Internet advertsing companies finally woke up.
You know why adblocking works? Because most people are stupid enough to use generic IDs like "ads" and "here-goes-the-ad", so it's easier to filter them.
But a new revolution has begun in Germany, with ad scripts that finally generate random IDs and image URLs (similar to legit images) for the ads, making them unblockable.
Now we just need to wait for other companies to be smart enough to copy this obvious idea.
It's the end of adblockers.<div id="PviAgdc" class="XRZDvZvarl">
<div id="nQOIXSy" class="">
It was nice for a while then that I could browse a site without a shitty banner for something i don't want shoving itself in my face.
I guess we'll have to wait for an adblocker than can get around this.
just tryed it on my laptop, no ads anywere to see.
Fuck off shill
I use ublock origin and no script.
>block xpath/css-syntax path to elements
>block bizarrely named css classes and shit that may be scrambled but are still reused between ads and such because that's how css classes and shit work
>no more profit from ads
>You know why adblocking works? Because most people are stupid enough to use generic IDs like "ads" and "here-goes-the-ad", so it's easier to filter them.
of course retard, during all these years no one realized this until now
It doesn't fucking matter if the dimensions of the ad itself are the same. Even if they started randomly generating the size as well, there are only so fucking many possible iterations. This can literally all be solved via filters, and will be.
werks on my machine.
Until the ads start using a script to randomly change one pixel in the image before displaying it.
I'd let the one on the right handcuff me any time.
Works fine for me, also nice wasted space.
BILD also works fine for me.
>You know why adblocking works?
> Because most people are stupid enough to use generic IDs like "ads" and "here-goes-the-ad", so it's easier to filter them.
But that's wrong.
>not using uMatrix
Oh server side. Well either way it has to be presented to the browser somehow and that in itself is a means by which to block it.
If it is done on a third party domain then that is easily blocked, if it is done on the first party domain then it is taking control over the advertising away from the advertising companies and giving it to the site, which is a benefit anyway.
Works just fine here (:
> MVPS HOSTS
> Fanboy Ultimate List
Nevermind, got it.
Had to get rid of Disconnect either (don't even know why I didn't set up uBlock to replace it; will do that now). Funny thing though is that stupid Anti Adblocker script also triggers non-adblock users sometimes. It's way too aggressive.
then the content is an ad
wtf, do you even internet? whats the point on using ad networks along with your server if your content is served like an ad? no caching, no need for your server, NO NEED FOR YOUR CONTENT
Exactly. If you want content you won't be able to block contact to the ad server because they are one and the same.
Assuming they also don't use easily filtered file names that means that you can't block connections to the ads, only hide the areas they will appear.
>i have no argument
>self hosting ads means your content is advertising
I guess Nyaa is an advertising site then.
Even then it is possible to just make the URL appear local but redirect it from the webserver to another location.
yeah they came through on my machine, first ads i've been served in years
adding custom filtes for
got rid of them though. nice try.
It is most probable they have a script that monitors image hits compared to page hits and will change the filename structure and/or file type if the images are loading far less than the pages.
All you need to do is implement a simple css statement that will hide the ads. Who cares if they load? They local, they don't get money from them unless they're clicked.
I like ordering pizza though.
seriously don't care about this, wouldn't this even mean that sites still get money for ads, but you don't see them
Of course it would take longer to load and shit, but that would be pretty much unnoticeable and sites would have no reason to be "angry" at ad blockers
Better alternative than seeing all the fucking ads after this long of clean browsing
Well , spiegel.de, I'm waiting for your bloat ?
Oh wait, this is the www, I'm the one making them HTTP requests and reading the responses' contents so I guess I'll display whatever the fuck I want.
Works fine with uBlock for me.
And I also have no problems with bild.de because I set uMatrix to block all scripts by default.
Also, even if I couldn't block their ads, it wouldn't matter because I'm not visiting spiegel, bild (lol), or any other of these sites.
Hmmm none of these seem to have anything to do with the content on the page maybe I'll just block all of them. Good thing I block third party scripts and frames by default.
>with ad scripts that finally generate random IDs and image URLs (similar to legit images) for the ads, making them unblockable.
The NoScript guy has been doing this for years on his website.
Ublock might be destroyed
but Ublock Origin still works
I came here looking for a thread like this. Has anyone noticed issue with loading youtube videos + ublock origin?
It works in chrome, but with ads.
I have to press play and sometimes that does nothing.
Using noscript and getting around what you're saying takes three mouse clicks.
For example, I don't use any google products at all. Sometimes I HAVE to use them in certain situations, like posting on 4chan.
I have it setup as follows..
Noscript global setting:
Make permissions tab specific and not reload all tabs when a change is made.
4chan.org and 4cdn.org
When I want to post - I temp allow google.com and gstatic.com on this site. Again, with three clicks of my mouse and I can post.
It's not that hard.
Then all advertisers need to do is change one pixel.
Randomly named sub domains on the same site as the content itself.
Or, fuck, use the same thousand random sub domains for both adds and content.
>thinking that ids are the only way to identify content
This isn't 1980, anon. Adblocking rules will get more complex, like "the third embed on the page" or "any image 600x200 px". It's a perpetual cat and mouse game.
im not worried, people who make adblockers are smarter than advertising designers & infinitely more bitter
but am i gonna need anything more than Adaway? & is it possible to block youtube commercials, or are the Jews too strong?
>People assuming the free no strings attached ride would last forever
Well it looks like you are not actually intitled to websites entirity of hosted content at zero cost to you for ever.
What a fucking shock.
What where they supposed to so about it? Ask for subscriptions and get shit on for it?
Also I'm kinda of skeptical that this is legit if Google isn't doing it.
> implying all the shitty click bait sites are actually performing a valuable service that we should be paying for
That would be more secure tho
I mean, aside from loads of PDF vulnerabilities, if its just a static image you don't have to worry about drive-by downloads, annoying popups, flashing banners, etc