Facebook Blocks Ad Blockers, but It Strives to Make Ads More Relevant(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Facebook Blocks Ad Blockers, but It Strives to Make Ads More Relevant
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/technology/facebook-ad-blockers.html?_r=1
18 comments
Against their users? How do their users think they pay to run the site in the first place? Would it be better on their users to require everyone to pay for use? People need to stop acting like Google and Facebook owes them something. All the free stuff is only available if someone pays. My thoughts...there are a lot of bad ad companies out there and unknowing websites place their ads up. But, to place an ad blocker on a well known established company and then use their services without paying is flat out stealing.
"How is facebook supposed to make money" Is not my or your concern, unless you're a facebook employee. If their business model is not profitable then it should not survive. That is the nature of free market capitalism.
It's not stealing to block ads on facebook. They are offering a free service. Another way to see this is that offering a supposedly free service and then forcing people to watch advertisements is dishonest.
This is really about big corporations being unable to adapt to new technology. Every time that happens what you see is the corporations choose to use anti-consumer tactics which are hostile in nature. Evidence, perhaps, that the corporations have always looked on their customers with contempt. When they get into a bit of hot water because of their failures, they take it out on everyone else.
I agree with folks saying "just don't use facebook". There is literally zero reason for anyone to use facebook, it is a terrible service, and a terrible company. Big Corporate Social Media is never profitable, it is going to die, and it should die. Personally, I wish it would just get it over with so we could all move on to superior technologies.
It's not stealing to block ads on facebook. They are offering a free service. Another way to see this is that offering a supposedly free service and then forcing people to watch advertisements is dishonest.
This is really about big corporations being unable to adapt to new technology. Every time that happens what you see is the corporations choose to use anti-consumer tactics which are hostile in nature. Evidence, perhaps, that the corporations have always looked on their customers with contempt. When they get into a bit of hot water because of their failures, they take it out on everyone else.
I agree with folks saying "just don't use facebook". There is literally zero reason for anyone to use facebook, it is a terrible service, and a terrible company. Big Corporate Social Media is never profitable, it is going to die, and it should die. Personally, I wish it would just get it over with so we could all move on to superior technologies.
I agree with you and I also buy the argument that users can choose what their browser decides to render. The best action is to stop using a service. Continuing to use a service with an adblocker shows that you get some type of value out of it but not enough that you're willing to put up with ads.
Disclaimer: I finally installed an adblocker about two months ago so maybe that makes me a hypocrite. Honestly I don't see much of a difference before and after. Ads are not nearly as bad as most users here would make you think. The only real dangerous part is those networks being attacked and injecting malware.
Facebook's ads are some of the least intrusive and well targeted. That second part makes people paranoid though.
Disclaimer: I finally installed an adblocker about two months ago so maybe that makes me a hypocrite. Honestly I don't see much of a difference before and after. Ads are not nearly as bad as most users here would make you think. The only real dangerous part is those networks being attacked and injecting malware.
Facebook's ads are some of the least intrusive and well targeted. That second part makes people paranoid though.
I call this the social contract theory of online advertising: that by viewing a free website's content you have implicitly agreed to view the ads that pay for it. I actually think this theory has more merit than a lot of Hacker News gives credit for, but I also recognize that someone who has installed an ad blocker has clearly already rejected it, so trying to debate with them on these grounds isn't likely to get far. I would try to reframe your argument.
Are you also saying by listening to the radio you agree to listen to the ads? Watching TV requires you to watch the commercials? What about newspapers and magazines that are heavily subsidized by ads, are you implicitly agreeing to read the ads by buying them?
I don't think there is any implicit agreement to vivid, or listen to ads given with free items. The Web isn't any different
To me it seems like a pretty straightforward application of the categorical imperative ("act as though your principles will become universal law"): if everyone blocked ads, we'd have no free content. I want free content. Hence, I don't block ads. You don't have to agree with me on this, but I don't think I'm coming from nutty principles.
> if everyone blocked ads, we'd have no free content.
That's right! If people did not pay for using software, there would be no... oh wait... I am writing from Linux, using Firefox... and have a github tab open...
But if people did not pay for encyclopedias... oh wait...
In fact, if companies could not monetize on ads, less clicbaiting, useless and worthless crap would be created. Sure there would be much less content overall. But most of it is useless anyway. Quality content would be behind membership payments, or just free, published by entusiasts.
The web was thriving before pay-per-view ad-fueled-cancer has consumed it with masses of ignorant clickers, so interested in Kim Kardashian meals.
Sure... things progressed somewhat, fuelled by all that money. But let's make it clear - it had it's price, changing a vision of free medium of sharing knowledge and communicating, into a centralized shopping mall, tracking your every move.
That's right! If people did not pay for using software, there would be no... oh wait... I am writing from Linux, using Firefox... and have a github tab open...
But if people did not pay for encyclopedias... oh wait...
In fact, if companies could not monetize on ads, less clicbaiting, useless and worthless crap would be created. Sure there would be much less content overall. But most of it is useless anyway. Quality content would be behind membership payments, or just free, published by entusiasts.
The web was thriving before pay-per-view ad-fueled-cancer has consumed it with masses of ignorant clickers, so interested in Kim Kardashian meals.
Sure... things progressed somewhat, fuelled by all that money. But let's make it clear - it had it's price, changing a vision of free medium of sharing knowledge and communicating, into a centralized shopping mall, tracking your every move.
There was a period of time, after the bubble and before ad-blockers, when the world wide web was a parasitic minefield of flashing imagines and clickbait and malware.
Then someone invented AdBlock and the web was suddenly fun to use again.
People who've grown up in an ad-block era have no idea how bad it used to be. They didn't have to watch this amazing new "internet" being destroyed by greedy crooks who themselves barely understood the technology.
Then someone invented AdBlock and the web was suddenly fun to use again.
People who've grown up in an ad-block era have no idea how bad it used to be. They didn't have to watch this amazing new "internet" being destroyed by greedy crooks who themselves barely understood the technology.
ad-block era??? This is relatively new. There is no era yet ;) It's like saying "The Pokemon Go Era"
If I hadn't already deleted my Facebook, this would probably make me do it.
> "For blockers to get around these changes, Facebook said they would have to begin analyzing the content of the ads themselves, a costly and laborious process."
I don't think anybody at NYT has ever come across 1 of the longest digital battles since the internet became a thing, otherwise known as: P2P
Where there is a will, there will be a way. For every piece of software that will hide ads, someone out there will likely begin to write software to block this, simply cause some shitty ad ruined his/her Mafia Wars/Farmville experience.
I don't think anybody at NYT has ever come across 1 of the longest digital battles since the internet became a thing, otherwise known as: P2P
Where there is a will, there will be a way. For every piece of software that will hide ads, someone out there will likely begin to write software to block this, simply cause some shitty ad ruined his/her Mafia Wars/Farmville experience.
I'm more curious to see how this plays out with technology than I am over the economic and privacy arguments. Facebook obviously has the resources to find new ways around these ad blockers. Can these small ad blocker developers keep up?
Facebook still renders fine with adblock and ublock origin running.
Facebook still renders fine with adblock and ublock origin running.
How about allowing us to pay to not see ads? I still enjoy using Facebook but I hate seeing ads. I'd pay a couple bucks a month to avoid them.
I personally don't think it would go over well but I'd like to see a site with as much pull as Facebook try it. I've seen articles claiming facebook is making $10 per user per quarter [1]. That seems high to me but if true I don't see anyone paying $10 per month for memes and political rants.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-average-revenue-per-...
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-average-revenue-per-...
The cat and mouse game between advertisers and adblockers is about to enter a new era. I'm surprised it took this long.
How about doing something about spam ads and links?
But regardless of legality, I think it's a sign of how much contempt these companies have toward their users, and it's a good window for someone to take a bite out of their market share.