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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
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!
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
In article op.0awj1o2cwdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
wrote: Why can't someone write an adblocker that isn¹t detectable? Don't block the ad, simply download it but don't display it, the web server wouldn't know the difference! the users would. one of the major benefits from blocking ads is a dramatic reduction in what is downloaded, making the web page load faster and be more responsive. for some sites, the difference is *significant*. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
"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! I use only a HOSTS file with some 300 listings and never see ads. I also never get trouble about ad blockers. But it may be that those nags require javascript. Have you tried disabling javascript or using something like NoScript? Some sites require script but many don't. and script is responsible for nearly all online security risks. So it's a good idea to avoid it when possible. Disabling script also eliminates all popups, pop-unders, and most of the other various dancing distractions on webpages. (I see only static webpages, having also disabled a few CSS tricks that can cause distracting animation.) Another option is to disable 3rd-party images in Firefox/Pale Moon/New Moon. But that also has drawbacks. It used to be that a 3rd-party image was, by definition, an ad. But these days a lot of sites use multiple servers. For example, yahoo.com uses yimg.com for images. It would be feasible to do what you want, in theory. There may be an extension available. But such a tool would need a list, like a HOSTS file. In other words, you'd have to somehow tell it which images not to show. Then CSS customization could be used to block the display of images from specific domains. That would also mean that you'd be enabling maximum online surveillance. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
On 07/11/2019 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! 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. -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:31:57 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote: "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! I use only a HOSTS file with some 300 listings and never see ads. I also never get trouble about ad blockers. But it may be that those nags require javascript. Have you tried disabling javascript or using something like NoScript? Some sites require script but many don't. and script is responsible for nearly all online security risks. So it's a good idea to avoid it when possible. Disabling script also eliminates all popups, pop-unders, and most of the other various dancing distractions on webpages. (I see only static webpages, having also disabled a few CSS tricks that can cause distracting animation.) Another option is to disable 3rd-party images in Firefox/Pale Moon/New Moon. But that also has drawbacks. It used to be that a 3rd-party image was, by definition, an ad. But these days a lot of sites use multiple servers. For example, yahoo.com uses yimg.com for images. It would be feasible to do what you want, in theory. There may be an extension available. But such a tool would need a list, like a HOSTS file. In other words, you'd have to somehow tell it which images not to show. Then CSS customization could be used to block the display of images from specific domains. That would also mean that you'd be enabling maximum online surveillance. +1 on NoScript and a large hosts file. I've also found that clicking on [view -- page style -- no style] (Palemoon, but probably works for Firefox) is useful for sites like Reddit, that won't allow you to read the text unless you disable your blocker. You have to scroll all the way down the page to get to the text though. Easily reverted to see less intrusive pages. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
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?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. 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. 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. -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
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?Â* 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. -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
"Shadow" wrote
| I've also found that clicking on [view -- page style -- no | style] (Palemoon, but probably works for Firefox) is useful for sites | like Reddit, that won't allow you to read the text unless you disable | your blocker. You have to scroll all the way down the page to get to | the text though. We were talking about that recently. I use no CSS so often now that I was looking for a toggle button. After trying several things that didn't work, I finally found one that does: https://github.com/gcrico/disable-style-button Toolbar button. Click to toggle. Very simple. I'm using it in New Moon and FF. I don't know if there's an option for the crippled, post-53 webExtensions version of FF. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
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. -- Ads pay to maintain a web site. This in turn pays us so we can feed our children. Adblockers would steal food from the mouths of our innocent little children, and must be countered at every step. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
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. 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 -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
"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! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?
On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:56:59 -0500, nospam
wrote in In article op.0awj1o2cwdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey wrote: Why can't someone write an adblocker that isn¹t detectable? Don't block the ad, simply download it but don't display it, the web server wouldn't know the difference! the users would. one of the major benefits from blocking ads is a dramatic reduction in what is downloaded, making the web page load faster and be more responsive. for some sites, the difference is *significant*. +1 -- Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one. Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those newspapers delivered to your door every morning. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|