey can you please stop spamming us with ads so much?
Advertisers: screw you, here's your ad

Now:
Advertisers: hey please don't use stuff to block our ads, thanks
Users: screw you

Hmmm

[koan]

I wonder if instead of a blocker there could be a "diverter" (divertor?), for example all ads meant to be shown on the page you're looking at are diverted to another tab or null.

It would appear they are allowed and not blocked, but you never have to see them.

Re:Just disable JavaScript

[mark-t]

What would that accomplish, in this situation? I imagine you still wouldn't be able to view the website.... that's how they got people to disable their ad blockers in the first place, by not allowing people who had such facilities to use their website. Presumably, people who disabled their ad blockers for that purpose found what the site had to offer useful enough that they were willing to put up with ads.

Useless

[nospam007]

" 'Over two-thirds of the users concerned switched off their adblocker.'"

Yes, and we copy-pasted all the blocked sites in our router's blacklist instead.

Re:Coren22: EAT YOUR WORDS retard... apk

[Coren22]

This thread is right up your alley, you should be participating in the conversation instead of being an off topic troll. Come join us in actual intelligent conversation.

Re:How many people...

[Opportunist]

Then I guess proxies are going to be the solution. Proxy loads the page as the advertiser wants it to be loaded and displays the page to the browser as the viewer wants it to see.

And everyone's a winner. Hurraaaaaay!

Wait...what?

[CCarrot]

Okay, let me get this straight. The owner of Bild is suing the maker of Blockr for blocking ads, thereby reducing his website's revenues. In practically the same breath he's bragging about how their strategy of counter-blocking users who are using ad-blocker technology is such a success:

Techcrunch reports: "In October, Axel Springer forced visitors to Bild to turn off their ad blockers or pay a monthly fee to continue using the site. Earlier this month, the publisher reported the success of this measure, saying that the proportion of readers using ad blockers dropped from 23% to the single digits when faced with the choice to turn off the software or pay. 'The results are beyond our expectations,' said Springer chief exec Mathias Döpfner at the time. 'Over two-thirds of the users concerned switched off their adblocker.' He also noted that the Bild.de website received an additional 3 million visits from users who could now see the ads in the first two weeks of the experiment going live."

So...what's the problem here? If your users are 'seeing the light' and un-blocking your site after being told to 'or else', and you're apparently getting more users than ever, what's the financial harm being done here?

What's that? Is it possible that users aren't reacting as positively to your bullying tactics as you'd like us to believe? You'd lie to us? *shocked-face*

Re:Is there a list of sites they own so I can put

[BronsCon]

He's like Beetlejuice. How is he like Beetlejuice? Because, if you invoke the name of APK three times, he will appear. But if you only say it once or twice, like Beetlejuice, he will not.

Plus, now that Beetlejuice is here, he can take care of APK if he shows up.