Facebook is going to start forcing ads to appear for all users of its desktop website, even if they use ad-blocking software. 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, vice president of Facebook’s ads and business platform.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
Related Stories
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: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:31AM
Yet another reason to continue not using Facebook.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:33AM
They are entitled to ask.
Now, if you don't like it, you already know a solution to adhesion contracts.
It's not like the option which saves you from the ads is going to kill you, using FB is not a matter of survival.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:46AM
For people on fb with their real names, real date of birth, and posts about where they are, what they just ate, etc.. I would argue they have already paid, with the data being worth far more than their eyeballs on an ad.
The "support" provided to fb by advertising is likely the profits.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:21AM
Really? How?
Assuming I get you all the raw materials (like iron ore, carbon, oil, copper, etc) would you be happy to give me a car in return without asking a cent more?
But of course it is. After all, FB is not a municipal utility company (thanks teh Ceiling Cat for that).
At least part of them will go into the profit column, do you have a problem with that?
If you do, see my post [soylentnews.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:44AM
I imagine the FBI and the NSA and who knows what other foreign intelligence agencies are paying quite a bit for this kind of information.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:58AM
Et alors?
And...?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:41AM
Are you sure they pay in money, and not in "if you give us what we want, we won't get you into trouble"?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:20AM
Advertisers want to know who uses/buys/whatever their product, and fb can tell them who, when, where, how often, broken down by any and every metric.
That sort of information (and its value) is completely separate to "your ad here, $0.02*")
Profiling consumers. Enabling targetted advertising and marketing (both within and outside fb). Knowing which sport/other event to sponsor... This stuff isn't just for "for-profit" companies. NGOs, Government education campaigns... Lots of ways to leverage the data, for payment.
*or whatever fb charges
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:36AM
You may have a point here (even if it wouldn't be the advertisers to ask for consumption data without intention to push ads. At the best, it would be the markedroids to be interested in sales figures, sliced/dices and predigested for them)
However, my point (FB is not an utility company) is still valid. As such, nothing stops them to push whatever crap they want to you.
Mind you, I'm not arguing the moral ground of doing it.
I'm only stating that there's no legal ground to stop FB doing it; you using FB is a take-it-or-leave-it contract.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:05AM
And the more invasive they become, the more I will avoid it.
By all means, they are not the first website I refused to have anything to do with because they wanted too much personal information.
As long as I am not *required* to have a FB account, then I guess my rights are not violated as long as I have the right to say "decline to accept your offer" .
What does concern me is if employers looking at FB accounts as a "plus" for employment, which I suspect, but cannot prove, that some do. My own belief is that a FB account demonstrates you are one to put yourself on the line to meet social expectations of others, even if your gullibility to do as you are told places you at risk.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:45AM
Speaking for myself, I'd rather stack the selves in supermarket for a living than work for an employer who expects me to make public my private life (or to waste my time pretending I'm the good social puppy he expects me to be).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:15AM
I also felt very uncomfortable "spilling my beans" all over social media.
I don't mind doing it here so much, as no-one here is much interested in exactly my legal name, date of birth, and who I am socializing with, when, and what kinda stuff I buy.
I see this place more like the old gentlemen's club, where people of like interests gather to shoot the bull over their life experiences, which are quite similar to mine. I would much rather read someone relating his experiences on the job or hobby than spending endless hours watching some grown man kick some ball on TV. To me, that has all the fascination of watching someone assemble and solder together a S-100 memory board. Especially if I am offered the opportunity to watch this happening every week!
I feel I have probably sacrificed many job opportunities by my not being on FB, LinkedIn, and other social media to advertise my availability.
So, here I sit, typing on SN, and making backyard sinks by salvaging old washing machines.
50 years of experience in electronics, since the vacuum tube days, and my experiences seem to benefit no-one but me. Oh well... I'll have another beer.
I can only wonder how much of America's engineering talent is on welfare, while the Government ( who has the advantage of paying the bills by "increasing the debt ceiling") pays the big bucks for the management skills to replace the engineers with H1-B and the like. Most of my cohorts in Aerospace simply retired, never to work again. The one young guy I knew went to work as a counterman for a local electronics parts house, which is now out of business, and I have lost track of him.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:32AM
eevblog.com [eevblog.com]? The bloke also has a channel on youtube [youtube.com], seems quite popular. Give it a try, even only for the fun of hearing some modern Aussie accent.
Components are quite cheap. Why don't you design some gadgets, just for the fun? Maybe it will lead you somewhere.
I mean, look... instructables.com and perhaps others. There are lotsa hobby makers in this world, small and perhaps basic projects can be fun and sometimes useful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:25PM
What kind of crazy-ass comparison is that? In order to provide "social media experience" facebook needs maybe 1% of data they collect and retain, so if you want to give me raw materials for 100 cars, I'll gladly give you one finished car. Not that the comparison would still make much sense but more so than with your ass-pulled equivalency.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:27AM
Might as well argue potato chips should be penny a bag.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:17AM
yet
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:24AM
That makes more sense now. Thought something had gone wrong with it and was just messing around with it.
FB is kinda nasty about it too. They straight up aggregate from other sites where you are looking to buy something. Sad thing is it usually is the 'too late' ad for me. Usually something I bought earlier on amazon. Sure show me *more* ads for something I already bought. Maybe I want TWO of them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:25AM
As time goes by, Facebook becomes an ever steamier pile of excrement. There are already stories about youngsters just opting out of Facebook. I don't know why the world doesn't just abandon Facebook.
I'm looking forward to the day that Facebook is talked about in the past tense, much as MySpace is today.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:56AM
Recall yourself at the age of 14. Would you go to a party with your mum by your side?
(how would a teenager share her/his "virtual private space" with their parents?)
Because the teenagers-of-yesterday-currently-or-soon-to-be-parents invested too much of their life in FB?
If I'd be FB, I'd be creating (or investing) in the next social platform for the today's kids.
Are you sure they don't do it already?
My point? Seems that the taste for social media is going to stay with us for some while, at least sustained by the kids - nasty creatures they are, gregarious and all that (like the S/N crowd) but with an underdeveloped discerning power and not enough knowledge to arrange an alternative virtual space for their own.
Can you fault them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:52AM
Nonsense, they don't create the next social platform. They just buy it for billions once it proves itself (e.g. Instagram, WhatsApp.)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:29AM
May be good enough if it keeps the generations separated.
But again, there will be one such platform which will refuse to sell and maybe capture an entire generation. That platform will be the next FB for a while - this is the very process FB rose to prominence.
There will be no FB-or-equivalent under two circumstances:
the computing and network power gets high enough and the prices for it low enough, somebody writes a platform in which "social media" nodes can be created ad-hoc so easily that any kid can install and manage it. No incentive for kids to join a centralized site
(now, that's an idea)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by Fnord666 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:21AM
the computing and network power gets high enough and the prices for it low enough, somebody writes a platform in which "social media" nodes can be created ad-hoc so easily that any kid can install and manage it. No incentive for kids to join a centralized site
(now, that's an idea)
You mean like this one [diasporafoundation.org] was supposed to be?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:47AM
And a bit further, yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:02AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:06PM
and an AGPL reference implementation (a license that basically precludes anyone from looking at the code if they might ever want to implement the protocol).
It's basically the GPL with "no seriously, make sure the source is available" tacked on. Why is that so toxic?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:44PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:59PM
back in my day, we just set up a BBS
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:04PM
That IS an idea. Ad-hoc social media. No way I can build on the concept, but it's definitely a good sounding idea. WTF do we need a Facebook to connect people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:06AM
Most people who do not use Facebook do not do so for principled reasons. Until people start demanding privacy and anonymity on principle, even most of those who do not currently use Facebook will simply hop on to yet another "social media" trainwreck. Things like privacy, anonymity, and freedom are simply not valued by most.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Francis on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:26AM
Considering how much work it is to avoid FB these days, the only people I can think of that aren't on FB or actively avoiding it are in parts of the world where FB is banned or where they are otherwise prevented from accessing it.
It's sickening how many groups and services are dependent upon registration for access. Even more so is how many sites use FB logins as their main or only option for logging in.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:58AM
Considering how much work it is to avoid FB these days,
Seriously? I haven't expended any effort at all avoiding facebook. I've never had an account. Ever.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:40AM
Seriously? I haven't expended any effort at all avoiding facebook. I've never had an account. Ever.
Ha! That's cute.
You've never created an account, sure. Ever heard of the shadow profiles? As long as any of your family/friends/coworkers are on FB, so are you, whether you know it or not.
How the fuck is that not illegal, I don't know. Fuckerberg and half of his company should spend the rest of their days in federal prison.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:58AM
Why would this be illegal? All Facebook is doing is collating information it acquired legally. It's not illegal in general to collect information about someone, even if that person would rather you not. You have to do something specifically illegal like trespass, stalk, or be a peeping tom to get on the wrong side of the law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @12:16PM
You have to do something specifically illegal like trespass, stalk, or be a peeping tom to get on the wrong side of the law.
I don't have a FB account, but most of my friends and family do. I'd occasionally get an invitation mail from FB, every few months or so, but I just ignored those.
Then, one nice day a year or two ago, FB went full retard. Over the course of two days, I got more than two dozen invites: "This $person_you_know is on Facebook, why don't you join?" or something. Each invite "from" a different person I know, from all over the world. Needless to say, the second day of this spam-bombing I set up a filter to throw anything from FB straight to spam. I'm sure that the invites continued, but I didn't bother to check.
Now, that probably still doesn't cross into "illegal" territory, but it's a very dark shade of gray, not to mention creepy and obnoxious. I'm also certain it violates some human right or something, but corps don't seem to be bound to those.
Fuck Facebook and fuck Zuckerberg with a rusty spoon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @12:39PM
Maybe not illegal to the letter (latest paid for interpretation) of the law but a dick move nonetheless... And just like we think people who murder other people are dicks and lock them up for their dickishness, the same should be done to anyone aiding and abetting FB.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sir Finkus on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:40AM
I've never had an account. Ever.
Well, not a visible one in any case. But you have a shadow one if anyone who has your contact information in their phone has imported their contacts using the facebook app, or any other number of ways they can create a profile for you.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:34AM
Any proof?
FB has stated that they do NOT have Shadow profiles for non users
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46330344/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/social-shadow-profiles-mirror-your-real-life-existence [nbcnews.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 11 2016, @01:05AM
What do you think those stupid like buttons all over the place are all about.
I'm personally skeptical that they have a real name associated with it, but they definitely do track people who haven't logged in in an effort to better datamine the people that don't willingly hand over the goods.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday August 11 2016, @04:34PM
They aren't about Profiles for Non users. Apparently you've never clicked one. Good job.
Look, why would they need to create a profile for a non user?
The instant a non user signs up and becomes a user, its a minuscule effort for them to scan their system for phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, and what ever else the sign up may reveal, looking for friends or mentions.
My wife signed up after decades of ignoring FB. She was inundated with Friend requests, suggested contacts, from other FB users that stupidly and inconsiderately shared their contacts with facebook. It went on for weeks.
One twit somewhere used facebook's addressbook feature on their phone. Your email address/number/list-of-friends was in that list. That leads to a list of names and numbers, that leads to another list, and another. Find a couple of linkages, suggest a friend (and maybe generate some phoney friend requests). Sit back for a few days, rinse, repeat.
Facebook doesn't need shadow accounts. They already have the raw data in other people's accounts.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:21PM
And, I bet trying to access that shadow profile would throw you afoul of the US anti-"hacking" laws, since YOU weren't the one who set up that account on you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:52PM
I've never had a Facebook account and don't have a cellphone either. I also don't give other people my personal email addresses. I still have no idea if they have a shadow account about me, since I can't possibly know that (and would never use Facebook or want to enter any information to check).
(Score: 3, Funny) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:51PM
If Facebook disappears, where will we be able to keep up on such topics as Nevada FEMA Camps, Dirty bomb, Reinette Senum, Nevada County Peeps, Nevada County Vents, Ted Nugent, Chemtrail cures, etc?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:42AM
Sounds to me like they are issuing a challenge. That always ends well.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:51AM
The most FB can do is host these ads themselves. (Probably pre-fetching and caching them on their own servers). Most ad blockers are easily fooled by this because the blockers rely on ads being from a different domain as a major part of their detection criteria.
Still I expect the adblock guys will figure this out in short order.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:04AM
That hasn't been state of the art for quite a while. Most adblockers have this as their baseline, but many adblockers go beyond that, for example uBO and AdGuard can block particular pieces of javascript, inline scripts, URI path, pings, xhrs, data URIs, and elements by selectors, elements by XPATH, elements by content, elements by style, websockets and inject their own scripts. There is probably more that I can't recall right now. For the best blocking, you should use Firefox because Firefox's API is stronger and Chrome/Chromium won't implement parts of standard that allow certain blocking techniques. You should also use uBO because it supports most custom filters of other adblockers (except $document, as that is really only useful for AA) and has its own powerful filter syntax. Even though ABP started it all, they really are falling behind the arms race.
Oh, and Anti-Adblock Killer, by Reek, is also worth a mention, if you insist on browsing with JS turned on.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:01PM
For the best blocking, you should use Firefox because Firefox's API is stronger and Chrome/Chromium
For the next couple releases anyway, before they flush the extension system down the toilet...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:49PM
What they are doing is putting in ads as part of your regular wall feed. Not a lot, I only saw one as far as I browse it in a day (admittedly not far, 15-20 minutes is about all I can stomach per day. This could backfire on them, you are allowed to comment. I am waiting to see if my better and cheaper product suggestion post gets wiped out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @04:44AM
Thought you'd be interested. They already blocked the new ads: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/98 [github.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mendax on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:44AM
Part of the experience, such as death being part of the experience of life, or anxiety being part of the experience of a root canal, or a sea of people everywhere at Disneyland on a bank holiday being part of the experience.
Pardon me but if if you want me to experience your annoying and time-wasting ads then I shall choose to experience something more pleasant, like a self-inflicted circumcision.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:04AM
Yeah... so?
Look, you can self-circumcise only once. After you've done it what will you do next?
The pleasures of FB ads are forever; with such kinky tastes as yours, sooner or later you will return.
(...grin...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:19AM
Pardon me but if if you want me to experience your annoying and time-wasting ads then I shall choose to experience something more pleasant, like a self-inflicted circumcision.
You've got to buy that scalpel somewhere so why not a DIY Healthcare Warehouse? Click here for details.
On a side note, are you going to shout "take that Facebook!" as soon as you're done?
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:08AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:12PM
No argument here with your assessment. What I object to is how the Facebook talking head called advertising part of the experience, as if being exposed to advertising is pleasant. Most of the time it's not. Supposedly, when the 1970's miniseries "Roots" was broadcast, the people at water companies around the country knew when the commercial breaks were on because the water pressure dropped. And how many times have we heard of advertisers trying to get technology implemented in DVRs so we can't fast-forward over the commercials?
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:40PM
You make it sound simple, but it's rarely so. There are a lot of people on Facebook (maybe even a majority) who wish they weren't on it but are because of
The fact is, when a service or technology becomes so ubiquitous that it's so difficult to avoid using, there _has_ to be some sort of regulation over it and what they are allowed to do. And there isn't any regulation over Facebook currently - our current best hope is that the EU will enforce some upon it and require that they enforce them globally. Not that this doesn't create a sticky situation either, but for entirely different reasons.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 11 2016, @12:07AM
social pressures (from friends, family, etc.)
This isn't a reason to use Facebook, and just shows that the people who succumb to it are weak-minded. I have very little sympathy for sniveling cowards, especially since the repercussions of going against these "social pressures" are almost certainly negligible at best. Grow a spine, or people will walk right over you even on matters other than Facebook.
work requirement
This one is more serious. Quit or don't take the job. I expect that the number of jobs that actually require you to use Facebook is low, and no one ever said that sticking to your principles is always easy.
other technical needs and requirements (e.g. groups which only collaborate via Facebook or publications which are likewise only made available through that medium)
Don't join those groups and don't bother with those publications. If they're not going to do the work required to use a different website that actually respects users, they're likely not worth bothering with anyway.
not to mention that actions others take on Facebook can also leak information about you, like when common contacts upload their information and now Facebook has your phone number, address, call and text history, etc.
Try to refrain from giving your personal information to morons who don't care about privacy. Certainly don't text them, and don't have a cellphone.
It doesn't matter how many regulations you create. If people don't start caring about privacy and anonymity and standing up for such principles, then history will continue to repeat itself. But as it is, even the flimsiest conveniences are enough to convince the ignorant majority to discard their privacy in exchange for shiny goodies.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday August 11 2016, @10:58AM
Facebook is not difficult to avoid, but people who say 'oh, I wish I wasn't on Facebook but it's so hard to avoid' are part of the problem. The value of being on Facebook is entirely due to network effects. If more people with disposable income said 'I won't use Facebook' then there's a big incentive for companies to use other channels to reach customers. If more than a few percent in a social group refuse to use Facebook, then there's a big incentive to use something else to communicate.
I have no Facebook account, and I have never had a Facebook account (though I do get fairly frequent calls from their recruiters, so it seems to not even be a blocker to employment at Facebook itself) and I get fed up with people who, by having a Facebook account, are guilty of applying pressure for other people to join complaining that there is pressure to join.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:45AM
From the article:
> From a technical standpoint, Facebook is able to circumvent ad blockers relatively easily because it loads ads into its service itself. Many online publishers and media companies rely on third-party companies to help display ads on their webpages and services, which can make them more easily identifiable to blocking technologies.
So the trick is, "there is no trick".
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:55AM
Wanna block out ads on facebook? Don't go to facebook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:45AM
How do I block all the [f] links to Facebook implanted on almost every site? Blocking social annoyances doesn't work.
(Score: 3, Informative) by WizardFusion on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:05AM
Install uBlock Origin and select all the "Social" options. Works for me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:02AM
Mod parent up. (Different AC) The advice works like a charm, I've been following it for like 2-3 years now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:57AM
links2
Works pretty well. No ads, no games, no annoying crap from people who want me to hit buttons.
Actually there is one ad; they advertise javascript, but that's a DO NOT WANT for me, so no dice.
One day they may find out how to attract me. That day is not today.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:06AM
I thought that the amount Facebook made from explicit ads paled in comparison to the amount they charged any companies with more than 100 fans/friends/whatever to have their posts not get rerouted to dev/null. Which is also ad revenue.
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:00AM
The only time she had a virus on her computer came from an ad on facebook. I don't know which one, but it got her twice in a row. I didn't want to remove that thing a third time. That's when I put ad block on all the computers in the house.
I don't trust facebook to vet it's ads any better. That's not the business model. If I can't block the ads, I'll block facebook at the router.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:20AM
I'll block facebook at the router.
I think you will find the conventional "Nuke from High Orbit" is the better approach for this kind of beast.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:13AM
If Facebook is directly hosting ads that serve drive-by malware, don't they have any liability?
If so, a nice class action lawsuit could cause them to start reviewing ads.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by archfeld on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:20AM
If FB would take control of their AD's and load them from the same domain it would lend a huge amount of credibility to their case. A free to use site has to make money somehow. The problem lies in the fact that they use 3rd party ad servers that show junk, take forever to load and serve up malware, and if there is a problem FB does little or nothing to deal with the issue, blaming the 3rd party for everything. I don't use FB but a responsible service has the right to make a buck and needs to do so to stay in business. How much info you give them is up to you, how they allow others to represent them and abuse the trust they seek to generate is up to FB.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:27AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:03PM
Only if they keep their ads clean and safe. If Google suddenly started treating their users with respect and managing their add servers responsibly I'd say yes, but of course they have shown an inability or general unwillingness to devote the time and resources to keep their ad streams from becoming polluted by malware and serving up junk. I don't use Google services so I can't really say how they are structured as far as serving, but if they can and do respond to complaints about bad ads and make a real effort to keep things clean and secure then sure. No one can guarantee security, but making a real effort makes a difference.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:23PM
Great. Now ad-blockers have some more evolutionary pressure and they'll get even better.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:28PM
Just dont go there.
Kidding aside, i dont have a problem with them keeping the lights on, but they are way past that and now are dickheads.