How I think news blogs should tackle ad-blocking.

[zikalify Editor]

EDIT: The comments in this thread have highlighted some important point which I overlooked, including security issues which ads present, data consumption, and that content hiding for adblock users may not be the best solution. It's also worth me noting these are totally my own OPINIONS on the matter and Neowin has no intention of implementing them (nobody on the team knew I was concocting this post, muahaha). It's just some ideas I was floating on the adblocking situation across the entire web.

 

There are two main reasons for ad-blocking, these are speed and privacy, EDIT: security has also been pointed out, it's valid but not addressed in my post because I forgot about this.

 

Of course, ad-blocking is a huge problem for content producers and needs to be tackled, but moralising probably won't work... so what needs to be done? I'd like to break the problem down into the major scenarios I can think of for ad-blocking and how website maintainers should address issues users have.

 

The first scenario: You're on you're ten year old desktop computer. You have Linux up and running and Firefox is managing to open at a decent speed, the main problem arises when you go to open a website. If the website has only a few ads the page manages to load without too many issues, if however ads are all over the page, and running lots of scripts to track users, the system comes to a grinding halt, making the users force close Firefox. What a disaster, the users proceeds to install and adblocker and his browsing experience is now bearable.

 

In the first scenario we saw that the user on the old computer could open a site with few ads, and the content producers get paid, great! This is the first tip for content producers, don't bog down your site with intensive ads and keep ads to a minimum, it'll drive less people to blocking your ads altogether.

 

The second scenario: We all know the person in this scenario, heck it's probably around 1 in 2 of you reading this. You have a decent computer that is capable of loading any webpage comfortably. This person installs an adblocker just because they don't want to see ads. Honestly, this person who blocks ads and isn't privacy conscious (see scenario 3) should be blocked from reading the website or be given an option to make a payment to make up for the lack of ads delivered.

 

The third scenario: This group of users want to help content producers earn a living. This group of users has no issue with being shown ads in principle. This group of users is, however, concerned with their privacy. Half a million of these people have installed Privacy Badger (based on downloads in Firefox and Chrome marketplaces). Privacy Badger blocks ads which it has detected following users around more than three websites. Privacy Badger protects users' data from ad distributors who wish to build a unique profile on individuals which it goes on to sell. Heck, it's possible for the ad distributors to get hacked and have these unique profiles stolen by hackers. Privacy Badger, however, is forgiving. It frequently checks to see whether ads are still tracking users around the web, if they aren't they'll be shown to users and content producers get paid.. yay! Unfortunately, those running the sites need to switch to ad providers which implement Privacy Badger Do Not Track policy, as a lot currently don't, but ones that do respect DNT do exist (ie https://a-ads.com/).

 

I think the ideal solution is this: content producers need to be paid, but users shouldn't have to forego their privacy in the pursuit of tailored ads (which use creepy profiles ad companies build on you). Tailored ads are mostly useless, half the time they're just ads on sites you previously visited and still not very good. To strike a balance between privacy and pay for content producers, the latter should switch their sites over to Privacy Badger DNT compliant ads, making them visible to those using Privacy Badger (PB). Websites should then do a check before providing any content to ensure that the DNT-compliant ads are being displayed to users, if they aren't the user is likely using an adblocker. If a user is using an adblocker, simply filter the site's content and request users to install Privacy Badger instead.

 

This is the best solution for online content IMO, users don't have to pay up money for content and get to keep their privacy, content creators still get their income, ad providers still get paid by those looking to sell ads, and those looking to sell ads still sell their stuff! Anything less than this is going to lead to something very ugly, either a paid web, or a serious decrease in online outlets (those who get wiped out by adblocking).

 

Sorry if I rambled but this is just the best solution I can think of for the adblocking problem.

[adrynalyne]

5 minutes ago, zikalify said:

There are two main reasons for ad-blocking, these are speed and privacy.

 

Of course, ad-blocking is a huge problem for content producers and needs to be tackled, but moralising probably won't work... so what needs to be done? I'd like to break the problem down into the major scenarios I can think of for ad-blocking and how website maintainers should address issues users have.

 

The first scenario: You're on you're ten year old desktop computer. You have Linux up and running and Firefox is managing to open at a decent speed, the main problem arises when you go to open a website. If the website has only a few ads the page manages to load without too many issues, if however ads are all over the page, and running lots of scripts to track users, the system comes to a grinding halt, making the users force close Firefox. What a disaster, the users proceeds to install and adblocker and his browsing experience is now bearable.

 

In the first scenario we saw that the user on the old computer could open a site with few ads, and the content producers get paid, great! This is the first tip for content producers, don't bog down your site with intensive ads and keep ads to a minimum, it'll drive less people to blocking your ads altogether.

 

The second scenario: We all know the person in this scenario, heck it's probably around 1 in 2 of you reading this. You have a decent computer that is capable of loading any webpage comfortably. This person installs an adblocker just because they don't want to see ads. Honestly, this person who blocks ads and isn't privacy conscious (see scenario 3) should be blocked from reading the website or be given an option to make a payment to make up for the lack of ads delivered.

 

The third scenario: This group of users want to help content producers earn a living. This group of users has no issue with being shown ads in principle. This group of users is, however, concerned with their privacy. Half a million of these people have installed Privacy Badger (based on downloads in Firefox and Chrome marketplaces). Privacy Badger blocks ads which it has detected following users around more than three websites. Privacy Badger protects users' data from ad distributors who wish to build a unique profile on individuals which it goes on to sell. Heck, it's possible for the ad distributors to get hacked and have these unique profiles stolen by hackers. Privacy Badger, however, is forgiving. It frequently checks to see whether ads are still tracking users around the web, if they aren't they'll be shown to users and content producers get paid.. yay! Unfortunately, those running the sites need to switch to ad providers which implement Privacy Badger Do Not Track policy, as a lot currently don't, but ones that do respect DNT do exist (ie https://a-ads.com/).

 

I think the ideal solution is this: content producers need to be paid, but users shouldn't have to forego their privacy in the pursuit of tailored ads (which use creepy profiles ad companies build on you). Tailored ads are mostly useless, half the time they're just ads on sites you previously visited and still not very good. To strike a balance between privacy and pay for content producers, the latter should switch their sites over to Privacy Badger DNT compliant ads, making them visible to those using Privacy Badger (PB). Websites should then do a check before providing any content to ensure that the DNT-compliant ads are being displayed to users, if they aren't the user is likely using an adblocker. If a user is using an adblocker, simply filter the site's content and request users to install Privacy Badger instead.

 

This is the best solution for online content IMO, users don't have to pay up money for content and get to keep their privacy, content creators still get their income, ad providers still get paid by those looking to sell ads, and those looking to sell ads still sell their stuff! Anything less than this is going to lead to something very ugly, either a paid web, or a serious decrease in online outlets (those who get wiped out by adblocking).

 

Sorry if I rambled but this is just the best solution I can think of for the adblocking problem.

What incentive would people have to install a browser extensions for ads? Are you saying don't show site content without it? That would effectively destroy a site. The only time that works is if a site has exclusive content, which many do not, including this one. 

[Danielx64]

Sorry but you have forgotten about people like me who only has like 12GB of data per month to play with (on mobile) and wants to make that data last and not get wasted.

[exotoxic]

8 minutes ago, zikalify said:

There are two main reasons for ad-blocking, these are speed and privacy.

 

Security??

[zikalify Editor]

5 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

What incentive would people have to install a browser extensions for ads? Are you saying don't show site content without it? That would effectively destroy a site. The only time that works is if a site has exclusive content, which many do not, including this one. 

No people who don't install an extension will just see the ads anyway and thus the site checks will say the ads are being show and deliver the content as normal.

[adrynalyne]

Just now, zikalify said:

No people who don't install an extension will just see the ads anyway and thus the site checks will say the ads are being show and deliver the content as normal.

Upon which ad blockers will be used and you are back to square one. 

[zikalify Editor]

2 minutes ago, Danielx64 said:

Sorry but you have forgotten about people like me who only has like 12GB of data per month to play with (on mobile) and wants to make that data last and not get wasted.

Yes, I had actually forgotten about this. Would ads that aren't running lots of scripts in the background still be smaller to download though and therefore reduce your data usage?

[zikalify Editor]

2 minutes ago, Danielx64 said:

Sorry but you have forgotten about people like me who only has like 12GB of data per month to play with (on mobile) and wants to make that data last and not get wasted.

Yes, I had actually forgotten about this. Would ads that aren't running lots of scripts in the background still be smaller to download though and therefore reduce your data usage?

[zikalify Editor]

1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

Upon which ad blockers will be used and you are back to square one. 

Privacy Badger is not an adblocker per se, but it does block ads which track users. If a site uses ads which don't track users (ie a-ads) then privacy badger ALLOWS those ads to be displayed to users. A site could run a bit of javascript to check whether ads are being displayed (they would be under privacy badger but not ublock), if ads are being shown then the content could be displayed too. (ads that track require more data to download and use up more resources to run the code they use to track you.)

[Danielx64]

2 minutes ago, zikalify said:

Yes, I had actually forgotten about this. Would ads that aren't running lots of scripts in the background still be smaller to download though and therefore reduce your data usage?

It not just about running/downloading scripts in the background. If one has a very small script that changes an image banner every 15 second you are still downloading an image every 15 second. Over time all that image changing will add up.

[zikalify Editor]

6 minutes ago, exotoxic said:

 

Security??

If you are talking about malware coming through ads then yes this is something I'd overlooked.

[zikalify Editor]

1 minute ago, Danielx64 said:

It not just about running/downloading scripts in the background. If one has a very small script that changes an image banner every 15 second you are still downloading an image every 15 second. Over time all that image changing will add up.

Yep totally fair point. On a side note (not related to this discussion so much), have you tried anything like Opera which can compress your data use?

[Anibal P]

Your "premise" other than trying to shame those of use that are sane and block ads, is 100% off 

 

We block because ads are 1, a pain and most importantly 2, the easiest way to infect a computer 

 

If your business model revolves around ads, you better rethink your approach, slowly but surely sites with tons of ads and the ones trying to get me to whitelist it are going where they belong, the internet recycle bin 

[adrynalyne]

3 minutes ago, zikalify said:

Privacy Badger is not an adblocker per se, but it does block ads which track users. If a site uses ads which don't track users (ie a-ads) then privacy badger ALLOWS those ads to be displayed to users. A site could run a bit of javascript to check whether ads are being displayed (they would be under privacy badger but not ublock), if ads are being shown then the content could be displayed too. (ads that track require more data to download and use up more resources to run the code they use to track you.)

 But again, hiding content if ads are blocked will kill a site quickly. To an ad block user, privacy badger doesn't offer any incentive because they get no ads. They can block all and not just those that track. Let's face it, the Internet is a far more beautiful place with zero ads. 

 

Some will be ok with this idea because they want to support a site. Many are too selfish to care. In the end, I for see the site suffering in a big way. 

 

I block ads on my PC for security reasons but don't on my phone. I do most of my personal browsing on my phone. 

[adrynalyne]

Duplicate post. 

[Danielx64]

2 minutes ago, zikalify said:

Yep totally fair point. On a side note (not related to this discussion so much), have you tried anything like Opera which can compress your data use?

No I haven't. From what I understand about it, is that a mobile only thing or does the desktop version have it as well?

[zikalify Editor]

3 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

 But again, hiding content if ads are blocked will kill a site quickly. To an ad block user, privacy badger doesn't offer any incentive because they get no ads. They can block all and not just those that track. Let's face it, the Internet is a far more beautiful place with zero ads. 

 

Some will be ok with this idea because they want to support a site. Many are too selfish to care. In the end, I for see the site suffering in a big way. 

 

I block ads on my PC for security reasons but don't on my phone. I do most of my personal browsing on my phone. 

This draft of mine has nothing to do with neowin so don't worry, it was just my own personal ideas that I've come up with on the topic because it interests me. Yes many are too selfish to care, hence the hiding content. Hiding content doesn't have to be the incentive to get users to view ads either, it's just an idea I could think of.

[The Evil Overlord]

6 minutes ago, Anibal P said:

Your "premise" other than trying to shame those of use that are sane and block ads, is 100% off 

 

We block because ads are 1, a pain and most importantly 2, the easiest way to infect a computer 

 

If your business model revolves around ads, you better rethink your approach, slowly but surely sites with tons of ads and the ones trying to get me to whitelist it are going where they belong, the internet recycle bin 

I'd go one further and add 'annoyance removal' to that list, some ads are pretty nsfw, and others autoplay with sound, one I can remember here on neowin was the don't drink and drive advert on the forum page, it would randomly start playing audio, which is a nuisance if you happen to be listening via headphones  

[zikalify Editor]

7 minutes ago, Danielx64 said:

No I haven't. From what I understand about it, is that a mobile only thing or does the desktop version have it as well?

The feature is called Opera Turbo, Opera's page on Turbo is a bit confusing, it says it's available on computers in the text but doesn't list it in its list. https://www.opera.com/turbo

[adrynalyne]

5 minutes ago, zikalify said:

This draft of mine has nothing to do with neowin so don't worry, it was just my own personal ideas that I've come up with on the topic because it interests me. Yes many are too selfish to care, hence the hiding content. Hiding content doesn't have to be the incentive to get users to view ads either, it's just an idea I could think of.

I know. I was speaking in general.

 

[adrynalyne]

6 minutes ago, zikalify said:

This draft of mine has nothing to do with neowin so don't worry, it was just my own personal ideas that I've come up with on the topic because it interests me. Yes many are too selfish to care, hence the hiding content. Hiding content doesn't have to be the incentive to get users to view ads either, it's just an idea I could think of.

I know. I was speaking in general.

 

[zikalify Editor]

13 minutes ago, Anibal P said:

Your "premise" other than trying to shame those of use that are sane and block ads, is 100% off 

 

We block because ads are 1, a pain and most importantly 2, the easiest way to infect a computer 

 

If your business model revolves around ads, you better rethink your approach, slowly but surely sites with tons of ads and the ones trying to get me to whitelist it are going where they belong, the internet recycle bin 

I'd agree that my post was too narrow in view, mainly because I want to see more sites adopt non-tracking ads, that's what I focused on.. admittedly I completely forgot about the security aspect. As for annoying ads I think this is down to site owners and who they depend on for ads, sure they should switch if the ads are irritating.