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!

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*.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

"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!

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.