Forum Ad Blocking Crisis: What YOU can do about it!

[KimmiKat]

That sounds great. At least doing it yourself, there is no worries about any ad-networks sneaking in questionable adverts.

This is exactly what we do and it works out well for us. We don't make a big profit, but we cover all our operating costs with some left over for emergencies and custom development. We only have one banner and don't allow animation, and all ads have to be related to our niche.

Also, I don't know about every ad blocker, but mine doesn't block the ads, probably because the banners are uploaded to our site.

 

[JordanH]

Shawn Gossman[/URL]]when they realize internet users are practicing their freedom by blocking the advertisements on their forums, the forum owner throws freedom right out the window and starts to combat their own users for blocking advertisements. To hell with internet freedom, they are digging into my profits! Got Hypocrisy?

How are internet users practicing their freedom? They don't have the freedom to come onto my websites, they do not have the right to browse my content. It is a PRIVILEGE that can be taken away.

Every single forum I own, I always include this statement in the ToS:

• [Name] is a privately owned website. Therefore, your "right" to free speech is limited. We do not tolerate personal attacks or harassment. Anyone caught doing so, will be infracted if not banned.
• You do not have a "right" to be on this website. It is a privilege! That privilege can, and will be removed if necessary.

This also stops those who try to argue the "I have the right to free speech" argument to get away with nasty stuff.

First of all, it all depends where the website is hosted. (90% of the time, my sites aren't even hosted in USA. I'm Canadian) So your First Amendment is not even law here.
Two, if it was hosted in USA, your right to free speech may not be what you think it is.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"America's right to free speech" is protection against government censorship. That's all. Private organizations, such as newspapers, magazines, and websites may make their own rules about what they will publish or permit. [Source]

With that out of the way and back on topic, if I want to serve advertisements, and you try to block them off, simply put, I don't have to allow you to see the content of my sites. That is not throwing your freedom out the window. That is practicing my freedom of revoking the privileged of people to use my websites and services.

Even adblock themselves say "If it's a site you enjoy and visit frequently, and the ads it shows are reasonable and non-intrusive, we encourage you to whitelist the site to support the content provider."

I'm not saying that removing people's access to your websites is a good idea, you could be sending away potential customers and long term members. There are still solutions out there, but your article did not name one xD Your entire thing was just a rant.

 

[Shin Ryoku]

"Then when they realize internet users are practicing their freedom by blocking the advertisements on their forums, the forum owner throws freedom right out the window and starts to combat their own users for blocking advertisements. To hell with internet freedom, they are digging into my profits! Got Hypocrisy?"

Not hypocritical at all. I think you misunderstand what freedom means. It doesn't mean you get to do anything you want, anywhere you want. We're talking about privately-owned websites here. We have no obligation to let anyone visit or use our sites.

That said, I don't think blocking AdBlock users is likely to be a successful strategy for any forum. A lot of folks would simply move on (leave your site), and a handful of them would blather on endlessly about it in your forums, which would only serve to make more members think about blocking ads.

 

[mysiteguy]

That said, I don't think blocking AdBlock users is likely to be a successful strategy for any forum. A lot of folks would simply move on (leave your site), and a handful of them would blather on endlessly about it in your forums, which would only serve to make more members think about blocking ads.

You block this with non-registered users, so the topic never gets a chance to come up in the first place.

 

[Shin Ryoku]

You block this with non-registered users, so the topic never gets a chance to come up in the first place.

In that case, they are definitely gonna move on (leave the site).

 

[Skybound]

This just published on AFP:

Facebook sidesteps ad-blocking on desktop computers
SAN FRANCISCO - Facebook on Tuesday began letting marketing messages slip past ad-blocking software on desktop computers.

The update to the leading social network's advertising platform came with assurances that Facebook understands how annoying ads can be and with enhanced tools for controlling the kinds of ads shown to users.

"As we offer people more powerful controls, we'll also begin showing ads on Facebook desktop for people who currently use ad blocking software," vice president of ads and business platform Andrew Bosworth said in a blog post.

Ad blocking software typically does not work on mobile devices, which account for most visits to the social network, but are estimated to stymie billions of dollars worth of ads annually.

Advertising pays for online services that people have grown accustomed to accessing for free.

"Facebook is one of those free services, and ads support our mission of giving people the power to share and making the world more open and connected," Bosworth said.

Facebook ads on desktop are being made to look so much like natural content that they get by ad-blockers.

As a counter-balance, Facebook has made it easier to use its ad preferences tools that let people remove topics that don't interest them and stop advertising from businesses or organizations that have added them to customer lists.

"We've designed our ad formats, ad performance and controls to address the underlying reasons people have turned to ad blocking software," Bosworth said.

"People don't like to see ads that are irrelevant to them or that disrupt or break their experience."

In its latest quarterly report, Facebook said it took in $6.2 billion in advertising revenue, accounting for the overwhelming majority of its income. Some 84 percent of ad revenues came from messages delivered to mobile devices.

 

[Alex.]

So your First Amendment is not even law here.

99.9% of Americans don't even understand what the 1st amendment entails. The majority believe they can run their mouth without legal recourse.

 

[Shin Ryoku]

This just published on AFP:

Already defeated: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ad-blocker-workaround-2016-8

 

[mysiteguy]

FB needs to deploy it without differentiation between ad and non-ad CSS/HTML elements, as well as randomizing IDs. Then the only way to block it will require some "machine intelligence" about the actual content delivered rather than simple pattern matching.

 

[Shin Ryoku]

It's weird that FB came out and made this huge announcement without having a good implementation. They just got a very public beatdown. Hopefully this gets them motivated to do something better about ad blocking.

 

[Alex.]

FB needs to deploy it without differentiation between ad and non-ad CSS/HTML elements, as well as randomizing IDs. Then the only way to block it will require some "machine intelligence" about the actual content delivered rather than simple pattern matching.

Well they did something today that was new. WAN based ads. It got knocked down in a few hours. LOL

This got rid of the sponsored post spam.

www.facebook.com##div[data-xt]

Taken from Easylist's forum.

 

[mysiteguy]

They're doing the exact opposite of what I suggested they do by using a fixed id like "data-xt".

Don't use a fixed DIV id. Randomize them on the page, different from one page to another and do it for non-ads as well. It will render Easylist's pattern matching useless.

Or maybe they can resort to making this a headache for the ad block companies.... each day have their systems generate a random id used for that day only, so the blockers filter it out and the next day they have come out with a new filter all over again!

 

[Alex.]

They're doing the exact opposite of what I suggested they do by using a fixed id like "data-xt".

Don't use a fixed DIV id. Randomize them on the page, different from one page to another and do it for non-ads as well. It will render Easylist's pattern matching useless.

Or maybe they can resort to making this a headache for the ad block companies.... each day have their systems generate a random id used for that day only, so the blockers filter it out and the next day they have come out with a new filter all over again!

The actual system ABP put out molds with whatever Facebook does. I posted a link to a temporary fix. The problem with that suggestion is just about anyone can push a fix to the project, rendering Facebook's efforts useless. It's a company vs. thousands of people who don't want ads. If I were Facebook, I'd be desperate too, considering it's a useless site and manages to make money through advertising alone. And having said that, their ads aren't up to snuff.

I'd be surprised if Facebook could hold out for more than a week at any one time.

 

[doubt]

. If I were Facebook, I'd be desperate too, considering it's a useless site and manages to make money through advertising alone.

My thoughts are stolen!!!

 

[mysiteguy]

The actual system ABP put out molds with whatever Facebook does. I posted a link to a temporary fix. The problem with that suggestion is just about anyone can push a fix to the project, rendering Facebook's efforts useless.

With the once day ID method, yes, but not with the random ids for every page method. Report it and push a fix. The fix will be useless before it even gets pushed --- the next browser refresh delivers a page with different div ids.

It's a company vs. thousands of people who don't want ads. If I were Facebook, I'd be desperate too, considering it's a useless site and manages to make money through advertising alone. And having said that, their ads aren't up to snuff.

You remind me of one those cranky old men who thinks any kind of music he doesn't listen to sucks and is useless!

If it were useless it would not have so many users. It obviously fulfills a need/want in the marketplace or people wouldn't use it in such large numbers.

 

[Alex.]

Pushes get pushed out rapidly. Otherwise there's a push to update every 12 hours. This is going to be a Tom and Jerry fest, with adblocking software winning in each round.

 

[KimmiKat]

The issues with the ad-blockers could be mostly solved if they stuck with simple ads instead of those that pop-out at you.

 

[mysiteguy]

In that case, they are definitely gonna move on (leave the site).

Nope, 32% have whitelisted the site simply by asking. I don't guess, I measure.

 

[mysiteguy]

Pushes get pushed out rapidly. Otherwise there's a push to update every 12 hours. This is going to be a Tom and Jerry fest, with adblocking software winning in each round.

You can push out a million updates per day, if every page uses random div ids, no amount of pushes will work around it. Facebook did not put their best and brightest on this project.

 

[Shin Ryoku]

Nope, 32% have whitelisted the site simply by asking. I don't guess, I measure.

Doesn't that mean that 68% moved on? That's a lot of people who might otherwise have signed up or spread the word.