The PDF contains the full paper (14 pages), but also includes the following abstract:
Abstract—Millions of people use adblockers to remove intrusive and malicious ads as well as protect themselves against tracking and pervasive surveillance. Online publishers consider adblockers a major threat to the ad-powered "free" Web. They have started to retaliate against adblockers by employing anti- adblockers which can detect and stop adblock users. To counter this retaliation, adblockers in turn try to detect and filter anti-adblocking scripts. This back and forth has prompted an escalating arms race between adblockers and anti-adblockers.
We want to develop a comprehensive understanding of anti- adblockers, with the ultimate aim of enabling adblockers to bypass state-of-the-art anti-adblockers. In this paper, we present a differential execution analysis to automatically detect and analyze anti-adblockers. At a high level, we collect execution traces by visiting a website with and without adblockers. Through differ- ential execution analysis, we are able to pinpoint the conditions that lead to the differences caused by anti-adblocking code. Using our system, we detect anti-adblockers on 30.5% of the Alexa top- 10K websites which is 5-52 times more than reported in prior literature. Unlike prior work which is limited to detecting visible reactions (e.g., warning messages) by anti-adblockers, our system can discover attempts to detect adblockers even when there is no visible reaction. From manually checking one third of the detected websites, we find that the websites that have no visible reactions constitute over 90% of the cases, completely dominating the ones that have visible warning messages. Finally, based on our findings, we further develop JavaScript rewriting and API hooking based solutions (the latter implemented as a Chrome extension) to help adblockers bypass state-of-the-art anti-adblockers.
The conclusion is as follows:
We presented a differential execution analysis approach to discover anti-adblockers. Our insight is that websites equipped with anti-adblockers will exhibit different execution traces when they are visited by a browser with and without an adblocker. Based on this, our system enables us to unveil many more (up to 52×) anti-adblocking websites and scripts than reported in prior literature. Moreover, since our approach en- ables us to pinpoint the exact branch statements and conditions involved in adblocker detection, we can steer execution away from the anti-adblocking code through JavaScript rewriting or hide the presence of adblockers through API hooking. Our system can bypass a vast majority of anti-adblockers without causing any site functionality breakage (except one with Javascript rewriting).
We anticipate escalation of the technological battle between adblockers and anti-adblockers — at least in the short term. From the perspective of security and privacy conscious users, it is crucial that adblockers are able to keep up with anti- adblockers. Moreover, the increasing popularity of adblocking has already led to various reform efforts within the online advertising industry to improve ads (e.g., Coalition for Better Ads [5], Acceptable Ads Committee [2]) and even alternate monetization models (e.g., Google Contributor [6], Brave Payments [4]). However, to keep up the pressure on publishers and advertisers in the long term, we believe it is crucial that adblockers keep pace with anti-adblockers in the rapidly escalating technological arms race. Our work represents an important step in this direction.
I found it an interesting read, although I accept that the whole 14 pages might be a little too heavy for some.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday December 27 2017, @09:48PM (11 children)
BEHOLD:
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @09:57PM (6 children)
Parent post will make no sense when MDC changes sig.
Disregard MDC sucks cocks.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:35PM (4 children)
Parent post makes no sense as I have and always will leave signatures disabled. They add nothing but useless noise.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:45AM (3 children)
Yeah, I can see how the distractions introduced by enabling signatures could compromise your efficacy to make hay whilst the intervening mass is insufficient to inhibit the perceived intensity of incoming solar radiation. ;)
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:36AM (1 child)
His excited eyes from within the dark interior glazed
Watered in appreciation of his thoughtful preparation
.
.
.
Uh man, it's so heavy
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:45AM
What happened in the future? Why is everything "heavy"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:07PM
how does it make no sense?
Oh i understand--you're ignorant of the message.
He is saying that if you add his signature to a DNS host file, a DNS server zone, or as a manual entry into your adblocker of choice, you can prevent a lot of problems that result from the profiting of those 1x1 sized pixel trackers that follow you around.
But you'd already know that if you knew anything about modern privacy and security concerns on the Internet.
but please AC (but not acid andy), keep shooting the messengers. eventually your kardashan videos will load if you agree to install enough new codecs.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:59PM
Since I've been in Portland it's been at Hawk's PDX
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:35PM
Behold what?
a) Some people don't see sigs
b) www.hosted-pixel.com doesn't exist anyway
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:39PM (2 children)
Behold: http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
This is a good list that I load to my firewall and block on all machines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:50AM
APK, is that you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:30PM
My IP was banned for posting that exact link in response to another story and the admins did nothing to fix it. Now I use a VPN and post AC, fuck you SN...
(Score: 0, Disagree) by arcz on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:14PM (19 children)
Starting to get the realm of copyright violations. The publishers have obviously decided that you're not allowed to load the article without ads. It's one thing to selectively not load part of the content (legal adblocking), but quite another to modify that content or alter it. The latter is copyright infringement.
(Score: 5, Informative) by meustrus on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:24PM (3 children)
It's only infringement if you redistribute. And patches are generally not considered derivative works unless they contain context from the original source.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 29 2017, @04:57AM (2 children)
Except in the United States. Where modifying a copyrighted work is infringement, 17 U.S. Code § 106 (2).
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday December 29 2017, @04:24PM (1 child)
Interesting. I can't imagine any ways in the pre-internet world to enforce a rule that forbids the equivalent of writing secret fan fiction. How old is that statute? I find it curious that something so plainly unenforceable would be written into law.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Troll) by arcz on Saturday December 30 2017, @08:23PM
It actually is enforced, rarely. Obviously they aren't going to enforce it when you modify stuff on your own computer. Where it matters is the concept of induced infringement, where someone does something to induce another to infringe. Making an adblockers that modifies content falls under this category, you'd be inducing others (the users of the adblock software) to infringe copyright. So this is a form of indirect infringement of copyright, which does include damages, though not direct infringement.
Writing fan fiction is technically infringement, but a company has no standing to sue unless that fan fiction somehow damages the company. Usually that isn't the case unless the fan fiction is sold.
(IANAL)
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:34PM
>Being this confused about copyright
Sorry brah, but click-though EULA aren't enforceable in Europe.
(Score: 5, Informative) by julian on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:42PM (3 children)
Once your computer (server) sends me some data it's mine to do whatever I want with it as long as I don't redistribute it to anyone else in an unauthorized way. I have no obligation to run every piece of code that every site I visit sends to my browser.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 28 2017, @10:40AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @02:58PM
Lets not confuse CFAA with copyright shall we?
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 29 2017, @04:55AM
Correct. Where it gets tricky is when the scripts are designed such that they do not load the content until after they confirm that the ads have been displayed. In this circumstance, you cannot block the ads and not the content without editing the scripts somehow. (Copyright infringement, 17 U.S. Code § 106 (2))
(Score: 5, Informative) by requerdanos on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:55PM (1 child)
That's kind of like saying that's "copyright infringement" to buy a book and cross out every occurrence of the word "cheese" and hand-write the word "glass".
I.e. idiotic nonsense.
(Score: 4, Touché) by EvilSS on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:35PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:57PM (4 children)
So if I have my wife rip all the adverts out of our newspaper before I read it, does she commit a crime or do I?
When I Pay my neighbor to do the same, then what?
When I pay the guy down at the news stand to the same on the paper I am about to buy, then what?
When buy down at the news stand offers for sale pre-de-advertised papers then what?
Have you found the flaw in your argument yet?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by r_a_trip on Thursday December 28 2017, @10:17AM (2 children)
You don't understand copyright. The only thing copyright does is prohibit duplication and further distribution of those copies for a specified time on a work. Altering a work for personal use after the sale has no bearing on copyright. As long as that work is not multiplied and sold on, copyright has no teeth. So rip away.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:17PM
In the same way that after the web server sends me the data, I am free to do with it what I want. They're just complaining that I have a program to do it automatically for me before I see the original version.
"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 arcz on Friday December 29 2017, @04:53AM
You say he doesn't understand copyright, but go read 17 U.S. Code § 106 (2) and tell me if you understand copyright as well as you think you do...
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:35PM
It depends.
Did you pay for a license to the newspaper? Did you buy a physical copy that can even be used to line a bird cage or potty train the dog? Or to be used as packaging material when shipping stuff? Or even a gag gift wrap for presents?
There is a difference between what the old media let you do, and what the new media lets you do.
Most newspapers worth reading cost money at the "newstand". The headlines and usually the top half of the first page was displayed publically and reading it was free. They often did not put an ad right on that front page because people were reluctant to pay for ads. As to the free content on display, stare too long and they may shoo you away for obstructing other customers.
Few places online right now are charging customers. It is too easy to just leave the website to find someone else that does have similar content for *free.
*depends on what you are willing to put up with.
Even now, various websites are cryptomining via javascript to keep it free. Its very expensive if you don't shut down because some don't even close out when the browser is forcibly task killed; they are sort of like viruses in that regard, but legal because there was this eula people didn't read and stuff like that.
I think that what most people are doing is that they believe the internet should be like the newspaper you mentioned. But you never mentioned how you paid for the newspaper, or if you found it, or boldly stole it when no one was looking.
The new media considers it theft if you read their content, which is on display, if you also do not look at the ads. They want it to be like live broadcast TV without the benefit of a VCR to skip ads with--not like a newspaper. They very much don't want the printed periodical business model at all.
The alterantive is paywalling, making people buy the content hidden behind the glass door and coin dispensor of yesteryear's newspaper machine. But everyone has been trained to get free everything and so the money isn't made that way anymore. Comparing the two models isn't a fair means to analyze this, because they want everyone to pretend the internet is like TV.
To prevent the VCR problem, most DVRs can't easily be copied to and from, and if from the cable provider, the software is closed source. For most "regular users" at least. And no websites really want to let you save a copy for later reviewing, so my point is essentially moot. They make their money based on a model that expects everyone to pretend that the internet is like broadcast radio and tv before cassettes and video tapes became widespread--and also one that tracks you, but I won't get into that... the newspaper paradigm is not what they are after, despite the similarities as to how you and I digest data.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:07AM (2 children)
With that logic, writing in a book that I own would be illegal. If I allow and adblocker on my computer to later a webpage that I am viewing, that is my business and none of anyone elses.
Is this app illegal? https://kickassapp.com [kickassapp.com]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 29 2017, @04:34AM
Writing in a book you own would indeed be modifying the book, but allowed under the first sale doctrine and the fair use doctrine. Since you didn't pay for the article, you can't rely on the first sale doctrine, and I doubt it would fall under fair use either.
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 29 2017, @04:50AM
The reason why removing ads is sometimes copyright infringement and sometimes not is that certain methods of blocking ads create a derivative work. If you block ads by refusing to load them, that's allowed, you're simply making the browser refuse to request ads. The problem is when you edit JavaScript. That's different from simply refusing to load it, you're now creating a derivative (modified) work. It doesn't matter if you distribute the derivative work or not, it isn't allowed per 17 U.S. Code § 106 (2). So in summary, your browser can legally block ads by blocking HTTP/HTTPS requests, but it cannot edit the content of pages. (refusing to load html requests does not actually edit the page in any way, it simply causes the element not to be included in the normal way that elements do not appear when an HTTP request fails). Where adblocking gets illegal is when the website uses anti-adblock technology. If the same script is loading ads, checking that the ad actually displays, and then loading the content after it has confirmed that the ad has displayed, you cannot legally block that ad without blocking the content, as you'd need to edit the JavaScript to do so. This is because editing the JavaScript creates a derivative work. So what about cutting ads out of newspapers? Well, probably not copyright infringement, since the first sale doctrine usually applies to newspaper sales. If you got the newspaper for free, you might be infringing copyright, but it would probably be considered de minis. (IANAL)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:41PM (11 children)
Why don't they just serve ads from their own servers? Ad co's can give them kits to automate the process of refreshing and serving the ads.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:53PM (2 children)
A problem with this is that it prevents centralized advertising with reliable, honest, verifiable reporting--because ads served from each site's own servers can't be verified reliably.
Yes, individual sites handling their own advertising would be a good thing, but at some level of "smallness" of site (random blogger with a wordpress install, for example), it makes sense for someone who is "good at ads" to handle the ads for them. Unfortunately this often means putting the ads in an iframe loaded from that good-at-ads actor, whose ads are then promptly adblocked whether likely to be malicious/annoying/offtopic or not.
Even if the individual sites install a kit and serve the ads locally, good-at-ads.com probably has no reliable way to verify the stats that individual site is reporting, and therefore can't be trusted by the advertisers. Logs look the same whether authentic, or typed by hand, or computer generated. It's like asking gamers to keep track of their own stats in an online multiplayer game.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:00PM
Adblockers are getting fancy enough to detect these as well.
How? Well the advert generally is there to draw customers to another site, and these links are easy to spot in the html regardless of where it is hosted.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Touché) by sjames on Thursday December 28 2017, @03:37AM
The problem is that good-at-ads also likes to bag and tag people like wild bears and often isn't all that good at not serving up malware that joins your computer to a botnet. Since those things keep happening, good-at-ads has poisoned the well and salted the earth. So they'll just have to take what they can get.
The thing is, I'm running Privacy Badger, not an ad-blocker and I still get their whiny tear stained missives about not blocking ads. Only they ring REALLY hollow since I would see their ads just fine if they weren't up to no good already.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by rigrig on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:05PM (1 child)
Because serving ads isn't as simple (anymore) as simply including a banner from your sponsor.
The ad network holds an auction with whatever it knows about the visitor, and the timing for auctioning off peoples personal data and showing the winning ad within a few hundred milliseconds is actually quite tight.
If you throw in whatever dinky server is showing the content as a proxy for your ad network, that really cuts into your response time. Especially when people are viewing content on the other side of the world but live next door to one of your shiny advertisement CDN servers.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:21PM
Ah, the old days of paying for "impressions". How quaint.
But they are starting to come back because adblockers are so very effective, and (as yet) most
don't bother discriminating where the destination link goes as long as the source link is on the current server.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:12PM (2 children)
Because that's not at all compatible with how internet advertising auctions and targeting work.
Imagine a human centipede of marketing companies 100 deep all shitting in each others mouths until finally shitting all over your browser. It's insanely obfuscated by design, because if anyone ever truly understood how these automated systems worked, the buyers would know it's pure fraud which would immediately explode covering them all neck deep in shit.
https://martechtoday.com/infographic-marketing-technology-landscape-113956 [martechtoday.com]
See, obfuscated by design.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:18AM (1 child)
You win the internet today.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Thursday December 28 2017, @01:37AM
Believe it or not, the idea is not original. There are a couple of movies even: Human Centipede [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 28 2017, @01:11AM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:49AM (1 child)
I dunno, it seems HIGHLY unlikely that OP was using that as material reference. Highly. Like no way in hell they would be referencing it. At all.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 28 2017, @01:08PM
OP says ~ "why don't they host the stuff they have very little interest in the content of?"
I reply ~ "they don't even host the stuff they have lots of interest in the content of?"
Why would they do the former if they don't even do the latter?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:45PM (8 children)
This is only a technological arms race to the extent that ads try to artificially pretend to not be ads.
Part of the actual site's content that can be considered to be of an advertising nature at some point makes this no longer a binary ([ ] is / [ ] isn't an ad) self-defining subject, and becomes an individual editorial judgment call.
Making "differentially powered" adblockers that erase anything that might benefit anyone anywhere in the sense that advertising might, is not, repeat, not a good, noble, worthy goal.
Giving people choices over what they download and view or don't download/view is a good thing. Blocking things because a new algorithm enables you to do so to is much, much less certain to be good thing.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:10PM (5 children)
Oh, I don't know, it seems to me that the average user is savvy enough to know when something essential went missing.
They can switch off the adblocker and try the page again if they really want/need to.
Most of the time, when I see these pages insisting I turn off the ad blocker, and I just leave. They lost their investment in my eyes - usually AFTER they suffered the fixed cost of sending the page.
They had their way for 20 years. Its my turn now.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:16AM (1 child)
Exactly, if I can't figure out which set of third party scripts to allow without allowing all scripts, I usually decide I am not terribly interested in the content on that page.
Once they start serving ads out of their content delivery networks, I am going to have some problems.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 28 2017, @01:00AM
Ditto here. I did, at times, disable adblocking and/or enable scripts to see a page. I don't do that anymore. If the page is designed to hide stuff from me, I just move on, looking for the same content elsewhere. By "same content" I don't necessarily mean the same words, written by the same author. When I am looking for ideas, those ideas are available elsewhere, unless I am researching state-of-the-art technology. Even then, that tech will be available within a few days elsewhere. This research into ad blocking, for instance, will be incorporated into add-ons, rephrased, reproduced, and republished on dozens of sites within a few weeks. Given the title alone, you can hit your favorite search engine, and find similar terms. Given the title and the summary together, it's child's play to find most information and ideas on the web. Sure, state-of-the-art stuff will be more difficult, but if you can wait days or weeks, it's still going to become available.
Note that hard core scientific research may take longer to become available, but it's going to eventually filter down through the percolator. You may have to wait five to ten years for that kind of stuff - or not.
Or, in a simpler sentence: Few people have anything truly unique to offer, so there's no point in paying them to see or hear it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:38AM (2 children)
Oh, I don't dispute that at all; it's just that, in this arms race, I find that more and more often my various adblock technologies reach farther into automatically blocking something that is in fact something I want (or a dependency of something I want). I try turning off tracking-blocker (ghostery, privacy defense) and reload, turning off adblock and reload, ah! now the page works.
I want them to block ads, not break the page.
Sometimes this is the page's fault (refusing to work unless I run a chain of crapware script or third-party junk). I want that stuff blocked.
Sometimes this is the blocker's fault (blocking something innocuous that the page reasonably needs to work). This is what I would rather not escalate just because it can.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday December 28 2017, @02:43PM (1 child)
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ;)
Seriously though, ad blocking through browser plugins is a pretty poor solution IMO. I'm not blocking ads because I don't like looking at them; I'm blocking ads because they are a *threat* to my privacy and security. Now, if Google is actively trying to attack my system, why would I still want to use their services? I don't. I want nothing to do with them. Which is why my ad blocking goes so far that I can't even ping google.com, even if I type in the IP address directly. I've got a fairly extensive blocklist...
But I don't miss much. Sometimes I do a search on DDG and a couple results won't load, but that's fine -- I get an instant 404 and I go back and try another. As Runaway has posted above, there's pretty good odds that you'll be able to find the same content elsewhere. And if you fully block everything sketchy instead of trying to half-ass it, whatever is going to fail will fail immediately and you can move on knowing you aren't supporting that garbage.
Occasionally I do need to punch a hole in the thing, but after the first couple weeks it mostly stopped being for websites. Sometimes I'll go to install some software from the repos and get stuck because the project is hosted on friggin' AWS; other times I'll get stuck trying to update a Steam game because I never bothered to put their content servers in the whitelist (because I build the list by domain name, and I don't have domain names for those)...but it's pretty rare that I need to whitelist a web server.
Block as much you reasonably can at the highest level possible. Nothing of value will be lost.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @08:18PM
Problem is, your average user doesn't have a local copy of dnsmasq on his network giving out 127.0.0.X numbers for f.tons of dubious domains, nor are they forcing all their http traffic through a filtering proxy, again with a set of f.tons of dubious domains and a lot of dubious URLs blocked, oh, and doesn't have an automated update of the hosts file on all local machines where all these shyster hucksters are listed as well...and then they've got to get by Ublock Origin, HTTP Switchboard and some other friends running on the browsers.
What *we* get up to, they (advertisers) don't care that much about, what they do care about is *Joe Public* getting his sweaty little hands on adblockers and then getting used to an ad free web, even the idiots running my local newspaper's website now have a badly obfuscated 'blob-in-a-single-line' of anti-adblocker javascript on their pages which 'beautifies' into 10,900 lines of really funky code (for the record, there's about 4000 other lines of javascript on their frontpage, mostly to do with tracking and ad lobbing BS) , so, instead of their usual 'riveting' local news stories, I now get a couple of ghostery blocked brightcove video links when I visit their site.
Meh, nothing of value was lost.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @10:35AM (1 child)
"Making "differentially powered" adblockers that erase anything that might benefit anyone anywhere in the sense that advertising might, is not, repeat, not a good, noble, worthy goal."
Advertising is entirely geared towards deception and pretty pics. As such it has nearly no benefits whilst making unhappy psychotic people.
Of course that is a noble cause!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 28 2017, @01:37PM
That's going to far; much advertising is, but not all. It's all entirely geared towards persuasion, but not all of the persuasion involves falsity, which I assert is necessary for it to be called deception.
My company copy-edits adverts sometimes, and one of our value-adds (ugh, sorry, but it's a phrase that's way shorter than the less marketroidy alternatives) is to warn clients if they think that their adverts might violate laws regarding claims that might appear to be curative/health/physical-wellbeing related claims (e.g. cosmetics giving you younger skin, spa hotels' services making you healthier, etc.) which would be illegal, and suggesting weasel wording that should keep them legal.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @05:09PM
this ad-blocker should be based on a decentralize network.
it works, by presenting the ads BUT with a selection button .. "do you like this ad?" yes/no.
the reports are collected and then sent out to all other ad-block users.
this way we can cheaply nuke companies that heavy-load our connection with useless data.
instad of te ad, a report of the ad blocker is presented:
"55'021 users didn't like this ad" and "11'202 GB of worthless data transfer was saved, which translate to xyz tons of CO2 saved" and of course "do you want to see the ad anyways?".. or such.
cloudflare can do, so can we : )