Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Will Force Advertising On Ad-Blocking Users (wsj.com)
Long-time reader geek writes: Facebook is going to start forcing ads to appear for all users of its desktop website, even if they use ad-blocking software (Could be paywalled; alternate source). The social network said on Tuesday that it will change the way advertising is loaded into its desktop website to make its ad units considerably more difficult for ad blockers to detect. "Facebook is ad-supported. Ads are a part of the Facebook experience; they're not a tack on," said Andrew "Boz" Bosworth, Facebook's vice president of engineering for advertising and pages.
Challenge Accepted...
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
N/T
Who's up for making a better ad blocker?
If facebook continues to make its site user-unfriendly, I'll simply stop using facebook. I've already dropped back on my usage because I cannot view my timeline the way I want to view it, i.e., facebook keeps shoving things it considers to be "important" in my face, things I don't care about. If facebook starts doing the same thing with ads, I'll just move on.
it's a rhetorical question, futilely defiant of the inevitable.
you can have my ad blocker when you pry it from my cold dead PC
Who cares? Facebook sucks. I haven't used that site in eight or ten years and I haven't missed it in the slightest. I imagine anyone who cares enough to go through the trouble of opting out of advertising might just opt out of Facebook entirely if they are going to be pricks about it.
How dare you reaffirm my belief that avoiding your crappy product is one of the best decisions I've ever made?! Now instead of avoiding you I'm going to really avoid you!
Facebook has always been a shady company, and I never have nor ever will use their services. They have the right to push ads harder all they want, and you have the right to not use their services and avoid these ads.
Will this lead to a paid version of Facebook, that allows paid subscribers to see less or no ads?
"engineering for advertising"
does not compute.
What trouble? You install adblock/ublock/whatever. It takes 5 minutes. If you aren't running adblock your computer has probably already been hacked.
Just now, when Facebook has started losing users for the first time in its history, and more and more people are turning (finally) to adblockers for self-defense against malware and data charges (also thanks to the ongoing lawsuits in different country against AdBlock), Facebook finally announces that it will inject more ads.
Yeah, I guess with this shovel digging their own grave will become much easier.
Whenever FB puts an adv. in my feed I flag it as being Offensive and Sexually explicit. It may not screw FB over by much to do so, but it makes me feel good.
(Kinda like yesterday when I strung the Indian "computer support" guy along for 15 minutes by pretending to poking around my windows machine. In the end he asked my what browser I was using, and when I said Safari he swore in his native language and then hung up on me)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Facebook's in the business of selling ads. If they keep adblockers from working, then some people will just put up with the ads, and some people will stop using Facebook. I bet the second group is actually pretty darn small (/. readers are HIGHLY non-representative of the population as a whole), and, since they aren't generating any revenue for FB, I don't think they'll be crushed to see them go.
How else am I going to farm my pixels? I have to keep harvesting them every day
No one should ever use Facebook without using FBPurity plug-in for the browser.
Makes FB tolerable...
And they keep updating it to take care of pesky problems like the ones FB is now proposing.
You are not Facebook users, you are what Facebook sells!
Facebook isn't forcing anything on anyone.
If you access their service and don't like what you see ...
... wait for it ...
... stop accessing their service.
I just don't use facebook for anything, making my solution the ultimate facebook ad blocking method. Try to make it considerably harder to do that!
On today's Internet, an Ad-blocker does more to protect your computer than traditional anti-virus software. What a world, what a world...
Ugh, I know! I mean I don't even own a turntable.
You mean there's something more than random SJW posts, cat pictures, bathroom updates, and fake news updates about the Rock getting arrested?
why I don't do facebook....
except for testing, I have test accounts to be able to look, but posting anything personal, staying there forever, visible to anybody and owned by a corporation
- thanks, no
And, I get oodles of "you have yadayada", "do you know...?" emails from facebook, all goes into trash.
It won't work.
I use Element Hiding Helper (for AdBlock plus). With a few clicks, and some examination for a pattern, I can block any set of junk by html class, css, domain, and so on.
Also, I don't waste my time on FB, but block TONS of junk on sites I do frequent.
Advertising is not and has never been an "experience", you stupid clown. It's always been a tack-on and nuisance, regardless of whether the earnings are vital to the site or not.
If Facebook can't stop everybody's page from being cloned, it can't stop the next AdBlocker update.
Sneaking ads in that look like articles but are a different color and have a close button. That's the best way to lose viewers that don't want to see ads.
Facebook is ad-supported. Ads are a part of the Facebook experience; they're not a tack on,
A) Yes the ads ARE tacked on after the fact. B) Facebook being ad supported is Not My Problem (tm). If they want to negotiate a deal directly with me for cash money whereby I will no longer block ads I'm willing to have that conversation but it won't be cheap. Certainly will cost them more than the shitty services they currently provide. I will actively fight anyone who thinks they have a right to put advertisements in front of me without my explicit permission.
I'm already down to checking it about twice a day. I can easily cut those down, too.
I moved to Face Slim after the developer (re-)enabled messaging. It has the following setting:
Hide some sponsored posts
We don't like sponsored posts and ads.
Hopefully developer Krzysztof Grabowski will keep up with the corporate subterfuge. It's a shame that Tinfoil has gone dormant.
I'm sure the ad-blockers will adapt to this. And BTW it isn't just facebook, it seems lately some ads are starting to come through on other sites. I don't know if that's ABP being more of a whore than usual... even though I have it set to *not* allow "unintrusive" ads through.
Besides, WTF do I care.. there's only one page on facebook that I actually *do* care about.
Bloom County.
I'm sure that if FB implodes Berkeley Breathed will just find some other means to distribute Bloom County.
I literally don't visit any other part of facebook.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
You have every right in the world to ditch facebook, but you will become a complete social pariah in 2016 doing that.
If you actually believe that then you probably are severely lacking in real world friends. Just because someone "friends" you on Facebook doesn't actually mean they are your friend. If your "friends" treat you like a social pariah for not looking at their banal Facebook scribblings then they probably aren't someone you really need to be spending time interacting with anyway.
I know a lot of ad block users who have suggested that publishers should take control of, or better police, their advertising. One of the most common suggestions is that publishers should host the advertising that appears on their pages. So, here's Facebook doing that very thing and yet 90% of the comments above are now whining about that too. You are all a bunch of parasitical crybabies.
I use an ad blocker and a tracker blocker and sometimes a script blocker as well. I strenuously object to the "let the viewer beware" attitude that most web site operators these days seem to have. Allowing third parties to inject code into their pages to be delivered to my browser without a second thought should be a criminal act.
While I have no use for Facebook whatsoever, they should be applauded for stepping up by taking control of, and responsibility for, the advertising that will appear on their pages. If you don't like it then you are all free to quit the site and join folks like me who talk to their friends face to face or on the phone now and then.
I don't use Facebook at all, but all the adds on Slashdot are beginning to annoy the shit out of me. Between the pop-ups and it scrolling up and down and the animations which slow everything down.
Browsers have a dead space at the top most of the time, why can't pop-ups and ads be forced into that, so the content does not move up or down and we don't click on the wrong thing?
As if I needed any more reasons to avoid Facebook they go ahead and give me a doozy like this. Cute how they think I'm obligated to cooperate with their little scheme. Seriously I can't imagine anything Facebook could do at this point that would make me want to use their service.
It's a way of staying in touch with your friends. It's a way to keep in communication. It's a way to share positive experiences and reach out for support when life kicks you in the face. It allows you to announce things 'safely'; a friend announced the death of his uncle on facebook without having to go through the emotions of telling people face to face.
It's not necessary, but it has become a useful tool in our culture.
"Facebook Will Force Advertising On Ad-Blocking Users"
Of course they will, lol. Duh.
After all, Facebook users have NO CHOICE but to use Facebook and allow them to force you to watch ads. Really, you have no choice, none at all. Suck it up and get used to it.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
that beats the new FB changes in 1... 2... 3....
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Why do people subscribe to Facebook? I don't see the point of it all.
As long as F.B. Purity works, I will be on Facebook.
I should put something clever here. Maybe someday.
Sorry FB, you can go shove it. The blockers will find a way. The industry must change or it will collapse under its problems.
Silence is a state of mime.
You don't need FB for Bloom County: http://www.gocomics.com/bloom-...
I wonder if, in forcing users who are blocking ads to load them anyway, Facebook is willing to accept liability for the inevitable occurrence of embedded malware infecting users through a browser exploit. This is no joke: we know for a fact that ads containing malicious code have been served to users, who then have their systems compromised. If Facebook makes money from selling these ads to users, then they should have a legal obligation to not circumvent ad blocking software as a security measure.
Of course, Facebook and its customers (read: the advertisers) will accept no such responsibility for their shitty security practices. It's all on the users. It's your fault, and yours alone, if there are any negative consequences of choosing to share information about yourself through the site; your fault if your system is compromised through an advertisement that hides malicious code, even if you try to protect yourself by blocking ads. And while many people who refuse to use Facebook (myself included) on principle might say caveat emptor and that you don't have to use Facebook, the practical reality is that that horse has long since left the barn and that the only logical position for ourselves is to protest Facebook's practices, because if our acquaintances get hacked, that has clear ramifications for the security of our own personal information even if we did not share it with Facebook.
Nah, just kidding.
I guess more people will get their browsers hi-jacked by drive-by malware and viruses, and all that crap. Thaaaaaaaaaaaaanks Facebook!
Advertise all you want, assholes.
Ads have always been part of the Facebook experience....
I'm envisioning some sort of bipedal autonomous robot that tracks down annoying advertisers and telemarketers and beats them with a stick.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I use a custom built setup, putting that programming degree to work == priceless, lets see them get past it. by the way, it does learn as it goes, soooo, better modify how you push them through regularly or even if one does make it, it won't last.
The problem is that in the current environment, where more and more ISP's are charging big money for going over their arbitrary bandwidth caps, nobody is discussing the amount of bandwidth wasted in downloading ads and, even worse, video ads. You should be paying me if you want to use my bandwidth to try and sell me something. Luckily, my current ISP does not cap my bandwidth, but why should I be expected to subsidise any web site's need to make money with ads that are increasingly becoming bandwidth and CPU hogs and are simply ruining the web for everyone. The over-abundance and the sheer resources that many of these ads require is the reason that many people are blocking them in the first place. Why should it take a minute to load a web page with less than 1000 characters of actual content? The marketing people have simply gotten out of hand. There is a real cost to receiving these ads and nobody is dealing with that issue.
"15 million facebook users infected with malware in a popunder ad."
Ditto
Ha ha ha. That'll teach them to lobby for their pet causes while damaging the labor market.
When we asked people about why they used ad blocking software, the primary reason we heard was to stop annoying, disruptive ads.
Of course the primary reason you HEARD was "to stop annoying, disruptive ads", because you're an advertiser, or in other words a raving psychopath.
The primary reason they actually SAID was "to stop ads."
A good ad-blocker should let the page think it is being rendered exactly as requested, but actually removing the display of the ads to the user.
What manner of Javascript trickery or feedback loops do large site owners use to try to get around that?
It seems like the paradigm needs to be a sort of sandbox for the page and its anti-adblocker scripting, and then the page is delivered to the user sans ads completely unknowingly to the page.
I guess the one thing Facebook could do to make it very hard to remove the ads is to make them look exactly like a user post. you would need a sort of fingerprinting as another poster mentioned to get around it.
I understand the ads are where you make your money. Want to show me some ads? Fine...until one of the ads you're showing me infects my machine with something, or installs something, or tracks my computer usage. And if you show me so many ads that it distracts me from using the site as intended, then I'll stop using your site.
Even then, FB Purity and AdBlock will be in use, because I don't trust your ads. If you vet every ad that is shown to me and guarantee that those ads will not harm my computer or track my usage, then I'll be okay with seeing them. Until we make websites liable for damages caused by ads they force on users, ads are just going to get worse.
So what were you on about?
I have no interest in your ads, so therefore I will block them using the numerous technical means available.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Facebook will have as much danger facing liability for malware as Microsoft faces for botnets.
Big BIZ is immune and deaf to the cries and powerless threats of the little man.
Big BIZ owns the government and keeps it in the folds of it's deep wallet.
Bug BIZ gets what it wants, and we are at best an ant on it's road to profit.
Unless a sizable percentage of users check into Facebook Unanonymous and successfully complete detox, nothing will change anytime soon.
is are you going to stop using Facebook. It's child's play to break adblockers. Just serve the ads up from your site instead of with an iframe.
/.ers will stop. But I'm guessing the general populace won't. I know one of my buddies who's a table top gamer absolutely hates facebook but lives with it because that's how tournaments and even pickup games are organized. Back in the 'good old days' you showed up at a store and got a pickup game. Now it's all coordinated over Facebook.
A lot of
You might be thinking "Well, there'll be an ad free social network, I'll join that!". Go ahead. If you can't get everybody on it then it's useless. Google learned that with G+. Meanwhile your cut off from a significant portion of society. You can bitch & moan all you want that those folks are sheeple but it doesn't change the practical reality of the situation.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Facebook ads are just regular Facebook posts from non-friends. If there were exploits people wouldn't bother paying for an ad they would just spread them through regular posts.
lol, I'd like to see your magical HOSTS file block ads encoded as base64 (as seems to be the case for those freaky looking male steroid ads)
I have yet to find a site with ads that I can't block...
Unless they are going to embed the ads directly in user photos that I want to see facebook can blow me.
Can APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit block ads that come from the same domain of the content?
For example, if I'm visiting "https://example.com", and it serves ads sourced from "https://example.com/ads/", can APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit block them?
Because that's what Facebook is going to do to try thwarting ad blocks, including thwarting APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I predict I will be able to go back to my ad-blocking ways in less than 24 hours after this.
I really see no reason to support the ad supported business model. Most of the internet's history shows that ads have been a burden on the proper functioning of the network, and ad revenue was not a significant contributor to the maintenance, function and expansion of the internet. I laugh in the face of anyone who tries to convince me that removing ads from the Internet will be the downfall of the service and of civilization. (to be fair, I live in Silicon Valley, so the people I interact with are usually micro-CEOs for some nonviable pipe-dream start-up)
If you want to operate a business online, great. If you want to send virtual flyers to your repeat customers who opt-in, fine. Do I need every video player and social network covered with CSS overlays for ads? no way!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Somehow, somewhat strangely, you seem to actually care about Facebook - so much so that you even bother to comment about it.
As did you. I care about Facebook in the same way that I care about something like malaria. I consider it a sort of public health emergency.
Now maybe people will finally start using Google+ instead!
To be completely honest, "promoted posts" or even straight-up ads don't really bother me; what bothers me is all of the recent news articles saying they are full of malware.
I do not know how facebook plans on pushing ads through, but the obvious way would be for them to host them on their own system.
Does this mean that the ads will not be virus payloads? If that is the case, my ad blocker accomplished its mission.
I will turn off my adblocker for your site if
1 ads are STATIC IMAGES ONLY (text ads are fine and you may script ad swapping/updating) ..)
2 you take responsibilty for the content of the ad (no outsourcing to an outsourcer that
3 this includes paying to have my system rebuilt if a bad ad gets served to me
4 give me the capability to block types of ads i do not want to see (yes you can datamine this info as you would like)
oh and clearly separate ad content from "real" content
Maybe they won't be able to run jack shit though? Maybe it will not work? Maybe throw in the towel and don't waste time on it?
I see no ads on any page ever. I bet I still will not.
Maybe it's time for you to stop using Facebook altogether.
I would have to start using Facebook first. I've never had an account and have no plans to get one.
Your continued use of the site IS their explicit permission that they can serve you their content - ads and all.
I don't use their site so they don't have any permission from me about anything. Anyway they can try. Doesn't mean I have to cooperate or let them do it. I have confidence I'll win that arms race.
I'm sure the ad-blockers will adapt to this. .
Except I still can't read wired or Forbes with my adblocker running.
(Unless something has changed very recently.)
I don't use facebook. Never have, never will. Things like this just reinforce my stance. If the only way to reach some one or some business is through Facebook, they will just have to go along without me.
Unfortunately I have found my self following Twitter because that seems to be the only way to follow some news sources that stopped using RSS. Thankfully Polly on Linux keeps it very streamlined.
I don't have a FB account however the wife does, she boasts about 250 friends and perhaps posts something once a month / every two weeks.
There is no point to private messaging via Facebook unless she forgets / loses the person's number. From time to time I sort through the news feed. What I usually do is a little game called "count the crap". And to be fair it started out with lots of social interactions but as of late it's clear Facebook has passed its expiration, if it isn't some junk Facebook forces you to read then its a share or a repost of something commerically orientated. There is only so many philosophical sayings and uplifting quotes tha concept has become stale and puppies and cats can only be so funny.
I'd say 12 months and Facebook's appeal will be totally gone. I'm no saying it won't be still popular but it's passed its peak, it's apex has seen a close in my view.
No, it cannot. Host-based blocking will not work for Facebook, they are clearly large enough to serve all of their ads themselves. This is where content inspection is required, not just outright blocking a domain.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
FAR from it: Adblocker browser addons can't do a fraction of what hosts do https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9505391&cid=52672239 & https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9505391&cid=52672357
APK
P.S.=> Ads aren't served from the same domain as a site's pages - why? Advertisers don't trust webmasters counts on click views (& I don't blame them). Facebook may be able to afford to pull it off - 99% of sites can't... apk
I left FB about two months ago. I thought I would have withdrawal symptoms, but it turns out the rest of the Internet is full of people fighting about Trump v Hillary, too.
See subject: IF you're concerned about it, build a better tool then yourself. Hosts do FAR more for FAR LESS vs. any single "so-called 'solutions'" out there - bar none.
* FACT!
APK
P.S.=> My program functions JUST FINE as is & as I said above? Nothing else comes close on as many levels for added speed, security, reliability & anonymity online from 1 single file you already have NATIVELY that does all that, for far less... apk
I'm actually a fairly active Facebook user, and am totally fine with ads as long as they don't blink, move around, obstruct what I'm reading, etc.
My main problem with them is that you do not get ads without the ads tracking what you are doing. Unlike advertising on my TV which isn't particularly directed at me, online advertisers seem to think they have some $diety given right to track my every movement and mouse click. I disagree and I take active measure to prevent it. I am NOT fine with being tracked to that degree. So the ads get blocked and will remain so because I fundamentally cannot trust these companies.
Funny thing is that I would (and do) happily subscribe to various website that provide me services and content I find valuable. I'd be more than happy to break off a few bills for a valuable service if they weren't so damn arrogant and creepy.
Like the good old Google text ads, they were pretty useful even at times.
Maybe to you there were/are useful. To me, not so much. Never clicked on a single one on purpose.
ABP remains active, let's just see what happens and how it develops.
ABP, uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, plus a few other countermeasures are in active use on my machines.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
People hate advertising.
Ad blockers allow people to endure some services. Without them, the choice between being harassed or not using the service seems trivial.
Bar a couple of exceptions, any service that asked me to disable my adblocker just got me closing the page and looking for the next choice.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
I experimented with advertizing on FB for my small business and found that it was effective for getting "likes" and "shares" but not conversions into people even visiting the website, let alone using it. When I looked at the pages of the people liking and sharing, it became apparent that they were almost all the type of people who like and share dozens of posts per day, so their friends probably unfollowed their posts long ago. The ad algorithms are obviously tuned to maximize your payment to FaceBook while appearing to give you good results (yay! look at how many likes and shares you got! you're practically going viral!), so they seem to intentionally show your ads to those types of people. If you have a useless site with attention-grabbing click-bait images and "news" entertainment that makes money off of stuffing tons of additional ads on the site itself, then maybe it is worth advertising on FB. But if you are trying to advertize a legitimate product or service, FB does not seem to be a very cost-effective way to go.
"they're not a tack on" no they are a TICK Off!
I mean, I can view those sites without ads just fine. You should google it, there's plenty of workarounds.
The industry should agree to decent standards for ad-serving rather than engage in a messy cat-and-mouse game.
Table-ized A.I.
Embedded malware in ads isn't inevitable. The can implement non-shitty security practices, like recompress images and video and forbid or scrutinize JavaScript.
So what have you built that is better than APK's host program AmicusNYCL?
Not a Farcebook user
The users say they don't want it.
They actively protect themselves with blockers.
They go out of their way to not be forced into seeing ads, to protect themselves from malvertising and other risks associated with ads.
So why can't Facebook take no for an answer?
... was back in my college days and that Calculus book was a bit rough as a pillow for my face after studying for exams.
With some slight modifications, s/Facebook/Windows10
To all you fucking losers that vitriolically standing up for FB; FUCK YOU! Fuck you so hard in your purple distended asshole with a giant black dildo.
Probably the same assholes that posted on Apple's Steve jobs page saying how much they miss a guy they never met.
Probably the same fucking idiots that say "If you don't vote you can't complain that government is corrupt and shitty".
Please take your arrogant and unwarranted bullshit and fuck off.
Too bad this is still at 0 and not modded to -1. AmicusNYCL hasn't built such a thing. He's pointing out that it would be incredibly hard. In the past Ad Blocking was relatively simple as the ads were served from ad networks rather than from the actual site you are visiting. So there were pretty simple algorithms to block them. Facebook is different because they can run their own in-house ad network and present the ads the same way as their native content. The only way to block this would be a cat-and-mouse game of trying to figure out which page elements are the advertisements on any given day.
I wonder what the Empress would think...
I would pay a couple of bucks a month to a subscription service that would provide links to various domains (that partner with the service) with NO ADS in them. I would pay for that. Netflix where are you?
I have become so hostile to advertisements that they now have the opposite effect on me. When i purchase stuff, one of the deciding factors as to whether i buy brand X over brand Y is whether or not ive seen ads for either product.
If i remember recently seeing an ad for your product. I will not buy it.
This is why i had to stop watching TV... i was running out of products/brands that i was willing to buy.
When i block you ad, im doing you a huge favor. Do not take away my ability to block your ads.
Not that I care that much what that PoS does anyway.
Couldn't we simply re-code a design that accepts ads and dumps it into a black hole (ie: /dev/null) where the calling script would believe it was delivered? It's probably more complicated with cookies, et al. But too bad for Facebook, I don't want their stinkin' ads.
Ads really have me considering deleting web browsers from my computer.
except links w3m
#1: Don't Use Fraud Book.
#2 If you must use Facebook, just use it to post a link to your server, running your website & your email.
The added benefit of only posting 1 link to Facebook: you have 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and will not get "Zuckered" by comment deleting moderators.
How is that question relevant? The question is whether host-based blocking can block ads served from the same domain. The answer is that it cannot. That's a simple factual statement, it does not require any assumptions about anyone involved in the process. The question always has the same answer regardless of whether Donald Knuth or Donald Trump is answering the question.
And, APK, if you want to talk to me then stop pretending like you're someone else.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I don't use FB, there problem solved.
Face Book: The new AOL, only more watered down.
Posting as AC because I am too lazy to change my Gmail profile while at work.
I guess facebook doesn't want my one login per year anymore. Nothing like spending 20 minutes per day saying happy birthday to everyone I every went to school with or worked with... not a service I need.
Ads and adblocking are like DRM and unauthorised copies - an arms race where no side ever achieves permanent victory.
And for the time when facebook gets its temporary upper-hand, there's always Links.
I'd rather pay a company for their efficient ad-blocker than watch any of the ADHD content on facebook and today's Web 2.0.
Only half of which are ads, by the way.
I accept that advertising is what supports platforms like Facebook (indeed, just about everything on the internet), but please remember the user in all of this. My computer is mine. My browser is mine. Monopolizing it while you play an irrelevant auto-play video is just not cool.
Facebook is relatively tame in this respect. I've seen worse.
...laura
Wait, are we talking about Zuckerberg or Facebook?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Can APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit block ads that come from the same domain of the content?
For example, if I'm visiting "https://example.com", and it serves ads sourced from "https://example.com/ads/", can APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit block them?
Because that's what Facebook is going to do to try thwarting ad blocks, including thwarting APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit.
It is more likely that FB will render flat or almost flat pages, leaving nothing but buttons for click through.. you might be able to block the click through functionality,
but you won't be able to block the image embeded in the page.
Yes the page size will explode, but they don't care. Each http(s) connection will be a tad longer, but hardware and network capacity are cheap. The people that
get hurt are the people on slow links or with small caps.
There was a time when IBM was unconquerable. General Motors and General Electric as well. Facebook will eventually decline. It's certainly not expanding market share anymore. . .
...Which is why they are so very interested in getting into India and Africa.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
No, ads are not "part of the experience". Yes, they are "tacked on".
What the professional liar actually means is that ads are part of the business model.
I feel like the early 1990s have returned. Anyone else remember Spamford Wallace claiming that people are genuinely interested in his "newsletter"?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Interesting observation, moreover, if they attempt to go around ab blocking software wouldn't they be guilty of breaking federal computer crime statues? I believe the wording is to the effect that you aren't allowed to view, alter or erase data on a system without permission.
Serving ads to a user might fall under the normal TOS, but attempting to bypass an ad blocker against the user's wishes would seem to meet these criteria. I am not saying that they are breaking federal law by doing this though, just opening the possibility for what would be a really interesting lawsuit to watch. Do corporations have a right to deliver content contrary to a user's wishes as part of a service? Is a furnace repair man allowed to break into my house for a monthly service?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
No, most businesses have been burned by hiring someone to manage their website. The initial website might be fine, but it costs too much to make simple changes; the website is vulnerable to exploit-of-the-week; the "monthly maintenance charges" are exorbitant.
Having a Facebook business account (tied to your personal account) means making changes is easy, you can post social things and get followers, etc. No monthly charges, easy as filling in a few fields.
The other "free" options for business are like of Yelp, with "pay us to move bad reviews to the bottom of the list" tactics. No thanks.
If other sites start doing this, it will help in some ways. Sure, we'll see some shitty ads, but instead of today where you use an adblocker that intercepts scripts and hides images that are loaded into the DOM after page load, all on the front end... the ads will load on the server-side and be a lot faster. Poorly implemented ads are the main reason pages take so long to load, even ad blocker can't actually stop many of them from loading, so we'll get faster sites. Sucks to have to look at ads though.
Maybe because I block the like buttons on all web sites they can't track me.
Or maybe because when I did see ads a few years ago, I reported them as offensive.
Let them try and get past my ad blockers. Yes that is plural on purpose.
You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
What the fuck is 'a tack on' ?
1- I have a minor in marketing, so I am always interested in seeing what the latest advertising trends are, who is doing what, and what techniques are being used
2- If the context and targeting is correct, ads on FB or Google's ad network can be very informative. Concerts, seminars, new products I'm interested in, news bits of subject matter I like, etc. This stuff really helps me know what is going on. What I don't like targeted car, credit card, fast food, women's douche, etc type of ads that have zero relevance to me at all.
Libertas in infinitum
All that bulk = poor ROI - Hosts do far more than all of those combined & then some, for far, Far, FAR less doing far more...
APK
P.S.=> Poor ROI... apk
I don't mind ads (although it would be nice to report the ones I don't want to see).
However, I hate clickbait ads from Taboola and Outbrain and the like. Whenever a site uses those (like on Wired), I block everything. Too bad adblockers don't give the option to just block the clickbait ads.
Ok, so I get it, I really do. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Linked-In, etc. all are funded by advertising that is how they make their money. It is their only business model. That being said, using mobile Facebook app I find a bunch of friends posting articles with the most horrific of advertising, the worst of the worst. The Facebook app browser doesn't let you block any of it. It's near impossible to even read the article with floating popups top and bottom banners and inline ads with buttons to fool you into click next in a slide show. Most of the articles are not even worth reading. But if I do want to read it, I can open with Safari and then my adblocker engages and suddenly the article is readable! The advertising is messing with the user experience in terrible ways. Especially on mobile as the screens are small.
It's these annoying ads on mobile that are horrific. Now FB is inserting suggested content into the news feed. They are also filtering the newsfeed and messing with the order of my friends posts. I rarely use FB on a desktop browser but when I do I definitely use an adblocker.
About the only way I can see if they are going to be aggressive about this is if they start using JavaScript extensively to make it darn near impossible to decipher. They load JavaScript into the browser then feed an encrypted stream to the browser and use the script already running in the browser to decode and render the page. Add many levels of abstraction and strip all the whitespace and it will make it difficult though not entirely impossible for the adblockers to decipher. They could scramble URLs, hostnames, etc.
I think they will shoot themselves in the foot over this... It would be a nail in their coffin and they would be headed the way of MySpace in no time flat. The new generation doesn't even use FB cause it's mostly old farts on FB now and their parents.
I like keeping in touch with family and friends on FB. I keep my friends at a small tight list. But I would drop it in a heartbeat if they pull any shenanigans.
Sounds like a great reason to ditch Facebook altogether now. It hasn't been very focussed on social networking lately anyway. Just another big data mine, using our data to generate their wealth. It's only a matter of time before they charge us for a "premium" or tiered service.
If concern translates into action
See subject: Of all the MILLIONS of websites online, how many host their own ads? Give me the answer to that & you have your POOR ROI for sure... what a waste!
APK
P.S.=> Doesn't affect me - there's a reason I called facebook "fakebook"... I don't use that crap myself... & again - how many sites hosts their own ads of the millions of sites out there? 2?? 3??? lol... apk
UBlock can't do these as well as (or @ all) hosts do 4 speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C's
3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnet C&C's
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C's
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks/hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use
17.) UBlock now uses hosts (no DNS benefits vs. dns issues) - poor imitation = "sincerest form of flattery"
Hosts = native vs. illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" & not ClarityRay blockable like addons.
APK
P.S.=> Hosts (1st resolver) do MORE w/ less in fast kernelmode & before slow usermode addons
Hosts ~3mb vs. UBlock = 64MB -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
Adblock can't do (or do as well) 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnet C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned/downed dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O us
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently (a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...)
ClarityRay defeats it
Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com...
AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions...
Amicusnycl points out by omission and evasion that he doesn't have the skills to build something better than APK has in his hosts program!
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...
Ads rob speed, security (malvertising), privacy (tracking).
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.
Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.
Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.
Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.
Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).
Gets data via 10 security sites.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )
Theres already an FB Purity update to defeat Facebook's anti ad-blocking code: FBPURITY.COM
See subject: Ads run javascript from another server (not site you're on) & hosts block the javascript source from another server.
APK
P.S.=> Here, take a read to verify what I said-> https://news.ycombinator.com/i... ... apk
Users refuse to load malware-riddled ads.
If I can't have an ad-free web experience, I don't want a web experience at all.
And so do all you clueless tools that use it!
See subject: You should - it's fact & solid when I point out host do FAR more for FAR less. I never said "hosts cure all" but that they do exactly what I just said more than ANY OTHER SINGLE "so-called 'solution'" out there for tons less.
HOWEVER: Do what you like... I too, am a BIG fan of "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" here (via my security guides circa 1996-2008) https://www.google.com/search?...
* I used to even mention adblock + hosts in them (but not after adblock sold out to advertisers).
APK
P.S.=> I do it w/in limits though - avoiding waste OR POOR ROI (hosts again do far more for far less on more grounds for more speed, security, reliability & anonymity by FAR for tons less) - & again: I do "DO FAKEBOOK" (it's bullshit imo)... apk
The problem is't the users, the problem is the fucking malware that you criminals insist we install on our computers as the price of viewing your shitty site.
My adblockers, script blockers, flash blockers and other protections from you are my condoms for my computer.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Its not paywal, its the same ads as before but they will disguise the code to avoid adblockers detection, then measure the eficiency and adjust accordingly. They will randomise the parts of the ads code used by the adsblockers like divs names, not use certain words and so on and serve the ads as html. Something Ive asked google a few times but they never replied...
You're an idiot, APK. You can't even just admit that host-based blocking isn't the solution in every case, can you? There's something about you which is unable to even admit such things. Instead you try to change the subject. Sorry man, but hosts is not the answer all the time. Your program will not protect people from all ads while still allowing them to use the sites.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
And, my software is better than your stupid little text management program. My software is for a completely different purpose, but rest assured that it does a lot more than text sorting and filtering and file I/O. We're all impressed by your grasp of the programming basics though, believe me.
None of which changes the fact that your program is not suitable for blocking all ads. It is limited at a fundamental level. In fact, your program itself does not block ads at all, the only thing it does is write to a text file. All of the heavy lifting lies in other pieces of software, not yours.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Where is your software (with no bugs since it has zero lines hahaha)? It isn't. You talk out your ass jackass. Thanks for proving it!
Do I detect the memory of a teenager's painful conversation with a parent here? ;)
The reality of human culture is that it requires a degree of conformity if a meaningful culture is to exist. The question is whether the network effects of FB justify its adoption, and my instinct is that they do. YMMV. However if you are part of a culture in which FB is a significant means of communication, you need to do FB; we don't live in small villages where we will talk to everyone face to face any more.
See subject: Seems AlexGieg agrees hosts work on 99.999% of sites https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... out there vs. ads (or close to it) as most sites don't serve their OWN ads, jackass...
* It's a pleasure to see others have picked up on your lies too - seeing as you can't back up your bluster on actually having written decent software (as I have that's gone on the MS TechEd 2000-2002 as a now commercially sold body of code I wrote that increased another wares' efficacy by up to 40% - & that's only a FRACTION of what I can put out to that effect... how about you? ZERO, lol!)
APK
P.S.=> You're a BLOWHARD liar, nothing more - thanks for proving that to everyone yet again, lmao! apk
It's running on several servers.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
See subject: In the business world I've decades of that & I have success you'll never have in wares https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8694351&cid=51438519 too!
&
PROOF others like my hosts file program here on /. (does anyone say that about your "phantasyland ware" that doesn't exist? LOL!) https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8694351&cid=51429541
(Which I have DUSTED YOU ON BEFORE just (& I've just GOTTA say it, lol) "too, Too, TOO EASILY - just '2ezly'" as always!)
* Face facts jackass - you'll NEVER be in my league - you're a blowhard liar as far as I'm concerned with nothing to your name/credit that's any good (I don't think you have anything actually - you never prove you do).
APK
P.S.=> Get back to me when YOU have done as much as I have & to the SAME level of acclaim (like having successfully commercially sold by CERTIFIED MICROSOFT PARTNERS that was a finalist for 2 yrs. in a ROW @ MS TechEd 2000-2002 that increased their wares' efficacy by up to 40% which I was paid VERY NICELY for my code no less... ok?) - I'll be waiting till the "12 of never", lol... apk
Get ready for the exodus to the next startup platform that begins by "playing nice" and offering a good user experience. Goodbye Facebook, it was nice knowing you.
See subject: Gosh! 2 sites of millions in the world where hosts don't work? You prove my point Alexgieg agreed on (he 's posting too stupid, not just me & you can't handle others like MY ware, not yours, lol).
ABOVE ALL ELSE: I never say hosts cure it all. Just most of it (like 99.999%) - better than browser addons that clarityray defeats or your non-existent bullshit ware! Alexgieg agreed on it in fact (he had to, it's truth).
You also talk a lot of bull but when you're asked to prove you've done all I have OR BETTER, you can't. You sure try put me down though.
Have fun with your NON-EXISTENT WARE YOU NEVER EVER MADE - prove otherwise, lol (you can't).
Do you realize how stupid that ALL above makes you look?
Jealous + a "ne'er-do-well" as I've LONG AGO done things you never will blowhard.
LOL - bragging about a job YOU DON'T HAVE? Prove you do... me by comparison?
I haven't HAD to work for others for a decade++ (I do consult for more money than you make being a cook @ burgerking by far, lol). My money actually WORKS FOR ME, literally, making it possible.
APK
P.S.=> You try cut me down for being successful many times for decades and you haven't been? Please. Do you think anyone believes a damn thing you merely say BUT can't prove? Get real - ANYONE CAN TELL LIES & TALK like you do, not everyone does well (like I have)... apk
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
See subject & yourself quoted above: Addons = wasteful of cpu cycles, messagepassing overheads (layered over already slower usermode browsers slowing them more), RAM, & more moving parts complexity (for both exploit or breakdown) & yes, they're redundant too vs. hosts (which operates LONG before they do).
APK
P.S.=> If you want SOLID factual verifiable & UNDENIABLE backing of what I said in my 1st paragraph? Ask - I have it from reputable & reliable sources' researches... apk
It's the perfect way to find all the people globally we need to purge :) Same with that Russian facebook-like site. Just iterate through all those social networking sites until all that is left is privacy advocates (because everybody left has learned their lesson on why ubiquitous information access by possibly hostile 3rd parties is bad for your health.)
See subject: Show us you've done more, better & earlier than I in computing:
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue page 61
(for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84 my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES my work is there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83 my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100 my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000 my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, 1st one featured again!
Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees http://www.xtremepccentral.com...
It's also been myself helping out the folks at the UltraDefrag64 project (a 64-bit defragger for Windows), in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too), & being credited for it by their lead dev & his team... see here -> http://ultradefrag.sourceforge... or here http://sourceforge.net/tracker...
Which ended up fixing a "bug" for them later http://sourceforge.net/p/ultra...
APK
See subject: You? CAN'T (lol) - You illustrate how pitiful you are AmicusNYCL! Lots of bs no proof. What can you prove you've done? NOTHING... lmao!
I never said I was a "genius". I prove I am YOUR SUPERIOR, easily w/ verifiable proofs (you just talk which any asshole can do)!
Quit trying to put words in my mouth I didn't say (or you're projecting you think I am that intelligent - lol, thanks - take your pick, either way? You fail!)
&
I don't work hard @ proving you're ALL TALK... why? You're so lame it's EASY TO DO to you (you start w/ me everytime, lol) - YOU can't prove you've done SQUAT... that is fact. Undeniable...
* Truer words have NEVER been spoken on /. ... YOU are a fucking blowhard ZERO - & not only do YOU know it, everyone else does too (due to your lack of backup for your bs).
By the way, lastly?
Hosts work FINE on facebook right now - you fail again, lmao! What've YOU done better again?? ZERO, lol!
(I'll STILL be able to show you're a blowhard "ne'er-do-well" in 2025... how? Weak wannabes like you NEVER change!)
Hosts have been here since, oh, 73 iirc? So much for your "time passes"... lol, time will pass @ the end of YOUR days & you will still be NOTHING, lol (& you KNOW it) individually, punk.
APK
P.S.=> Shoot of your do nothing cocksucker ALL YOU LIKE, but you & "WE"? NO chump - not "we" (I've been @ this longer I can show FAR MORE that way)... YOU individually = ZERO (you can't PROVE otherwise, lol)... apk
See subject: Well? Hosts work on facebook (just tested it) too, lol... so answer my question in my subject above - it's explicit enough (even for a flimsy dweeb (or fat chunk of greasy pork), lol, like you - what I call a "not man"/FLIMSOR, lol!).
* By the way? Quarterback?? Nope... 1st string starting defensive back for a NY State championship team for decades & lacrosse (state ranked) + later in the NCAA a lettering 1st string attackman/midfielder for a decades long national champ too...
How about you "Capt. PORK" alias 'FLIMSOR'? Hahahahaha cuz I just KNOW that's what you are, all you are... a zero. Your WHOLE life, a wannabe liar.
APK
P.S.=> Game? Bitch listen - you showed EVERYONE HERE YOU HAVE NO GAME... you don't have the skills to even BEGIN to start to play, yet you try "cut me down"? LOL, no shit, I am laughing @ you... the WHOLE SITE is, trust me! Answer that question above, lol... puh-leese, lmao! apk
See subject: For less! Who can beat that bargain? Nobody. It works on everything man. Getting back to what I said to you earlier above??
DO BETTER THAN ME MAN... only, ONLY thing holding lots of you back?
Yourselves...
APK
P.S.=> It's all I really, Really, REALLY want to see + WHY & how I can bust on fools https://slashdot.org/comments.... ala that example going on right here in this very exchange no less above OUR discussion (which is fine, you're ok, & I believe someone like YOU has potential, that windbag in that link never will)
THAT is so some of you /.'ers literally (& I mean it) end up EVOLVING to the ultimate state of computing pro (writing useful code it makes both YOU & the WORLD, better in a very real sense)!
So you can be able to run ANYWHERE (like hosts, lol) & do well on most ANY GROUNDS in this art & science - a real "harley rider" who knows his bike on the information superhighway... apk
Slashdot is FBI now, so is Debian Linux. NSA and CIA direct Microsoft spying. FBI, CIA, and NSA cover Facebook spying and there are many moles in FBI.
They are mining our personal data already. We should not have to see the ads. The fact is, Facebook is better off keeping advertising minimal so people don't put two and two together and start resenting being data mined . Facebook will not be popular with the young generations indefinitely. Younger generations generally avoid association too much with older trends. That will almost certainly happen to Facebook and a new popular social network trend will start. What will Facebook be then? Seniors hookups?
Amicusnycl if APK's so bad why can he show he's done better than you in computing? You show us you've nothing good to your credit but apk does.
Phone solicitors are asking the government to make it illegal to hang up on them or refuse to answer the phone. TV advertisers are asking the government to address the problem of viewers deciding to go to the bathroom during commercial breaks and claim to be losing millions as a result. They also want DRM technology that would prohibit someone from skipping over commercials on recorded TV programs.
the people who use ad blocking software to prevent drive by download attacks from ads and people with a slow bandwidth connection such as 1.5 Mbps from Centurylink (no other ISP to choose from in their area) who have to give up some of their bandwidth in order to view advertisements? What about people with limited data and will be charged extra if they go over an allotted bandwidth?
I use an active HOSTS file loaded with all known ad domains and servers, plus ABP.
If you keep that HOSTS file up to date, that may take care of FB's idiocy.
Or any other greedy website for that matter.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.