:blobnotlike: blocking ads is evil grr
:blobuwu: HTTP is a pull-based medium. it is within the original philosophy of HTTP to selectively pull the data, for example, a device that doesn't support images won't download them. by circumventing ad "blocking", you are spitting in the face of HTTP. a more accurate term would be ad rejection. ads are not "blocked", they are simply not asked for.


Show thread


:blobnotlike: not smooching dani
:blobuwu: smooching dani right on her little snoot

@lynnesbian hey remember when people donated to Lunduke to get him in the W3C????????????

all I'm saying is.... you are a lot more likeable than Lunduke.....

@lynnesbian Which is why Google and pals were pushing (pun intended) HTTP 2.0. Also why they’re pushing for obfuscated/binary formats. We’re already seeing CDNs bake in content and ads and proxy tracking via first-party calls etc., to circumvent blocking. In extension-based blockers that can run arbitrary JavaScript, what we have is literally a JavaScript battle in your browser as the blocker and anti-blocking scripts go at it in a game of cat of mouse. Adtech is malware.

@aral @lynnesbian Can you give an example of the first party tracking injection? I wonder if Tor Browser's first party isolation already makes this useless. (You also get this experimentally in Firefox in PB mode).

@irl @lynnesbian Sure; will look it up properly and have a chat with Laura (who deals with the sewer on a daily basis) when I get a moment and send you a link. We also have issues filed in the tracker. Feel free to ping me again if I faff.

@aral @irl @lynnesbian

I'm curious too... Please mention me when you have some example...

@aral @lynnesbian push isn't forced; the protocol sends a push frame to say it wants to push and the client is ultimately in control of accepting or rejecting it. The binary format saves processing time (e.g. faster) on both ends, in both directions, and takes less bandwidth to transport and power, making it better for the environment.

@dshafik @aral @lynnesbian I think it's popular here to hate Google, justified or not.
A lot of the tech enables soooo many cool things but "nooo they just want to push ads on you". Ffs people, there's a guy running a free photoshop in a browser. Web and web getting capabilities is a _good_ thing for us all!

@zladuric @dshafik @aral @lynnesbian

#Ads are the least annoying issue with #Google.

As for HTTP/2, it's not a #Google thing, but Google is who gains a comparative competitive advantage by its introduction and implementation complexity.

We should always remember that each increment in complexity strengthen the position of the biggest players and often half-addresses the problem they created.

@aral @lynnesbian also, TLS is an obfuscated binary format, arguably… are you against that too?

@dshafik @lynnesbian Yeah, man, I’m definitely against TLS. You really got the measure of me there. Tell me, are blocks on Mastodon binary formats?

@dshafik @aral @lynnesbian

Uhm... well I'm against TLS abuse...

Would you like to prove I'm wrong? :-D

I don’t know shit about ad “block” and I have a question 

@lynnesbian So does this mean that sites still get ad revenue? That’s kinda the #1 reason I don’t use ad “blockers”.

@lynnesbian I see. It took me a while for me to understand your original post

@DylTheFunkyHomosexual yeah it was kinda nerdy
it was a post about the philosophy of HTTP and how it relates to ad blocking

i.e., nerd garbage

@lynnesbian don’t worry about it being nerdy. I make obscure jokes only I get all day

@lynnesbian @DylTheFunkyHomosexual Yes, but a web site has to be seeing ad impressions in the hundreds of thousands of hits per day to even really make a reasonable amount of money off the ads. My tiny web site, for example, was getting configured to run freaking MacKeeper ads, and it sees maybe 600 hits per month, and it would probably get me my first ever $100 deposit in revenue after 5 years or more. Then again, more of my typical users are likely to block than the usual tiny average.

44 boosts

not one single fav

we're dicks aren't we

@cdmnky favs just don't federate, there are plenty of favs

thanks gargrorn

@Christian @cdmnky if i fave a knzk post from .social and someone from niu looks at it, they can't see that it's been faved by me

@lynnesbian Spitting in the face of specifications is routine for businesses.

Next up:
• Google proposes a modern push-based replacement for HTTP(S)
• Chrome starts marking HTTP* as insecure, then removes the support

@lynnesbian HTTP/2 isn't pull-based

Although as far as I know no ad provider uses push yet

if we did the whole semantic markup thing then ads would be even easier to identify and reject and we wouldn't have to come up with complex regex

@irl companies intentionally don't do that with ads to make them harder to block

yeah I figured there would be a well in progress arms race there where all standards are abandoned in the name of profits

bring on the machine learning that detects ads on the fly and the counter machine learning that learns the detector's weaknesses


I like this line of thinking, that ad blocking is fundamental to the founding philosophy of the web.

And if you don't want to serve content without ads, then don't. That's what Forbes does (or at least did 2 years ago), and is why I just don't ever visit their site.

@lynnesbian Well it's mainly pull based but you can also send a post request. On the other hand when a script is already downloaded and it tries to access some remote data is that blocking?

@lynnesbian web-based advertising over avian carriers

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Lynnestodon's anti-chud pro-skub instance for funtimes