Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday August 15 2016, @05:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the whack-a-mole dept.

Don't want the new Facebook ads? In a brilliant demonstration of the arms race between ad companies and content filtering software, uBlock Origin already blocked them. This occurred hours after being introduced by Facebook.

The commit was here: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/773512c844ab0e92e0dbb1fd9c00291d1ae0ba38

And from PC World:

Thursday morning, Adblock Plus announced that a new filter for banning Facebook's ads has been added to the main EasyList filter list used by the extension. Here's how to force Adblock Plus's filter list to update if you want in on the adblocking action.

Update: Facebook already rolled out new code to break Adblock Plus's workaround, according to Techcrunch. And then Adblock Plus rolled out a new filter to block the new workaround. And then Facebook released another patch to break the new Adblock Plus filter. Whack-a-mole indeed.

But you might not rush to do so. Adblock Plus's blog post warns that the new filter hasn't been heavily tested and may block additional content. An initial response sent out by Facebook suggests it may indeed be doing so.

"We're disappointed that ad blocking companies are punishing people on Facebook as these new attempts don't just block ads but also posts from friends and Pages," a spokesperson told AdAge. "This isn't a good experience for people and we plan to address the issue. Ad blockers are a blunt instrument, which is why we've instead focused on building tools like ad preferences to put control in people's hands."

[...] If you see an ad in your Facebook News Feed, click the drop-down arrow on the top left of the ad, and then choose "Manage your ad preferences." There, you'll be able to see which topics Facebook thinks you're into, and advertises against. Deleting them all should eliminate hyper-targeted ads—though not all ads, and Facebook will repopulate the list over time. Blocking ads via ad blockers isn't possible in Facebook's mobile apps, only in-browser.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday August 15 2016, @05:59PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 15 2016, @05:59PM (#388295) Journal

    And honestly, I find myself manually blocking all sorts of shit anyways.

    The blunt instrument is great for those wonderful static elements that take up 15% of your screen so you can be reminded which blog you're reading instead of actually reading it.

    Or nuking the auto-play videos for a news site you actually want to read.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday August 15 2016, @06:15PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Monday August 15 2016, @06:15PM (#388303)

    For me the problem is not the lost real-estate, it's the malware.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday August 15 2016, @08:38PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 15 2016, @08:38PM (#388380) Journal

      The malware was just the final straw. I was still sick of ads before the malware. (And I have never used Facebook in my life.)

      If advertisers don't like the backlash, then they should have policed themselves long ago.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NCommander on Monday August 15 2016, @06:17PM

    by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Monday August 15 2016, @06:17PM (#388306) Homepage Journal

    It says a lot that soylentnews.org tends to be much more functional and faster than most "Web 2.0" websites by basis that our design is essentially from 2001.

    --
    Still always moving
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @06:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @06:58PM (#388335)

      Just that I can run SN without having to enable *any* JS makes me sigh appreciatively!

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Monday August 15 2016, @09:29PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday August 15 2016, @09:29PM (#388400)

      Best thing about soylent? Not a single 3rd party script loaded, not even Google or content provider scripts . Probably the only site I visit that doesn't rely on 3rd party scripts.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Monday August 15 2016, @09:57PM

        by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Monday August 15 2016, @09:57PM (#388427) Homepage Journal

        Full disclosure: We did have piWik for a time, but self-hosted it and announced it was running and it was going away. We don't currently log anything beyond a request and a URL to the site.

        We've considered re-running piWik, or reconfiguring nginx to log more information to get a more interesting cross-section of the site but the "meh" factor is fairly high since we get general information on how much traffic is coming and going through Linode.

        --
        Still always moving
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 16 2016, @03:57PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 16 2016, @03:57PM (#388702) Journal

        Baseline mediawiki and mediawiki as used on wikipedia are self-reliant. You probably visit there from time to time.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @09:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @09:33PM (#388407)

      Now also try it with a 2001 browser, you'll be amazed how lighting fast it is! Not joking.

      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday August 16 2016, @02:56AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday August 16 2016, @02:56AM (#388519) Homepage

        I would, except that Soylent will no longer speak to Netscape 3 (still my fave browser).

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 15 2016, @10:48PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday August 15 2016, @10:48PM (#388458)

      As of right now, with 28 comments, this page weights an astronomical 16631 Bytes.
      It's about 1% of the average "modern" webpage.

      I apologize for making if slower to download by an extra 1%.

      • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Monday August 15 2016, @11:12PM

        by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Monday August 15 2016, @11:12PM (#388464) Homepage Journal

        Once again, I'm at a loss to explain why everything feels like AJAX and the such helped to make the web a better place. I semi-understand it for actively updating progress bars and such but the fact is you could "streamline" our UI without using much if any JS and still be faster than 99% of pages on the net.

        I feel like AJAX exists solely to allow bloated pages to avoid refreshes.

        --
        Still always moving
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Monday August 15 2016, @11:40PM

          by edIII (791) on Monday August 15 2016, @11:40PM (#388476)

          I feel like AJAX exists solely to allow bloated pages to avoid refreshes.

          There's nothing mysterious about it, and that's partially the answer. It's too allow *all* pages to do that.

          You can make an entire site work with just refreshes, like Soylent does now, but it's not all that enjoyable. If the refresh was 1/1000th of a second, then maybe. However, a refresh isn't anywhere near that fast in real life. Especially with 50 tabs open. Moreover, even with aggressive caching of content, each reload is still wasteful.

          AJAX allows you modify a document based on the data within that document and user actions, combined with whatever the server decides as well. It's functional and not intrinsically bloating the document with code. AJAX is actually pretty light IMO, and you don't even need that many lines of code to effect beautiful and functional components.

          The problem isn't JS, but who is implementing it, how they are implementing it, and why they're implementing it. You can make efficient beautiful pages with AJAX and JS, "can" being the operative word. I'm 100% convinced that Soylent has the chops to create a JS based submission system where I don't have to leave the original page to post anything, and that it can be done efficiently without bloat.

          Of course, without JS you can kiss client-side code good bye, and that's not a good thing. At least, not without a replacement. I understand people don't like it, but what else are we supposed to do? Allow the web to devolve into a simple distribution method for signed native apps compiled on your own machines from fully open code? They'll be talking back to servers just the same as a browser would be and how/why would we be any more confident with that code versus a trusted site?

          I hate refreshes and find them incredibly disruptive to the experience on a website. Do you think you could watch a movie with 100 refreshes throughout it? I can't enjoy that myself, and I hate reloading web pages. Takes too damn long, even with Soylent and no JS.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:04AM

            by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:04AM (#388542)

            I understand what client-side code does. I don't follow why it's valuable. Refreshes don't happen randomly while reading. They happen in response to a user action. And, I don't even know why you would even need to refresh, absent user action. I like being able to read all the replies, and then see the new ones when I want, as opposed to having them slip in unnoticed.

            There is no reason to refresh background tabs, so 1 or 50 tabs shouldn't matter.

            P>It also breaks the back arrow functionality, which I like.

            But bottom line, there is no way to make a scripting system that enforces security or good practices. So I spend a while killing out of control JS processes, and 99% of sites are blacklisted by NoScript.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:52AM

              by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:52AM (#388567)

              If you want to expand some comments in a thread then that is a perfect use for AJAX. No need to fetch a whole page. If you want to moderate a post without full page changes (or iframe trickery) then AJAX is the way to go. Plenty of good reasons to use it.

              --
              SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @06:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @06:19PM (#388308)

    Correction, they used to be blunt, it's just that ABP hasn't kept up. uBO and Adguard can block elements based on content. Facebook uses a div with the text " sponsored" and another div inside with the ad? Block able with almost no overhead. The real problem is the ABP-only whitelisting in easylist, which makes detecting an ad blocker easier but is necessary due to their lack of feature parity with competitors; almost all of which have specific filters to clean up the mess that causes.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @07:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @07:03PM (#388337)

      If they do dumb shit like that you can write the block yourself. I use self made block to filter linkedin feed and take out all sorts of nonsense, and I run it on interval so it kills any new things as I scroll down and additional items are loaded. If they want ads that cannot be removed they would have to step up their game, like editing posted images to add ad content directly to the image (not overlay) etc.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @09:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @09:38PM (#388410)

        While Ublock0 is my main ad auto decrapifier, many times end using Greasemonkey since also can quickly customize pages to my taste.