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.
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.
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.
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
I'd be totally fine if this were the standard thing. Like this site? Either watch ads or pay a small subscription fee.
The "We insist on force feeding you ads" mentality has to stop though. I wonder whether the right solution is that if a company is particularly obnoxious about bypassing ad-blockers, to code those ad blockers to simulate clicks on ads, preferably in a way that's detectable by the ad buyer, but not the ad seller. For example, if a click goes to:
ad.adseller.com/click?adid=1293481&something&something=else
which redirects to:
ad.adseller.com/out?adid=1293481&user=181
which redirects to:
www.widgetshop.com/product.aspx?id=192
Then exactly those links would be followed, temporarily setting any cookies, showing normal User Agents, etc, each page loaded in a hidden javascript-enabled HTML renderer, but that last link would be rewritten to include additional information:
www.widgetshop.com/product.aspx?id=192&bsclick=1&explanation=http://adblockerdeluxe.com/you-paid-for-a-fake-click-you-sucker.html&source=http://www.facebook.com
(Javascript's location.href would show the URL sans the additional information, preventing any JS on the page designed to send feedback back to the Ad broker from revealing the secret.)
Ad *buyers* would very quickly catch on and start blocking their ads from being shown on offending websites (or else reduce the amount they're willing to pay per click, probably by several orders of magnitude given that click throughs are always low.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It's amazing how 20 years ago everyone looked down on anyone who sat at a computer on bulletin board systems all the time. Now everyone's doing it, it's OK. F*cking hypocrites.
Social media is not being social. I recently told someone this and they gave me a blank stare. You have to go out and meet people face-to-face and put your damn facebook app away. I'm personally not on facebook and never will be.
Why would anyone who dislikes ads even use facebook?
The irony here, 99% of the time I go to Facebook, I go there specifically for ads.
Except... Not the ads Facebook wants me to see. I go there for things like menus and hours and contact info for local small businesses (because apparently controlling your online presence by having your own website has become passe).
That said - Challenge accepted, Zuckmeister! Let's see how effective you can block ads (or block those who try). Why, just look how well it worked for the likes of Forbes and Wired!
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.
that is something i don't understand. why the fuck are you advertising someone else's company like that? is facebook really bringing in that much revenue you can ignore your own branding and your own web site?
no. if you aren't a facebook exclusive game publisher, it is not.
the carl jr's-owned chain, hardee's, does that. hardees.com isn't on any packaging, any advertisements, not visible on anything by customers, anywhere.. but
hardees.com
is infinitely better than
facebook.com/hardees with a blue square 'f' next to it.
the only thing i can think of is that companies think their audience or customer base is too stupid to use the internet, and can only 'facebook'. but i think it may be more like the marketing 'geniuses' are the ones that can only 'facebook' or 'instagram' or 'twitter' and don't know what the 'internet' is.
> When in reality, the best experience is an ad-free experience.
That's not always true. I do hardware design, and enjoy woodworking, and read paper magazines related to both. I find the ads in those magazines useful, because they are very relevant. Now, if I found a penis enhancer ad in either magazine, that would be bad.
If Facebook or any other site offered a checklist of ad topics to serve me, I would find that reasonable. I could pick the ones I was interested in, and not see the rest.