If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
On 08/11/2019 12.03, NY wrote:
"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message newsp.0awubiclwdg98l@glass... On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 22:23:28 -0000, Sjouke Burry wrote: On 07.11.19 21:47, Commander Kinsey wrote: Why can't someone write an adblocker that isn’t detectable?Â* Don't block the ad, simply download it but don't display it, the web server wouldn't know the difference! Why not leave the generation alone, and just print a grey square across it? And turn the sound to zero volume, dont try to stop them, just make them silent/invisible. That should be quite undetectable. Agreed.Â* The simplest way to block them is to cover them up, yet adblockers do stupid things like not downloading the ad at all.Â* I don't give a **** if a bit of my unlimited bandwidth is used up, but I do care if the website can see I haven't downloaded the ad, then prevents the whole page from loading.Â* Adblockers just aren't doing their job properly. Also I wish that sites would reserve page space for ads and illustrations in advance of downloading the ad/picture - so the text on the page wouldn't keep jumping around as successive pictures/videos etc are downloaded. img width="100" height="100" ... Don't omit the width/height parameters! They don't know in advance the exact size the add will have. They are dynamic. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: Also I wish that sites would reserve page space for ads and illustrations in advance of downloading the ad/picture - so the text on the page wouldn't keep jumping around as successive pictures/videos etc are downloaded. img width="100" height="100" ... Don't omit the width/height parameters! They don't know in advance the exact size the add will have. They are dynamic. i don't know what ad blockers either of you are using, but i don't see text jumping around at all, on multiple platforms. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
On 08/11/2019 11.49, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:33:49 -0000, CoMmAnDoTrOn wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: How hard can it be to run whatever the ad requests, and ONLY omit the actual display on the screen? Anything is easy for the person who will not do it himself or herself. I challenge Commander Kinsey to walk the talk and produce a *working* adblocker which gets around our powerful techniques at Leet Website Command. Our ads run a script *after* the actual display, to check whether the ad is actually displayed and tell the web server. We can tell when the actual display is omitted. We can tell when the ad is displayed but covered over. If you run whatever the ad requests, the server knows when there is an adblocker. If you don't run whatever the ad requests, the server knows from the silence. Adblockers cannot fake what our script tells the server. We change it every few hours, faster than adblockers can keep up. We change it by geographic location. No adblocker can afford to pay for the full-time army of workers needed to keep up with our constant changes. Personally I don't give a sht about ads. Give me all the jpg/gif ads you want. Right there, on the web page.Some are quite funny, others are useful. Some are ignored after a glance. And I glance at them all. If I'm on a computer page, show me ads for cheap RAM. Cycling page? Ads for gears are OK. pR0n sites, bring on the dildo ads (I won't buy one, but somebody might). What is NOT acceptable are the datamining and profiling scripts corrupt companies use to ID you and your "preferences" and then sell that personal data to third parties, many of which are malicious. I accept adds, but I find not acceptable adds that make difficult reading the content of the page or use noticeable resources in my machine. Like the add moving when I move the page. Like downloading a video (using my bandwidth) and playing it That's not advertizing, it's spying on your users. What exactly does your company do with the information it gathers from it's naive users? []'s -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
"Shadow" wrote
| | What is NOT acceptable are the datamining and profiling | scripts corrupt companies use to ID you and your "preferences" and | then sell that personal data to third parties, many of which are | malicious. | That's not advertizing, it's spying on your users. Exactly. Which is one of the many reasons not to run script. | What exactly does your company do with the information it | gathers from it's naive users? Probably nothing. Most webmasters are not actually setting up the ads and probably don't even understand the code. They just insert script snippets so that the likes of Google can jump in with ads and cross-site scripting. In the old days, (as you probably know, but I'll recap for anyone who doesn't know), there were banner ads that a webpage would include code for. And the ad images were locally sourced. Today it's greedy and uneducated webmasters who set up their pages according to instructions from the sleazeball spyware/adware companies who pay them. So the basic formula is to find some kid out of college who can write a somewhat coherent article about a trending topic: Is gluten a miracle for younger looking skin?! New research raises questions!! Then stretch the article out to get as many ads as possible on the page. Then insert the code that will allow Google to put in those ads. Technically, the originating domain is only creating part of the webpage. And that's not even getting into other spyware, like people letting Google Analytics spy on their visitors because they don't understand how to read their own web server logs and Google will give them access to pre-digested data for free -- so long as the webmaster gives Google access to their traffic. The whole system has become a kind of addiction cycle. Google comes out with free functionality. Under-trained webmasters who don't even know how to write code share tips online about how to use Google's freebies. Their bosses have no idea of the incompetence because they, themselves, can't understand what the webmasters are doing in their WYSIWYG webpage editors. The end result is a monstrosity that's entirely dependent on Google. Not only for ad money but also for fonts, maps, jquery, visitor data... The webmasters don't know how to do any of that on their own! It never even occurs to most that they could put a picture of a map on their webpages rather than send every visitor off to Google for a map. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
"NY" wrote
| Also I wish that sites would reserve page space for ads and illustrations in | advance of downloading the ad/picture - so the text on the page wouldn't | keep jumping around as successive pictures/videos etc are downloaded. | | img width="100" height="100" ... | | Don't omit the width/height parameters! I don't think that's generally the problem. Rather, many commercial websites are now 4-20 MB of script, images and video. The page is created dynamically. Not only does it wait for Google to set up the ads. There's also likely to be extensive customization due to data mining. There have been stories in the past, for instance, about how shopping sites or airline ticket sites will post different prices to different people. In other words, in many cases you're not getting a webpage at all. What you see is really the GUI of a large software program that you download in pieces, and which then gets compiled in stages on your computer, in conjunction with extensive communication between your browser and a dozen+ different domains. All the while that software program is also pulling in data about your mouse movements and sending that back to various sites, to analyze what you're looking at in the page. It's crazy. We're very close to phasing out HTML altogether in favor of something like a phone app. The privacy and security issues with that are mind boggling. (Flash, after all, is being phased out *because* it's such a security nightmare. The apeeal of HTML and CSS is that they're not executable.) But people are not upset because to the casual observer the mechanics are not visible. They just see pages that are getting snazzier and more responsive. For instance, I just opened washingtonpost.com. It loaded in less than a second. Almost instant to me. A tiny pause and... there it is. No script to download. No script to run. Iframes and images from ad servers are all blocked. Web bugs from Google and others are blocked. So I'm just getting the actual webpage itself with the images that are actually part of the webpage. Since I rarely enable script, most webpages I see load almost instantly and there's no jumping around. The browser just downloads the HTML file and images, then does the best it can of putting it all together. That's an amazingly fast operation. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
On 08/11/2019 14.44, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: Also I wish that sites would reserve page space for ads and illustrations in advance of downloading the ad/picture - so the text on the page wouldn't keep jumping around as successive pictures/videos etc are downloaded. img width="100" height="100" ... Don't omit the width/height parameters! They don't know in advance the exact size the add will have. They are dynamic. i don't know what ad blockers either of you are using, but i don't see text jumping around at all, on multiple platforms. No no, that situation happens with non blocked adds. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
On 08/11/2019 14.48, Mayayana wrote:
"Shadow" wrote .... yes, but... The end result is a monstrosity that's entirely dependent on Google. Not only for ad money but also for fonts, maps, jquery, visitor data... The webmasters don't know how to do any of that on their own! It never even occurs to most that they could put a picture of a map on their webpages rather than send every visitor off to Google for a map. The but is that the image of a map can not resize or move. On the other hand, I'm sure there is legalesse that prohibit taking a photo of a google map and posting it. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: Also I wish that sites would reserve page space for ads and illustrations in advance of downloading the ad/picture - so the text on the page wouldn't keep jumping around as successive pictures/videos etc are downloaded. img width="100" height="100" ... Don't omit the width/height parameters! They don't know in advance the exact size the add will have. They are dynamic. i don't know what ad blockers either of you are using, but i don't see text jumping around at all, on multiple platforms. No no, that situation happens with non blocked adds. get a better ad blocker, one that blocks all ads. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
Ads which interfere with browser functionality are bad.
Ads which obscure web page are bad. Ads with video and/or audio are bad. In other words, ads are bad. If you are doing this to support your family, I suggest you change the focus of your work. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
"Carlos E.R." wrote
| The but is that the image of a map can not resize or move. On the other | hand, I'm sure there is legalesse that prohibit taking a photo of a | google map and posting it. | Both true, but not real problems. If I've got Bob's Furniture Store I can draw a map of major cross streets. My drawn map can easily bbe more useful than Google's. Or I can get a free-to-use map. People just use a Google link because it's free and they can't be bothered to deal with it. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
"Shadow" wrote
| The code looks OK (no calls to external resources), but it | won't install on my browser (Palemoon 26) even after I edited the | install.rdf. | Any hints? | | Disregard. It won't work under Palemoon. A known issue. Are you sure? It works fine in New Moon 28. In the add-ons window it says it targets FF and "runs in compatibility mode" in NM. It even says it's signed. Though I disable that restriction in about:config, anyway. But if by PM 26 you mean you're using a WebExtensions version then, no, it wouldn't work. Unfortunately, I tried several other things that didn't work. This was the only one that did. But maybe there's a WebExtensions equivalent. I really love it because I'm toggling so much now. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
On 08/11/2019 15.38, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: Also I wish that sites would reserve page space for ads and illustrations in advance of downloading the ad/picture - so the text on the page wouldn't keep jumping around as successive pictures/videos etc are downloaded. img width="100" height="100" ... Don't omit the width/height parameters! They don't know in advance the exact size the add will have. They are dynamic. i don't know what ad blockers either of you are using, but i don't see text jumping around at all, on multiple platforms. No no, that situation happens with non blocked adds. get a better ad blocker, one that blocks all ads. I do not want to block all adds. Absolutely not! -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:47:09 -0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 08/11/2019 01.29, Commander Kinsey wrote: On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 22:23:28 -0000, Sjouke Burry wrote: On 07.11.19 21:47, Commander Kinsey wrote: Why can't someone write an adblocker that isn’t detectable? Don't block the ad, simply download it but don't display it, the web server wouldn't know the difference! Why not leave the generation alone, and just print a grey square across it? And turn the sound to zero volume, dont try to stop them, just make them silent/invisible. That should be quite undetectable. Agreed. The simplest way to block them is to cover them up, yet adblockers do stupid things like not downloading the ad at all. I don't give a **** if a bit of my unlimited bandwidth is used up, but I do care if the website can see I haven't downloaded the ad, then prevents the whole page from loading. Adblockers just aren't doing their job properly. Actually, some of the them are downloaded to find out if they match a filter. Then, some of us do want them not downloaded, not only not displayed, because we may have limited bandwidth or this is metered. That is my case this instant, as I have the laptop tethered to my moble phone. You are in the minority, most people are on fast connections nowadays. Another reason is that once they are downloaded, they do things like run scripts to detect your actions, and that is worse than having the add displayed. Or simply they run code to display the actual add. They can't detect an action if it's not there to be clicked on. Anyway, what's the point in blocking them in the current way by not downloading them, if that makes the site detect you've done so, and stop you using the site altogether? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:51:49 -0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 08/11/2019 01.30, Commander Kinsey wrote: On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 22:44:11 -0000, Carlos E. R. wrote: On 07/11/2019 21.47, Commander Kinsey wrote: Why can't someone write an adblocker that isn’t detectable? Don't block the ad, simply download it but don't display it, the web server wouldn't know the difference! They can find out, because they don't see the results of the scripts they run with the adds. Like one cookie not appearing, or a download request at some URL with the same identifier that does not happen. How hard can it be to run whatever the ad requests, and ONLY omit the actual display on the screen? Well, they are associated and unwanted actions the adds do that is not displayed. I really prefer that nosy code not running, if possible. All very well, but if that breaks the page so you can't see what you wanted to see, then you have to turn the blocker off anyway! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 11:03:21 -0000, NY wrote:
"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message newsp.0awubiclwdg98l@glass... On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 22:23:28 -0000, Sjouke Burry wrote: On 07.11.19 21:47, Commander Kinsey wrote: Why can't someone write an adblocker that isn’t detectable? Don't block the ad, simply download it but don't display it, the web server wouldn't know the difference! Why not leave the generation alone, and just print a grey square across it? And turn the sound to zero volume, dont try to stop them, just make them silent/invisible. That should be quite undetectable. Agreed. The simplest way to block them is to cover them up, yet adblockers do stupid things like not downloading the ad at all. I don't give a **** if a bit of my unlimited bandwidth is used up, but I do care if the website can see I haven't downloaded the ad, then prevents the whole page from loading. Adblockers just aren't doing their job properly. Also I wish that sites would reserve page space for ads and illustrations in advance of downloading the ad/picture - so the text on the page wouldn't keep jumping around as successive pictures/videos etc are downloaded. img width="100" height="100" ... Don't omit the width/height parameters! That used to annoy me, but since nowadays I have a fibre connection with a fast processor, pages are loaded in a fraction of a second anyway. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|