Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Advertising Google Yahoo!

Google, Yahoo Cry About Ad-Blocking (cnbc.com) 707

JustAnotherOldGuy writes: Google and Yahoo have accused ad-blocking software Shine of "destroying the relationship" between advertisers and consumers, after an executive from the company called its solution a "nuclear weapon" threatening the industry. Ad blocking software use grew 41 percent in the 12 months to August 2015 and there are now 198 million active adblock users around the world, according PageFair. Benjamin Faes, managing director of media and platforms at Google, called Shine's technology a "blunt" solution that punishes users and good advertisers, and said, "Blocking all ads I think it's diminishing my experience of advertising and in that case we see an issue for the user themselves." It appears that these advertising executives still don't "get it", and are disingenuously tone-deaf to the legitimate complaints raised about ads.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google, Yahoo Cry About Ad-Blocking

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @07:53PM (#51571265)

    Here's a tip, Ben : "good advertiser" is an oxymoron.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 )

      Depends. Add a "dead" somewhere and it is no longer.

    • by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:39PM (#51571627) Homepage Journal

      There actually is good advertizing. I mean, actually good and not merely unobtrusive. It's very rare but it exists. Here's how to see if any particular ad is an example:
      Are people better off for having seen the ad than if they hadn't?

      This comes in a few forms:
      Reminders for something they wanted to do but forgot, or didn't think about. (People who bought X also bought Y.)
      Coordination issues. (Eg cellphone networks, or electric cars, or something else that needs multiple people buying it at the same time)
      Bargains (actual ones, not fake sales)
      Fundamentally new items

      Of course, pretty much everyone will think that their pet product is worthy of everyone's attention, which is why basically all advertizing is equivalent to V!@GRA spam, only more deceitful.

      • by vtcodger ( 957785 ) on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @02:16AM (#51573051)

        "There actually is good advertizing. I mean, actually good and not merely unobtrusive. It's very rare but it exists."

        Yes, there is some. For example, I just typed "Toyota Camry tie rod ends" into Google. The search page comes back in three or four seconds and near the top there is a box that says sponsored, and has half a dozen images of tie rod ends from various suppliers ... with prices .. in USD. I wonder if I lived in Canada if the prices would be in Canadian dollars.

        No problem there, really. Google is trying to be helpful as well as trying to make money. And they are succeeding. That's fine. I wouldn't block those ads even if I could.

      • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @05:01AM (#51573493) Journal

        (People who bought X also bought Y.

        That is actually the main reason I used to buy connectors from Farnell. Because none of the usual suspects (Farnell, RS, Mouser, DigiKey, etc) ever thought to link the connectors and specific crimp pins that you really need together. They were usually hell to find.

        Farnell however had a "people also bought X" feature and 99% of the time, X was the correct, unique crimp pin which went with the shell. The crimp tool would also be in the list if I felt like shelling out an extra $500[*].

        I've not been buying these recently so I don't know if they've all got a clue now.

        [*]If you've never used a proper $500 crimp tool and you've had to crimp stuff then you are missing out.

    • by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @09:52PM (#51572113)

      Next story:

      TV manufacturers whine about "mute button" and "off button".

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If these marketing guys ever figure out a way for their commercial to climb out of your screen and dry hump you, we'll all be in trouble.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        If these marketing guys ever figure out a way for their commercial to climb out of your screen and dry hump you, we'll all be in trouble.

        You didn't think Amazon was just going to have that drone drop off a package, did you???

    • by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert@slashdo t . f i renzee.com> on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @01:29AM (#51572899) Homepage

      It's bad advertisers that destroyed the relationship, ad blocking is just a natural reaction to that... It was the most intrusive ads (ie popups) that got blocked first, and it's the really intrusive ones (eg with sound) that cause people to install adblockers.
      Personally i installed an adblocker after i had a large number of tabs open and suddenly one of them started playing an ad with sound, it took me ages to hunt down and close the tab making noise so the anger triggered a response.

    • by vtcodger ( 957785 ) on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @01:47AM (#51572957)

      I'll make em a deal. If they will serve up ads that use minimal bandwidth, don't obscure content, do not make me wait for some stupid site in Botswana to respond, do not use javascript, do not expose me to malware, and do not try to use my audio or to display video, I'll delete my hosts file.

      And a suggestion to advertisers. Pissing off your audience probably is a less than optimal tactic.

    • by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @05:33AM (#51573601) Journal

      To me the question of adblocking is VERY simple...are Google and Yahoo willing to actually stand behind their product and pay for any and all damages when they let malvertising through? No? Then they can jump off the nearest bridge.

      Their "product" is a huge security threat and this has been shown time and time again to be so. If you block advertising? The risk of malware infection drops so low as to be off the charts, in fact I can't even remember the last PC that came through the shop that got infected when the user had adblocking enabled. As long as their "product" remains the #1 risk to a computers security I WILL install adblocking on every PC that crosses my desk, to do otherwise just to support some corp that can't keep malware out of their network? Would simply be foolish.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bsdpanix ( 170144 )

      It's the advertisers that destroyed the relationship. Their dancing snakes and popups, popunders have necessitated adblocking.
      Ads quickly became obnoxious and were easily blocked. Then they became sneaky and required a bit of effort to block, but they were blocked.
      Now that we block ads, it's a war. Since the advertisers continue to go over the top, I now look at pages with 50% white space because their divs are whited out

  • disruption (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Is a two way street. I wonder how many businesses and business models that bit the dust over the last 15 years felt the same way about Google?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geoskd ( 321194 )

      Is a two way street. I wonder how many businesses and business models that bit the dust over the last 15 years felt the same way about Google?

      It absolutely blows my mind that the online advertisers haven't figured out how to defeat ad-blocking. It's actually retarded simple to do. All the advertisers have to do is proxy their ads through the site the users are trying to access. If www.forbes.com is directly serving the ads from their own domain, no adblocker in the world will prevent the user from seeing it, as blocking forbes.com will shut out the whole site, and the user wont get anything.

      Talk about not "getting it", This really is a no-braine

      • by ShaunC ( 203807 )

        It absolutely blows my mind that the online advertisers haven't figured out how to defeat ad-blocking. It's actually retarded simple to do. All the advertisers have to do is proxy their ads through the site the users are trying to access.

        It's dead simple, but they won't do it, because then they would be paying for the bandwidth to serve all those ads! They'd prefer to keep offloading that expense.

      • Is a two way street. I wonder how many businesses and business models that bit the dust over the last 15 years felt the same way about Google?

        It absolutely blows my mind that the online advertisers haven't figured out how to defeat ad-blocking. It's actually retarded simple to do. All the advertisers have to do is proxy their ads through the site the users are trying to access. If www.forbes.com is directly serving the ads from their own domain, no adblocker in the world will prevent the user from seeing it, as blocking forbes.com will shut out the whole site, and the user wont get anything.

        Talk about not "getting it", This really is a no-brainer from a technical standpoint.

        It's actually an amusing symptom of the problem. There is just a huge disconnect between advertisers and the sites they're advertising on. Which is really part of the problem. Maybe if the disconnect between advertiser and media was erased, sites would take a more proactive stance on serving sane advertising that isn't obnoxious and completely irrelevant to the site itself. Sadly, the '3rd party' advertising engine that connects sites to advertisers is a huge problem. The answer isn't easy IMHO.. make

  • I don't recall adverts getting that much more annoying in 2015. Is this just more users or did something happen to make folks install more ad blockers (or more likely get an entire new class of user interested in ad blockers)?
    • by whipslash ( 4433507 ) Works for Slashdot on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:00PM (#51571303) Homepage Journal
      I'd say iOS supporting ad blockers probably contributed to it.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Like any sane web user, I use a ton of browser extensions that warn me about requests to questionable third-party hosts.

        When I browse Slashdot, requests are attempted to "Taboola" and "Janrain" and "ScoreCard" and "NTV" and "rpxnow" and "StackSocial".

        Now I don't know what the fuck any of those are, and TBH I don't care to know.

        So let's say I made an HTTP request to slashdot.org. As far as I'm concerned, the page served up by slashdot.org doesn't need to require requests be made to any other host to show me

      • by Trepidity ( 597 )

        Also the company this article mentions, Shine, which provides carrier-level mobile ad blocking. Their product isn't a browser extension like uBlock Origin, it's more of an ad-blocking proxy server that they're currently rolling out on the Three mobile network. Advertisers are particularly annoyed about that because it rolls out to everyone, even the non-tech-savvy, vs. people having to install browser extensions.

    • I think it's just that the annoyance threshold for the average Joe has been reached. That and adblockers have been put into the limelight by so many ad companies trying to sue them out of existence.

      Even Joe Randomsurfer noticed that, and he noticed that those ad-blockathingamajig are somehow the enemy of those noisy, obnoxious nuisances. Good enough a reason to take a look. Enemy of my enemy and all that.

    • by amicusNYCL ( 1538833 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:20PM (#51571469)

      I think that mainstream users are just starting to wake up to the fact that ad blockers exist. Ads may be getting more and more prevalent and annoying, but frankly I don't think many of us here would know if they are.

      Google and Yahoo have accused ad-blocking software Shine of "destroying the relationship" between advertisers and consumers

      That's funny, because no one forces anyone to install and use an ad blocker (compare this with advertisers wanting to force people to "consume" ads). People make the choice of installing an ad blocker because the so-called "relationship" between advertisers and consumers essentially consists of advertisers wanting consumers to bend over and accept anything that gets shoveled at them. Maybe that relationship was doomed to fail from the start, and maybe most people are just waking up to the fact that they don't have to be in that relationship any more. This is like an abusive relationship where the person getting abused realizes that this isn't a normal productive healthy relationship, and they don't have to put up with it any more.

      Benjamin Faes, managing director of media and platforms at Google, called Shine's technology a "blunt" solution that punishes users and good advertisers

      If advertisers aren't going to police their own industry then, yeah, count on other people to create a blunt solution. It may not solve the problem the way that advertisers would like the problem to be solved, but then again advertisers have had a good 2 decades to figure out a workable relationship for online advertising. So far their solution has been to abuse people and not call each other out when they notice other bad actors. Thankfully we don't need to count on them for a solution, but it's not going to be the solution they want.

      Blocking all ads I think it's diminishing my experience of advertising

      Of course it's diminishing your experience of advertising, you're an advertiser. Blocking all ads actually improves my experience of advertising, by a lot. If only I could extend it to the physical world.

      • by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @09:06PM (#51571817)

        So far their solution has been to abuse people and not call each other out when they notice other bad actors

        I like how we're calling them bad actors. Like we're eventually going to discover that Nicolas Cage was behind the whole thing.

      • That's funny, because no one forces anyone to install and use an ad blocker

        Shine blocks ads at the network level - individual users couldn't opt out, even if they wanted to. This is different than adblocking browser extensions, in that users are forced into it.
        Not that I'm against it. I use a similar system on my home network, and love it.

      • by Maow ( 620678 )

        Benjamin Faes, managing director of media and platforms at Google, called Shine's technology a "blunt" solution that punishes users and good advertisers

        If advertisers aren't going to police their own industry then, yeah, count on other people to create a blunt solution.

        I've often felt the same way, but now I'm idly wondering - how would they police themselves? Nothing short of the FTC has such power in the USA, and that's just for the USA.

        They have trade groups but seem unable to force bad actors to desist.

        It's like, how would the 0.0001% of responsible telemarketers stop the rest from spamming us via telephone?

        I guess I'm just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on how this could be implemented.

        Blocking all ads I think it's diminishing my experience of advertising

        Of course it's diminishing your experience of advertising, you're an advertiser. Blocking all ads actually improves my experience of advertising, by a lot. If only I could extend it to the physical world.

        I just cannot agree with this more; well put.

    • by Drishmung ( 458368 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:54PM (#51571739)
      Neither do I, but that might be because I've run some sort of ad blocking for years. :)

      But, ads have become incrementally more annoying, and seem to have passed a threshold.

      * I don't mind advertising. Advertising lets me find things that I might want or need.

      * I don't mind sites showing me advertising.

      * I don't mind advertisers knowing that their ad appeared on a page that was viewed.

      * I don't mind advertisers knowing that someone clicked on that ad.

      * I do object to the presence of ads making the page slow to load.

      * I object very much to the presence of ads making the page extremely slow to load.

      * I object to the presence of ads consuming lots of my bandwidth (I resource that I pay for).

      * I object very much to the presence of ads making the page unusable (pop-overs, unsolicited audio, etc.)

      * I do not cede my privacy to the advertiser.

      - - you do not have permission to track me

      - - you do not have permission to sell information (surreptitiously) gathered about me to 3rd parties

      Stop treating me with contempt, stop treating me as a resource to be pillaged. If I tell you not to track me, do not ignore my instruction, and especially do not bleat that it's OK for you to ignore my instruction but it's not OK to for me to ignore your ads.

      As your advertising becomes increasingly indistinguishable from malware, do not be surprised when a market springs up to counter it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I agree 100%! A few more points:
        --Advertisers did not pay for my computer. I am the ONLY one that gets to decide what gets downloaded and displayed on MY computer.
        -- Recently Advertisers have called those of us who block their ads thieves, and the authors of ad-blocking software criminals.
        -- I consider that the advertisers are the criminals, trying to steal the (capped) bandwidth that we pay for,
        -- They try to steal private information to target ads to us, and if thats not creepy enough, sell that informa

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      Part of it is probably the distribution of malware through the ad networks.

  • by sehlat ( 180760 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @07:59PM (#51571295)

    Advertisers have several blind spots.

    1. They don't care about user security and malware-exclusion. ("It's not OUR content after all.")

    2. They don't care that WE are paying for any bandwidth usage they suck up on our end. (2MB pages with 10K the content the user wanted. Rest is advertising.)

    3. For those systems where advertisers bid the suppliers for who gets displayed, the end user can sit doing nothing while the site owners wait for some "optimum" bid.

    4. Most advertising is utterly irrelevant as far as the viewer is concerned.

    For all of the above reasons, ad-blockers are our friends, and advertisers are the enemy.

    • by ChunderDownunder ( 709234 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:05PM (#51571349)

      5. You shouldn't need a quad-core CPU to process a web page.

      If a site puts my computer in a death throttle for 10 seconds processing random JavaScript, I'll close the tab.

      • by cfalcon ( 779563 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:13PM (#51571415)

        > I'll close the tab

        hahaha you'll TRY to close the tab- maybe it'll listen

      • by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:14PM (#51571421)

        Quite correct.

        On my Linux box, web pages load instantly without any problems.

        On my iPhone, web pages load
        reloading
        On my iPhone, web pages load
        reloading
        On my
        Full page ad loads.
        Can I close the ad? Oops. Now I'm at the App Store looking at the app for that site.
        Close the app store.
        Try to start the process again.
        On my iPhone, web pages load
        reloading
        On my
        back to the top of the page
        On my iPhone, web pages load
        Script loads ALL the social media links. No thanks. Not going to "share" this.
        back to the top of the page

        Fuck it. If it is important I'll remember to look at it on my PC.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        6. To get one's attention, ads often feature grotesque fungus-infected toenails, giant hairy bellies, and that #@&% possessed androgynous redneck kid with the big gums.

        7. They are often repetitious. I'm sick and tired of the psychedelic IBM ads on slashdot, for example. The 60's are dead, Jim. Youtube also runs the same ads over and over.

        If they don't want us to block ads, then stop making them stupid in the 7 different ways.

    • by Chalnoth ( 1334923 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:16PM (#51571437)
      1. How do you propose funding websites, if not with ads? 2. There's no reason for ad bidding to take more than a few milliseconds. If it takes longer, then the intermediary supplying the ad has broken software. I'm pretty sure this is a complete non-issue.
      • by es330td ( 964170 )
        Back when I ran websites the ad content was sold and hosted locally. I never had an ad hosted by a third party provider. Any website worthy of being visited by users will be able to get their own advertisers. This should create a new industry of companies who produce software for hosting and managing local ads but at the end of the day the content will have to come off that website's server. If this means less content then the free market is working and consumers will either decide they are willing to pay f
      • 1. How do you propose funding websites, if not with ads?

        Provide enough value I'm willing to pay for it directly. I do that with several websites I frequent. If people aren't willing to pay for what you are doing directly then it probably isn't worth all that much to them.

        Speaking for myself I value my privacy FAR more than any random article you could possibly entice me to read. I have NO interest in being tracked by advertising networks and I will take harsh measures to ensure it doesn't happen. If their crappy business model can't handle that then too bad.

    • by Mitreya ( 579078 )
      I think besides the usual (security issues, browser crashing, screen space, auto-play, sound, popups, etc, etc), this one does not get enough outrage.

      3. For those systems where advertisers bid the suppliers for who gets displayed, the end user can sit doing nothing while the site owners wait for some "optimum" bid.

      The webpage is literally sitting there hanging because some random ad website is not responding now. If that doesn't show how little companies care about users, I don't know what does.
      I remember a period when Blockbuster.com page used to stop dead for 5-10 seconds trying to contact some Facebook sub-domain, and it drove me crazy every time.

    • by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:18PM (#51571455)

      Advertising is nothing but visual spam. It places non-relevant crap in place of information you actually look for, and in the best case is a waste of time.

      Thus, there's no such thing as "good" ads. As with all spam, if I wanted penis enlargement, I'd search for it.

    • by Trogre ( 513942 )

      5. They waste real walltime, when trying to view YouTube videos for example and those horrible inline non-skippable ads appear. Time is money and all that.

      They seem to be playing a leapfrog game with AdBlock Plus, as every few weeks the video ads come back for a while before ABP gets an update.

  • Great Ad for Shine (Score:4, Interesting)

    by casings ( 257363 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @07:59PM (#51571297)

    I wonder if Shine blocks that article, because it is a great advertisement for their product.

  • by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @07:59PM (#51571299)

    Ad companies are routinely doing drive by malware infections. It's precisely this lack or review and certification of ads that is their problem. Until they are willing to pay editors to review and approve ads they will continue to be abused by ad companies and the only solution the consumer has at that point is the nuclear option. The very existence of autoplay video advertising and malware loaded ad's is direct evidence of their problem.

    When the ad's go back to editorial approved ad's hosted and run by the companies providing the content no on will be able to block the ads. But this will mean the companies accepting the advertising have to take responsibility for the crap advertising they accept.

    • When the ad's go back to editorial approved ad's hosted and run by the companies providing the content no on will be able to block the ads. But this will mean the companies accepting the advertising have to take responsibility for the crap advertising they accept.

      Not only that, but the ads might actually then be somewhat relevant to the site you're on, particularly if it's a smaller site run by someone or a group of people who actually agree to endorse a particular product.

      Right now, unless you run a bunch of cookie and script blockers, the experience is this strange echo chamber on much of the internet. "Why do I keep seeing ads for the same exact product I just bought on Amazon two weeks ago? I already bought one: I don't need more. But they keep showing me t

  • Until then, you can self-abort. I see your sneakiness and raise you 2 sneakies.
  • ...Our belief is that if someone doesn't like them, and they won't click on them, any impressions served to them will only annoy them-- plus, serving ads to people who won't click on them harms campaign performance. ... Publishers can't win by forcing ads — especially low-quality ads — in people's faces. ...

    .
    http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

    • You think they finally learn that it is probably NOT a good way to get attention by shoving crap into the face of the people they try to woo?

      One really has to wonder whether advertisers are human beings. I mean, even to a 3 year old it's obvious that having something shoved into your face is a surefire way to NOT like it. Seems the average 3 year old is smarter than the average advertiser.

  • It used to be that Google Ads were relevant to the page they were on, and they were text. There was a time when I'd occasionally click on a Google text ad because it was actually something relevant and interesting to me. But then they started pushing graphical ads heavily, and much of the relevance faded. And now... you see Google Ads featuring Buzzfeed-like teasers (e.g. "The Government Hates This Guy and his Simple Tax Trick"), and worse. Heck, I remember one Google-placed ad that was something about itch

  • Hey dumbass! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:04PM (#51571337) Journal
    The whole point of adblockers is to 'disrupt the relationship between advertisers and consumers'; because that 'relationship' is inherently somewhere between 'adversarial' and 'cold war'. We don't go to varying levels of hassle just for fun; we do so because we fucking hate you and your 'product'.
  • by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:04PM (#51571339)

    The problem with the current incarnation of ads is that they follow you everywhere. I didn't realize how bad it was until I forgot to re-install all of my cookie blockers. Search for something on Amazon? See the ads in Facebook and Google. Search for something on Google? See ads for that everywhere else.

    Ads used to be targeted to the user base of a website. The 'targeting' wasn't based on what I knew I already wanted but based on what I was interested in. I didn't mind some old ads because they were relevant to the site I was going to.

    • Search for something on Amazon? See the ads in Facebook and Google. Search for something on Google? See ads for that everywhere else.

      I don't mind that to be honest. If I am looking to purchase something, e.g. a new battery for my old laptop recently then passive research is better than the random crap they usually show.

    • For at least Google ads, you can turn off user tracking for ads: https://www.google.com/setting... [google.com]
  • by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:06PM (#51571355)
    google et al seem to be living in another reality. There is no relationship to consumers, there is a WAR between consumers and arsehole companies like google. Ads have become more intrusive and obnoxious, ads that have video and or sound, dynamic windows that increase to cover the page if you accidentally scroll over them, ads positioned and made to look like search results or news items. They then wonder why Ad blocking is increasing and blame those that are trying to help the consumers, Googles lack of security/privacy awareness is just mindboggling, you want people to stop using ad blocking, then you need to stop acting like totally obnoxious pricks.
    • And I would like to know which one of those annoying ads came from Google. Blaming advertising in its entirety is like saying all web browsers suck because IE6 was such a POS.
  • by khchung ( 462899 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:06PM (#51571359) Journal

    punishes [...] good advertisers

    Good, then nobody is harmed. There are no "good" advertisers in the world.

  • by Harlequin80 ( 1671040 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:10PM (#51571389)

    If you didn't know what was special about Shine compared to ublock or adblock like me then Shine is an ISP level blocking system. It's not something that gets installed on end users machines but further upstream. This is why people like google and yahoo are so disturbed by this. It means that even completely clueless users will have ads blocked.

    I can absolutely see why the network providers would want this as well. Talk about a way of dramatically decreasing your network utilisation without any negative impacts on consumers.

    From Shine's website it looks like they have just signed up 3 europe which means 300 million mobile users just installed ad blocking software.....

    https://www.getshine.com/three... [getshine.com]

    • by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @09:05PM (#51571813)

      If you didn't know what was special about Shine compared to ublock or adblock like me then Shine is an ISP level blocking system. It's not something that gets installed on end users machines but further upstream. This is why people like google and yahoo are so disturbed by this. It means that even completely clueless users will have ads blocked.

      As much as I dislike the plethora of ads websites serve up, Shine's approach strikes at the concept of net neutrality. The ISP is deciding what traffic to deliver to the end user; while it may be the blocking Amy be desirable to users it still means teh ISP is favoring some traffic over other traffic. The next step is offer to selectively deliver, for a small fee, some ads.I can decide quite nicely for myself what sites I want to let deliver ads, based on my assessment of the site's value. There are a number of sites that I whitelist because their content is of value and I want them to be able to make mone and keep delivering content; and I don't want my ISP unilaterally deciding I don't need to see those ads and thus depriving teh site of revenue.

      If you value net neutrality you can't say "don't prioritize any traffic" and then say "go ahead and block ads." Ads may be junk traffic but it still traffic.

      It would not surprise me if they implement it in the US, Stripe, and an ISP, get sued for tortious interference, since they are interfering with a lawful contract between two parties; the question would be is it improper interference or an acceptable business practice.

  • I didn't realize large, monolithic corporations we capable of crying. Doesn't go well with greed, lack of compassion and disdain for anyone who disagrees with you mantra that most of them seem to employ. ;)

    For the most part I don't use ad blockers as I understand the need for some sites to make money that way. I just won't go to a website that inundates me with bullshit ads or slows down loading while the site is loading ads from the Super Garbage Ad Network, powered by P4s and a token ring network runni
  • Where can I file for divorce? I want to destroy any and all relationships I have with advertisers. The sooner and quicker the better. Abusive relationships are nothing you should endure longer than absolutely necessary.

  • Thank you! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ilsaloving ( 1534307 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:14PM (#51571417)

    I hadn't heard about this particular adblocker. I'll go check it out.

    Thanks for the tip, Google and Yahoo!

  • You want your bits of information, your advertising channel to be worth more money. We get that.

    But don't pretend that this is some sacred relationship. It isn't. It's a rancid soup of parasites running the show, and now the programmers who've always known how to filter the stream of data are feeling more and more free to give everyone else the tools to filter out the bits they don't like.

    Your bits will still be worth money. Seriously guys - put some MAJOR effort into policing your business relationship

  • I am a rational shopper who uses search engines to get the big picture on what is on offer across the entire market and to determine what is most appropriate for the budget I have allowed. I do not buy on impulse and will wait months for a cheaper item on a slow boat because I do plan that far in advance.

    I block advertising because it just makes me annoyed and clutters up my screen, MY SCREEN.

    On the rare occasion that I do see an advert for a new product or service idea that gets my interest I will no
  • by Afty0r ( 263037 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:32PM (#51571571) Homepage
    Kinda. Ad-Blocking was awesome when a tiny percentage of us used it to have a much better internet experience.
    Now, as usage and awareness expands, I am see warnings, popups and outright refusal to serve me content if my ad blocking software is enabled.
    This is the next frontier... sites will (legitimately, it's perfectly OK) stop serving you content, if you're not seeing their ads. Other sites will choose to make their money in more nefarious ways - and this one worries me - by using product placement / paid reviews / sponsored content, and blurring the lines between content and advertising. At least when I see an advert I *know* they paid for the ad. When Jonny Reviewer says "The new film, Badderass is awesome" is he really saying it's awesome, or is he saying "I can put bread on the family table now that the Badderass producers have paid me to shill for them"?
    Personally, I think I'd rather have the ads back.
  • by Shadow99_1 ( 86250 ) <theshadow99@gmail.cTOKYOom minus city> on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:37PM (#51571611)

    They are easily one of the biggest, of not the biggest, attack vectors. Because of this I block ads and literally won't white list anyone, because there have been tons of cases of 'respectable' ad hosts being cracked and hosting malware through their ads. Often without the company knowing for months!

    So no, I'd rather not have my systems infected because someone wants me to view ads that I won't actually click on anyways. I can count on one hand how many times I clicked on an ad before ad-blockers were a thing. Combine these two things together and they stay blocked. Forever.

    Want me to unblock your ads? Step #1: Make them passive enough it's nearly impossible to use their ads to infect my system. We can talk about Step #2 once the first is done.

  • Yeah, right ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:39PM (#51571631) Homepage

    "destroying the relationship" between advertisers and consumers

    What fucking "relationship"?

    There is no relationship, there are the annoying parasites on the internet who want to inject themselves into what we do. I have never said "gee, I wonder what the assholes over at Double Click are up to these days".

    But let's not pretend I gain anything from being tracked by a bunch of idiots who want to sell me something.

    On behalf of those of us who have aggressively blocked ads for years, don't pretend there's some "relationship" here. And let's stop pretending that internet exists for the ad companies.

    Do this shit without tracking me everywhere and violating my privacy, and I might have less of a problem. Expect me to allow 15 third parties to run scripts and set cookies, and you can fuck off.

    You might as well say a guard dog is spoiling your "relationship" with a peeping Tom. Sorry, don't care.

  • by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @10:20PM (#51572241)
    I've had the Disable Advertising button on /. for years. You know what? I only turned it on once just to see what the difference would be. The difference wasn't that big so I turned it off. I am quite happy supporting sites/services that are of benefit to me. I no longer visit sites I used to love because they enabled IN YOUR FACE ads that get in the way of the reason I'm there. I couldn't go to Forbes at work anymore even if I wanted to because they flag our proxy as an ad blocker and won't even let me past the ad banner until I turn the proxy off! If you want an example of a site with ads that don't bug me /. is a pretty good one.
    • Funny you mentioned that, /. is one of the very few sites I actually allow advertisements from, because they never serve annoying ads. Just simple banners. Return to simple banners, and you may join this website as a site I'll allow advertising from.

  • the basics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @12:08AM (#51572625) Journal

    Any good fisherman will tell you, there's a certain point where the bait's not big enough for the hook; crying because the fish are uninterested in the hook isn't going to get you more fish.

    Stop being irredeemably greedy, you're far, far past the point of diminishing returns.

  • by Skuld-Chan ( 302449 ) on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @03:32AM (#51573253)

    They started putting ads with sound in them. It got to the point that if I forgot to turn off my speakers I'd get woken up in the night by an left in a tab I didn't bother closing.

    Then the ads that would force the browser to a specific location on the page (breaking the website, but making it so you could see the ad).

    They have no-one to blame but themselves. I honestly truthfully didn't give two shits about ads until they started talking and hijacking normally respectable websites. I mean - I do understand - that's how a lot of sites generate revenue so I feel bad, but my health and well being comes first - and talking ads that wake me up at 2 am are not healthy.

    If some executive personally promised me no more sneaky backhanded, noisy ads - I would turn it off and try again for a while.

  • by Macdude ( 23507 ) on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @04:12AM (#51573363)

    So you can't survive with me blocking your annoying, intrusive, malware laden advertising? Tough. If you can't compete, then die. It's free enterprise, bitch!

  • From the users' point of view, this entire article is how FUCKING AWESOME Shine is. Previously, I had never heard of Shine, but here, Yahoo and Google are screaming that Shine is the best thing ever.

    Shine must have paid these whores a lot for that.

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Working...