Browser adblocking – will it explode and break the internet?

[electricpete]

What if every TV had a free switch to turn off ads? Most people would probably flip the switch and broadcast tv as well as many other good programs would probably go out of business as a result. People wouldn't want that to happen, but they wouldn't feel their single individual switch makes any difference... it is only the aggregate millions of switches that makes a difference and the indvidual can't do anything about that, so why not control the one thing they can which is ads on their own individual tv.

Of course, that discussion is intended as an analogy to discuss ad blocking in our mobile world. And personally I’m not really worried about in-app ad blocking exploding. That seems limited to rooted phones… a small minority.

But it seems like momentum is building toward an internet where all browsers will offer ad blocking. After all...

1. Google chrome store offers an add-in for pc-based chrome to block ads. Why is that?... It boggles my mind. Maybe part of some bizarre deal between google and author of the add-in company which lets google ads through?
2. Google Play offers a well known android open source browser which can be configured with an additional plugin (downloaded within the app) for ad blocking... no root required.
3. Apple’s desktop browser Safari already has add-ins with ad block capability.
4. Apple recently communicated that capability will be addable for add-ins in mobile version of their safari browser.

While Google doesn't particularly promote/encourage ad blocking, it's not hard to imagine that Apple might. And it's easy to imagine that as the fraction of people who use ad blockers increase, the fraction who hear about it and want it increase (like a communicable disease taking off).

It seems inevitable to me that the situation will have a profound effect on website providers and maybe google/android over the next several years. Ok, ok... I'm no expert, but people who actually know something about it are discussing the same thing:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-...will-affect-publishers-and-advertisers-2015-6
What do you think? How will this change things? And does google have a strategy to combat this?

 

[AZgl1500]

On TV, I use a recorder, and if it is not recorded, I don't watch it.... I zip thru all commercials.
I cannot justify sitting there like a lump on a log waiting 8 and more minutes for the commercials to pass and then I get to watch my current NCSI or CSI-Las Vegas, etc..... easily a full 3rd of the hour is consumed by commercials for stuff I have no interest in, and will never be buying that new FoodMart Sealer that is guaranteed to save me $2,475 per year in wasted food!!!

Hell, our family of 3 don't spend that much on groceries period per year, much less have that much waste...
I don't change oil brands, I don't change brands on much of anything. Once I find what I like, that is the only thing I look for. I never buy a new car, ever... I get them with a 5 year discount and then drive them for 15 more years. Tires, regular oil changes, filters, and rarely anything else to fix on modern cars.

In app commercials on some of my Android apps, I just ignore them. I have no interest in any type of social product or game. Apps that provide me a valuable service, I donate freely or pay the asking price to get full service and No Adverts.

I am just now having to admit that I MUST get dentures.... I have outgrown my teeth's useful life. I told the dentist that I cannot afford the ridiculous $3,000 to $5,000 fees that I keep hearing about. He gave me a list of places that specialize in only dentures period. He said they are high volume, low price, and very good at what they do... or he would not recommend them. I chose the one he pointed his finger to.... so much for looking at advertizing.... I looked and looked at the adverts for dentures. No thank you, I will pass on those guys.... The specialist who gets referrals from the nice dentist is where I am going at a cost of $650.00

 

[zuben el genub]

I'm not brand loyal. I'll use a certain brand as long as it's convenient for me. I will block all local ads. I do as little shopping here as possible. Most stores don't carry what I want, anyway.

Now a general ad for a new DSLR, sewing or quilting machine, telescope and eyepieces would be acceptable. I do like to know what's around or upcoming. However, those ads never mention prices since you can get the price only from a dealer and don't always give me an itch to buy.

I don't need a car, I can make my own clothes and household items the way I want them, I have cats, and the cats are more important than new furniture. I don't pay attention to prescription drug ads. That should take out 80% of the stuff sold locally. I subscribe to newsletters from the stores I do business with, so I have the information and an ad is superfluous.

 

[codesplice]

Good points and questions raised, @electricpete.

It's a fact that the vast majority of content available on the Internet is supported by advertising. Sites (such as this one) simply would not be able to sustain themselves without that ad-based revenue. It sucks sometimes, but content creators gotta get paid. How else is Phases going to pay us moderators? Peanuts ain't cheap! And we can't forget about the great benefits, like overflowing PM inboxes!

At any rate, it will be interesting to see how the web adapts as ad-blockers become more and more commonplace. Some sites already block or provide limited content to users of ad-blockers; will that become the norm?

Google recently launched their little Google Contributor project, which lets users contribute a set amount that goes directly to the sites they visit in exchange for reduced or removed ads. It will also be interesting to see how that experiment works out. I'm using it to ditch some of the ads here while Rob still gets paid.

 

[Hadron]

I've been reading this same debate for at least a decade, so I'm not so sure it's coming to a head just now. Though I have to say that since a phone is a more personal device than a computer, and screen space more limited, my tolerance for advertising on a phone is basically zero. So if enough people feel like me that may make a difference as personal net use shifts to mobile.

That said, I also buy the paid version of apps I use, even if the free version doesn't have ads, so if enough people felt like me maybe there would be a lot fewer ads on their phones to start with.

As an aside, I don't think I've ever clicked through on an ad on the web, and I've been using the web since before there were adverts there. Do people really do that?

 

[zuben el genub]

I've looked at an ad and then searched for reviews of the product. That way I can see both the pros and cons instead of the glowing BS which tells me absolutely nothing if I have questions about specs. My first response is usually - Will it do what I want, not what it "thinks" I want.

If some admakers don't develop better taste, it will be like the "blinkie" in your face revolt all over again. Those ads that appear suddenly in what you are reading come to mind.

If you read the URL, you can figure out which is the main ad. I've seen some aggregators, with names that sound like a reasonable search for a certain type of product, who collect ads and post said ads on their page.
Trouble is, some of those sites get highjacked and are turned into pure porn searches. I found one looking for plus size sewing patterns for a friend. Pattern company name, with URL to porn site.

 

[funkylogik]

I think if we're talking about in app ads, ive had this moral dilemma for years and ive came to the conclusion that if an app doesn't offer an ad free version, which id happily buy then I have no qualms about using Ad Block (and sorry Rob but the AF app is one of them.. And I'm a premium member)
Ad for sites, I can't really excuse my use of them. I guess I'm selfisb as like the OP says 'if we all did it"?
I guess it's the same as pirated movies and music.. I don't see the industry getting worse but maybe I'm blind)

 

[AZgl1500]

I never, ever, Click Thru on adverts/links... on my phone, or on my PC.

The risk of inviting bad news to your device is far more than the benefit (if any) of seeing something of value to me.

 

[electricpete]

Google gets huge revenue from internet Ads. Apple does not (they make money from hardware and app store, nothing from the internet).

If Apple can strangle Google’s ad profits, they can probably slow down the innovative engine supporting Android and give themselves a competitive advantage to sell more phones.

So what’s to stop Apple from turning ad blocking on by default in all their browsers as soon as the programming is done? Not much except (for the moment) the backlash/ill will that this might engender (Taylor Swift knows how to work that angle). BUT, I think they’ll ease into it and the norm will shift. First it’s an option. Then a few people start using it, a few respected folks speak out saying they use it and like it, next thing you know, no-one sees it as immoral or unjustified for Apple to give their users a default ad blocking experience. (And if history is any indication, a feature becoming widely available in the apple world will make it more sought after in the android community).

Just look at all the various lines of discussion in this thread and you’lll see even these esteemed respected members articulate ideas that can be used to justify ad-blocking (and I’m not criticizing… I think this is a cross section of thoughts that are out there):

1 - I don’t click on ads anyway.

2 - There is no useful information in ads for me.

3 - The ads are obnoxious… the websites brought it on themselves.

4 – Not mentioned… possible improvements in privacy, page load time, reduced energy usage etc.

I don’t pass judgement on above (because I sort of feel the same way, albeit somewhat conflicted at the moment), but I don’t think web content providers would buy any of these reasons.
1 - They are paid not just per click but per view. And there is a good logic to that approach, because they don’t need you to click in order to influence your decision making process in the long-term (is a car commercial unsuccessful if you don’t take immediate action after seeing the ad? of course not). They are trying to get into your subconcious (see #2).

2 - Sure there is not much useful information in the ads… just like car ads on TV that show mostly vibrant people and pleasant situations while telling you nothing about the car. TV advertisers spend big money to get into your subconscious / emotions… not necessarily to educate you about their product. And that money finances your TV shows.

3 – Some tv commericals are obnoxious. And they all interrupt me viewing the content that I tuned in for. Broadcast tv is free… our only required payment is the ads. Just like the internet.

4 – Again you would save energy and time if not for tv commercials, but they are part of the broadcast.

Personally I’m not embracing either side of the argument, but the fact that there are so many sides to the argument creates plenty of moral grey area … which is not good news if we’re hoping for moral outrage as the main barrier against the spread of browser adblockers.

I think Google themselves dealt a big blow to their moral highground when they put an ad blocking extension on the pc chrome store. If google says it’s ok, why should users feel bad about browser adblocking or criticize Apple if they make aggressive moves in that direction!? (I still don’t understand why Google did that).

I applaud those who would contribute to Google Contributor project. But I don't think anything resembling a donation honor system will work for the masses in a culture that has grown accustomed to getting great content through legitmate channels for "free" (no money, a few ads).

Hopefully there is a technological solution somewhere. Maybe something along the lines of widespread denying content to browsers with adblockers as codesplice mentioned.

 

[AZgl1500]

One solution has already been solved IMO.
DTV charges me a huge fee per month for the privilege of viewing their channels.
IMO, that is the only thing I owe the providers because a portion of that payment goes to the providers... they get their dime whether I like the channels provided to me in a block or not....

I have screamed for Ala Carte selection of ONLY the channels I want to see, I could give a rats ass if the NBA or the NFL shows keep playing on my TV, I have all sports channels deleted from my custom view list.
My list is my personal Ala Carte selection, I pay for all of it, but use only about 4% of what is there.

And of those selected channels, I refuse to watch them live.....
I don't even watch the local 10 PM news live.... I record it and watch it at 10:30 and zip past all of the junk reporting I am not interested in.... I don't need to see something about the guy who stole drugs from another punk on the street.... if he is caught good, but I can't do anything about that or not. so why waste my time watching it? I catch the highlights of the good things for our community and I'm done.

 

[funkylogik]

So is there technically a way to block ad blockers?

 

[Hadron]

If you can detect that an ad blocker is in use (and some websites do) then you can refuse to serve the content.

Pete, you forgot to list the malicious adware that infects browsers - preventing that is arguably one of the stronger reasons for running ad blocking. And that's another aspect: when some advertisers get more aggressive (browser hijacks, airpush et al, or even the original pop-up ads) it encourages people to block all ads as a blanket policy.

As for the "what's to stop Apple" question, I think the answer is probably push-back from the rest of the net. Heck, if they wanted to get serious about it, websites could easily detect an Apple browser (should Apple, hypothetically, adopt such a policy) and just serve a page that says something like "We need advertising to pay for our site. Apple have decided to block ads because of the game they are playing with Google, but they aren't paying us for lost revenue. So if you'd like to view our site, you can download Firefox from here, Chrome from here, Opera from here. And if you want to complain to Apple, here is the link.". Because this cuts both ways: while the little guys (individually) may not have much leverage, the possibility that you wouldn't be able to read major sites from an iPhone/iPad would also threaten the hardware sales that Apple make their money from. They might be able to game it, but it's a high-risk strategy and probably not worth the risk (e.g. they can, again hypothetically, try to pitch themselves as "improving the web experience", but if the story instead becomes "Apple makes everyone else suffer because of their feud with Google" that will hurt them, and if it's the media who are hurt by such a policy what story do you think people will hear?).

 

[zuben el genub]

You can get refused if you don't allow javascript. Turning it on and off is your decision, not the web page. Most of the malware uses javascript. Unless some people need it for programming, Java is disappearing in some cases which blocks the applets. FX used to have it in Extensions - you could delete the extension. I prefer NoScript and images off to the adblocker.

 

[AZgl1500]

You can get refused if you don't allow javascript. Turning it on and off is your decision, not the web page. Most of the malware uses javascript. Unless some people need it for programming, Java is disappearing in some cases which blocks the applets. FX used to have it in Extensions - you could delete the extension. I prefer NoScript and images off to the adblocker.

ditto, NoScript is superbly powerful... it you don't allow permission, it don't make it to your screen.

 

[electricpete]

I got this message when I visited Forbes with my adblocker on. So obviously they could tell I had an adblocker.

It only takes a click to get around it, but it's still more intrusive than any ads they might have. So, it creates a pretty good incentive for me to change my behavior (at least on that website) without creating any ill will toward the website (the touch of humor doesn't hurt either). Seems like a pretty clever approach.

 

[EarlyMon]

Regarding the bit about Apple, remember -



Due to common open source code going back to the original WebKit, most sites can't tell that you're on a phone using an Android WebView browser - and will identify you as running Safari on a Mac, every time.

As @Hadron mentioned, some browsers carry their own rendering engines, but still, there would be more to blocking Apple than meets the eye.

I doubt most Android users would blame the restricting website if accused of running Safari - word would spread that Android lies and is broken and that would be the new idiotic meme - Android poses.

Oh, and btw - sites not coded by brain damaged monkeys can tell exactly what I was using -



But that's the exception.

Logic won't have anything to do with it if someone decides the web ought to be vendor specific.

 

[zuben el genub]

Google is supposed to be making some ads better, at least on phone:
http://betanews.com/2015/06/27/google-will-eliminate-accidental-mobile-ad-clicks

The problem is more business are getting concerned about branding, and will push more junk to keep you loyal to brand.

 

[Gmash]

Kim Kardashian's ass couldn't break the internet, I doubt ad-blockers can do it.

 

[funkylogik]

Monkey feel bad