SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 15 2016, @10:48PM
I completely disagree. Facebook has NOT publicly declared they don't want users who use ad-blocking; you're reading that into their actions.
Well, from the story in the Wall Street Journal linked the other day [wsj.com]:
“Facebook is ad-supported. Ads are a part of the Facebook experience; they’re not a tack on,” said Andrew “Boz” Bosworth, vice president of Facebook’s ads and business platform.
So, yeah, he didn't literally say, "We don't want users who use ad-blocking." But I think the meaning here is pretty clear: "Ads are fundamental to our business model. Don't block them."
I have EVERY right to make a request to their website. They have every right to either answer that request or refuse it. If their answer includes a request that I download some advertisement from someplace, I have EVERY right to decline that request. If they don't like that, they don't have to send me any more content. But as long as they do, I have every right to view it.
Sure, in a legal sense, you probably have the right to view a public website. Just like if a guy set up a booth with some "Wonder of the World -- Admission $5" and I found a crack in the side of the building and bought a telescope and stood across the public street with it, I'm probably legally within my rights to view the "Wonder of the World." But is that really the most moral way to act? At some point if an executive from a site essentially says "Ads aren't optional," you're now entering the moral world of "I'm just gonna take it anyway, without paying. I figured out a way to do it, and I don't care what they request for me to do."
Do I think it's a major moral failing to do so? No. Particularly not when we're talking about some amoral morass of nonsense like Facebook.
That's just me. Anyhow, that's pretty much irrelevant to my larger point, which is that this is only going to get worse.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 16 2016, @01:04AM
But I think the meaning here is pretty clear: "Ads are fundamental to our business model. Don't block them."
No, I don't think it's clear at all. He never said "Don't block them". And even if he did, I don't care: he needs to fix his site so his site will block my browser's requests. How his site responds is what determines the site's actual policy, not some news article alleging that some guy said something somewhere.
Just like if a guy set up a booth with some "Wonder of the World -- Admission $5" and I found a crack in the side of the building and bought a telescope and stood across the public street with it, I'm probably legally within my rights to view the "Wonder of the World."
That's a stupid analogy.
Here's a better analogy: some guy sets up a booth with some "Wonder of the World -- Admission FREE! *please look at this promotional material" So you go in the booth, and he asks you to view the promotional material, and you say "no, thank you, I'm not interested in looking at that" (or better yet, you don't respond at all, and don't even acknowledge him when he asks). After your refusal, he goes ahead and shows you the wonder anyway!
But is that really the most moral way to act?
Yes, given my analogy above. If someone is going to show you something even after you refuse to view their advertising, you have every right to look at it. If that comes down to them being technically unable to easily block you, too fucking bad. Forbes.com seems to have their anti-ad-blocker working just fine (and it works for me too; it keeps me from looking at their horrible articles when I randomly click on some link). If stupid forbes.com can do it, anyone can do it, and certainly a site with the resources of facebook.
At some point if an executive from a site essentially says
Where did this supposed executive say this? Did he tell *me* this? No. This was never communicated to me. Some news article somewhere does NOT constitute a public announcement. If they don't want me looking at their site, they need to block me, just like Forbes does. Again, if Forbes can do it on their shitty half-assed website, anyone can do it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2016, @08:00AM
No, the most moral thing to do with advertisers is the chair. Scumbags the bunch of them.
When advertisers put their name on my monitor without my permission, it's called advertising, but if I put my name on their building without their permission, it's called graffiti.
If they want permission to put ads on my screen, they can pay for the privilege, like they used to do to put ads in newspapers or on race cars.