Why are adblockers not easily circumvented? Why don't lil

I think the server owner would have to be in a direct contract with the business looking to advertise in that case, instead of an advertising agency

>>58629779
>Why are adblockers not easily circumvented?
They are, but most ad networks have not implemented circumvention measures yet.
>Why do I have to see these "turn of adblock we're poor" fucking safescreens that I have to suffer through turning off in the console?
Exactly because some sites can circumvent adblockers, but choose to present you with a message because circumventing adblockers would just lead to escalating measures to block ads. This is a war where the ad agencies only lose because large corporations are much slower to adapt than small browser add-ons.

In the end, the only way to ensure the consumer sees ads is to bake them directly into the content; eventually this will be the only cost-effective measure.

It's not that inconvenient to block elements with a right click. Never enter the full console.

>>58629807
Why? I would imagine the losses for both parties would justify doing it. How much money is lost due to adblockers?

>>58629827
You have to re enable scrolling

>>58629807
webassembly and HTML5 combined with forced DRM are making this ever closer.

>>58629892
>>58629807
You already see baked-in ads on a lot of youtube videos, with sponsored ad reads and that sort of thing. Crops up in podcasts a lot too.

>>58629892
Yep. It's also happening in the form of e.g. YouTubers promoting products inside their videos. Even if you use youtube-dl and you don't even go to the website, you get the ad as part of the video.

>>58629892
>>58629992
>>58630008
I agree. Also, sometimes people who put stuff on the internet embed ads into the stuff itself, to get past all adblocking.

>Why are adblockers not easily circumvented?
cosmetic filtering

even if your ads come from http://legitwebsite.org/legitcontent/legit_image.jpg you can still tell most adblockers to block the fuck out of div#legit_image_not_an_ad

>Why do I have to see these "turn of adblock we're poor" fucking safescreens that I have to suffer through turning off in the console?

Because you're not using ublock correctly.

>>58629807
or just make the content the ad

>>58629807
>In the end, the only way to ensure the consumer sees ads is to bake them directly into the content; eventually this will be the only cost-effective measure.
[this comment was sponsored by intel. click here to learn more about their new series of 1% incremental upgrade CPUs!]

Don't be an entitled manchild.

>mozilla cares about "a fair and healthy internet"
>firefox comes with ABP as standard
>but begs for donations on the start up page

is it better to sell some adspace, or be a failed business masquerading as charity? this feels like a clash of base ideals. i get that pop-ups and stuff can be annoying or straight up harmful, its why i use a blocker. but they act so hard up and beg for money whilst screwing over every other content creator that relies on ads.

Question is...is and ad blocked enough?
What is going to filter all those requests? Disconnect filters up 600 requests from Microsoft and Facebook when I'm using OneDrive at work. I am too much of a skeptic to think anything is actually being filtered.

>>58629779
Because ublock, unlike simple hosts blocking, can, and does block ads embedded in the page. Even if ads are loaded dynamically by scripts, after the page have loaded. Umatrix is even more powerful.

>>58629779
>Why don't lil webbies just route the ads through their damn server
they're already doing it in the Baltic states.

>>58629779
Stop visiting shit sites. I have yet to see a site asking for me to disable adblock.

>>58629779
>Why don't lil webbies just route the ads through their damn server to get around blacklists?
Yea, they could use the same type of address as the video or images they actually offer to users.
For example youtube could use ytimg.com for ads and the ad image links should have the same type of format as regular ytimg images, so it would be virtually impossible to block adds without blocking all the videos and even embedded youtube videos on other sites. You wouldn't be able to see any video at all without seeing the adds.
Even if youtube handed over the whole list of ads it has, the filter would be so heavy it wouldn't be user friendly CAUSE you see, addblockers don't block adds based on specific individual filters just for one ad alone, but for a group of ads that come from a server or that come from a server with a specific type of format of the link.
But youtube and other site devs are lazy cunts that would rather change stuff to piss off users instead of doing useful stuff or stuff that actually makes them money.

>>58630044
>cosmetic filtering
If the ad is part of the main page you can't block it with cosmetic filters without blocking the whole page.

>>58629779
How do I block this PIZZAGATE SHIT?

>>58629779
>Why do I have to see these "turn of adblock we're poor" fucking safescreens that I have to suffer through turning off in the console?
Ad companies have to monitor and see how many times the ads were viewed by the users and if the ads would go through the site's servers that would mean the ad companies would have to brownose in the sites ass to make sure the ads are seen and they're worth the money it's stipulated in the contract.

>>58630940
Why isn't that simple?
1] Make a script that will display an 1x1 image with "ad" in the name. If it's blocked, don't display the real ad and don't charge (because the user is using an adblocker).
2] If the 1x1 "ad" isn't blocked, display the ad and charge for the view.

>>58631071
My point was that the ad companies have to check the site's affairs in order to make sure that the data is true and they're not getting scammed.
Meaning that if the ads go through the site's servers the ad companies have to come in and audit the site's data , scripts etc.

That method is stupid anyway cause the point is not to say :"hey they have adblcokers" "shrug"
THE POINT is to beat the adblocker by NOT making links with "ad" in the name or any other tags with "ad" or anything that would make them a category. The POINT is to make the ads look like regular site pics or hard code it on the site images and videos.

>>58631159
People with adblockers don't want to see ads, so they won't buy anything. The point for the ads is to sell the product so there is no point to show ads to people who are blocking them.

>>58629779
>Why don't lil webbies just route the ads through their damn server
too expensive
>Why do I have to see these "turn of adblock we're poor" fucking safescreens
because if you're using an advertiser as an income source, you're a lazy person
they cannot be expected to do more than minimum work

>>58631275
>People with adblockers don't want to see ads
Who cares?
Site that displays ads:
>wants to show ads to users and make sure that they don't get blocked/hidden so they can make money/every successful display
Ad companies:
>want to make sure the ads that they pay for really get viewed

When I was watching tv as a kid and after seeing ads IDK why I wanted such and such products that had nothing to do with my life, that's how ads work.
>>58631310
>too expensive
Not really if ad companies don't use their own servers they would pay the site to use their servers at 0 extra cost.

>>58631358
>as a kid
That's why it worked. Adults don't want that. And ads are paying peanuts desu.

>>58631358
How to make a successful ad companies:
1] Charge only for viewed ads (like I said)
2] Make a system who'll charge either for "time view" or "page view".
Time view will charge for the actual time the visitor is viewing the ad. If he scrolls down and the ads isn't on the screen anymore, the counter will stop. If he scrolls up, the counter will resume.

>>58631358
>tfw dvr is the hero of modern tv watching
Taking a piss? pause. Blowing your nose? pause.
All those pauses add up and sure enough you've got enough buffer to skip entire adbreaks.
If it's already been prerecorded the battle was won before it began.
Unlike those fucking on-demand services, reeeeee.

>>58631408
>1] Charge only for viewed ads (like I said)
>2] Make a system who'll charge either for "time view" or "page view".
They do that currently but through the ad servers, that's why sites beg to turn off your adblocker.
Best way is for example: google to buy ad companies and merge them with google so everything goes through the same servers and no one has to pay extra for auditing between companies.
Problem with buying such companies is that they don't have any intrinsic value except the contracts they have with certain companies.
So these ad companies need to crash and burn so companies like Google and facebook to buy them in bulk and merge with them.
>>58631467
That was in the 90s

People who make the actual pages, the frontends, are trash at actual programming. Invariably. That's the only reason why they're not winning this war. They're the ones "attacking", and the user is "defending". By all means, they have the upper hand, but they suck.

Occasionally though, shit does get through.

>>58631476
>That was in the 90s
So was tv actually worth watching.

>>58631490
Well there wasn't any internet back then, not here anyway.
Was decent.

>>58630422
4chan

>>58629880
Almost zero.

Ads don't pay just to see them, they play per clicks (and more per product sold). So unless you go around clicking on every ad like a fucking retard, nobody is making money.

It's just as retarded as Hollywood sperging about "lost money due to piracy", as if people that download without permission their shit were going to buy it anyway.

>>58631540
>ads don't just pay to see them

Here we have another wannabe smartass who never worked with advertisments in his life.

Ads pay for both impressions and clicks.
Impressions pay less then clicks (obviously) but there is profit made from just seeing ads without clicking them too.

There are billions lost because of adblockers, sites are dying because of them.

>>58631620
Hollywood is also dying because some poor kid in Venezuela that can't afford HBO anyways downloaded Game of Thrones from a torrent.

>>58630804
>>58630840
The point of cosmetic filters is that they block page ELEMENTS, not URLs. And they do that via CSS selectors, so knowing even relative position of ad is enough to hide it.

>>58632022
You can embed it in the page and not be identified as an element.
Or I've seen some sites embed it behind the page .

> all those spergs pretending to know what they fuck they are talking about and they don't know those messages are already blocked with a list they haven't included yet in their setup.

consider this a charity.

I'm paid in nudes.

>>58632174
>You can embed it in the page and not be identified as an element
You don't know what are you talking about.

>>58632209
YOU can MAKE IT PART OF THE ACTUAL PAGE!
Hardcode it !

>>58632245
Umm he's saying that you need to place the ad in the DOM, adblockers can detect any DOM element for content that is even somewhat ad related, there is no "insert it in the page but not as an element" because that's not how web development works.

>>58632245
Not that guy but what do you think a webpage is made of? How, exactly, do you hardcode something that end users can modify with a text editor?