As Google Ponders Making Ad Blockers Less Useful, Mozilla Ramps Up Tracker Blocking

from the competing-for-your-privacy dept

Google found itself under fire last week after critics said the company was considering weakening ad blockers on the company's Chrome browser. The changes were part of the company's broader Manifest V3 roadmap for the browser, which Google claims is being considered to improve browser performance and extension security. But consumer groups and adblock extension developers weren't buying Google's claims, and say that the changes will make adblockers less effective by prohibiting them from pre-blocking ads, instead shifting blocking determination to Chrome itself.

As it currently stands, many Chrome adblock extensions use Chrome's webRequest API, letting users block ads before they even reach the browser. But Google’s proposal would require extensions use the declarativeNetRequest API, which leaves it to the browser to decide what gets blocked based on a list of up to 30,000 rules. While extensions like AdBlock already use the latter, developers say the overall result will be tools that simply aren't quite as effective, and would erode consumer power to determine for him- or herself how stringent blocking actually is.

uBlock Origin developer Raymond Hill was rather pointed in his criticism of Google, arguing that the company embraced tougher adblockers to grow its market share, but is now weakening their functionality because it conflicts with Google's raison d'être, namely selling more behavioral ads:

“In order for Google Chrome to reach its current user base, it had to support content blockers—these are the top most popular extensions for any browser,” he said. “Google strategy has been to find the optimal point between the two goals of growing the user base of Google Chrome and preventing content blockers from harming its business.

Hill argues that the blocking ability of the webRequest API caused Google to yield some control of content blocking to third-party developers. Now that Chrome’s market share is greater, the company’s in a better position to “shift the optimal point between the two goals which benefits Google's primary business,” Hill said.

The EFF, whose adblock extension Privacy Badger will likely be impacted by these changes (should they arrive this fall), was equally pointed in its criticism of the move, arguing that weakening such tools in an era of rampant privacy and security scandals was tone-deaf on the part of Google:

“Google's claim that these new limitations are needed to improve performance is at odds with the state of the internet,” the organization said. “Sites today are bloated with trackers that consume data and slow down the user experience. Tracker blockers have improved the performance and user experience of many sites and the user experience. Why not let independent developers innovate where the Chrome team isn't?”

The EFF was quick to note that the changes could also impact parental controls and security and privacy tools. While Google continues to deny any ill-intent with the changes, that's going to be left to consumers to decide. And should Google continue down the road to making adblock extensions less effective, Mozilla seems intent to fill the void. The company this week announced it would be expanding tracker blocking by default in Firefox, as the era of seemingly-bottomless privacy scandals increasingly forces companies to actually compete (to a point) on privacy.

Filed Under: ad blockers, browsers, chrome, extensions, firefox
Companies: google, mozilla

China To Ban Ad Blockers As Part Of New Regulations For Online Advertising

from the whatever-next? dept

As we noted last week, China continues to find new ways to bring the online world under control. A post on the Adblock Plus blog has spotted yet another sector the Chinese authorities are bringing to heel: Internet advertising. Last week, China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce issued "Interim Measures for Internet advertising" (original in Chinese.) As the Adblock Plus blog post explains, the rules seek to pin down what exactly Internet advertising is, what is allowed, and what isn't:

Among other things the rules seek to target false or misleading online advertising for prescription medicine and tobacco; require government approval to run ads for health products, medical supplies, veterinary medicine and pesticides; necessitate that paid search results be clearly differentiable from organic results; and oblige advertisers to be responsible for the authenticity of their ad content.

That's all sensible stuff. But Article XVI (B) says that the following are prohibited:

the use of Internet services, network devices, applications etc. to disrupt normal advertising data, tampering with or blocking reasonable advertisements from third-party businesses, unauthorized loading of advertisements;

The Adblock Plus post points out that the ban on ad blocking is likely to have a major impact on Chinese users when it comes into force:

There are apparently 159 million people who block ads on their mobile devices in China. Desktop numbers are relatively low by comparison. All of them, though, are going to have a fundamental right snatched from them come September, when their government will take away their right to block ads.

Since it's hard to see the Chinese government really caring too much about the problems that ad-blocking software causes for online publishers, there is presumably another motivation behind this particular move. One possibility is that the Chinese authorities use the tracking capabilities of online ads for surveillance purposes, and the increasing use of ad blockers in China is making that harder. That clearly runs against the current policy of keeping an eye on everything that online users do in China, which is perhaps why the authorities want ad blockers banned in the country, despite the inconvenience and risks for users of doing so.

It remains to be seen how successful the Chinese government will be in stamping out such popular software, or whether this will be another regulation that is largely ignored.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: ad blockers, china

Newspaper Association Thinks FTC Should Force Readers To Be Subject To Godawful Ads And Invasive Trackers

from the please-let-us-continue-to-screw-our-audience dept

So, it's come to this. After battling back against ad-blocking by guilting or forcing people into whitelisting sites -- rather than taking a good look at their terrible ad inventories, intrusive trackers, or reprehensible practices -- the press is turning to the FTC in hopes of having the government decide how you can surf the web. (h/t EFF)

The crux of the complaint [PDF] is various practices deployed by ad blockers that the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) considers to be anti-competitive or dishonest. But in its run-up to the actual complaints, the NAA makes some seriously stupid assertions.

Adblockers undermine the ability of publishers to continue to provide free or reduced-price content on the Internet because they undercut publishers’ ability to finance enterprise journalism, and they threaten the livelihood of journalists and other content creators.

This assertion continues to scapegoat ad blocking for many publications' decision to force readers to play "find the content" when visiting their sites. As user ad blindness eventually rendered banner ads invisible, the response has been to escalate intrusion, via new ad delivery methods like popunder/popups, autoplay video ads, pervasive trackers, or escalating encroachment of ads into the "content" area. If ad blocker usage is more prevalent, publishers really have no one but themselves to blame.

And there's nothing out there that suggests the only way a publication can remain profitable is by assaulting users with ads and tracking them all over the internet. But that's the narrative publishers have chosen because it's simpler to make users conform to their wishes than it is to cede ground to site visitors' best interests.

From there, the NAA's narrative gets even worse. In deriding "free-rider technology," the NAA defends its use of invasive trackers by implying that all content -- whether it's ads or the stuff site visitors actually want to see -- is equal in its eyes.

By preventing publishers from identifying repeat visitors and making these offers to them, content blockers harm consumers.

"Content blockers." If that's a slip, it's a Freudian one. This suggests those behind this letter to the FTC consider advertising to be just as worthwhile a use of bandwidth and user attention as the actual journalism buried underneath it.

In the NAA's eyes, the real villain here is "deceptive" ad blockers.

Ad-blocking companies argue that consumers should use their software to “opt out” of the online advertising ecosystem, either because of concerns with privacy or the data use represented by digital advertising. But as a review of the practices of adblocking companies discloses, consumers do not “opt out” of an ecosystem by using ad-blockers. Instead, they “opt in” to a deceptive new environment that does not adequately disclose its practices to consumers.

The supposed "deception" the NAA refers to is things like AdBlock Plus selling companies spaces on its "whitelist." Then it has the audacity to make claims about the darkish shade of ad blockers' kettles by claiming any information about these built-in whitelists is buried in the terms of service. Burial of crucial details under several pages of fine print is SOP for 99.9% of the internet -- including (especially) the same tracking software the NAA says is crucial to the survival of the industry.

The NAA also claims that evading paywalls -- if enabled by ad blockers -- is an "unfair method of competition." Considering how easy it is to evade most paywalls (via referral links, Google searches, going "incognito," etc.), it seems rather disingenuous to claim the automation of this process is somehow a violation of trade laws. For that matter, the complaint offers no proof that any popular ad-blocking extension actually offers this "service." (There are extensions written solely for that purpose, however.)

The complaint also takes issue with "replacement" services that substitute bad ads with better ads or offer micropayments to sites in exchange for blocking their revenue generators. The NAA insists these, too, are deceptive and should be kicked of the 'net by the FTC.

But most worryingly, the NAA wants internet users to be forbidden from taking steps to protect their privacy.

Some ad-blockers evade metered subscription services and paywalls by preventing publishers from identifying repeat visitors and making offers to consumers about their subscription services…

While it doesn't specifically name any apps or extensions that act in the interest of users' privacy, the wording used implies the use of IP-address obscuring options (VPNs, Tor) along with script blockers and software like the EFF's Privacy Badger are similarly unwelcome in its plan for the future.

What the NAA wants is an internet that operates on its terms. It wants to continue to deploy shitty ad inventories and allow users to take the bandwidth hit, all the while shadowing them across the web in hopes of shoving even more ads in their faces. There's no hint of a compromise in this complaint. It wants the FCC to force the web to bend to the NAA's will. At no point does it even consider the ramifications of this action. It's pure self-interest, disguised as a concern for poor consumers who have voted to opt-out of ad onslaughts by using "deceptive" ad blockers.

Filed Under: ad blockers, ads, business models, felony interference with a business model, ftc, newspapers, privacy, tracking
Companies: naa, newspapers association of america

Reddit's Technology Subreddit Ponders Banning Wired & Forbes For Blocking Adblock Users

from the block-the-blocking-of-the-blockers? dept

Over the last year there have been a growing number of websites that have decided to "deal" with the rise of ad blockers by blocking ad blocking users entirely. Blocking the blockers was the recently recommended course of action by the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), which suggested the best way to have a "conversation" about ad blockers was to try and prevent them from being used. And while sites like the New York Times, GQ, Forbes and Wired have all happily pursued this course of action, their actual implementation has ranged from frustrating to downright comical.

Mike has noted he doesn't use an ad blocker, yet is somehow blocked by all of these sites completely. I do use an AdBlocker and whitelist websites I care about, but even after whitelisting the entire Wired domain, this is what I see whenever I've tried to view a Wired story in 2016:This has been a problem since the website first announced it was going to be blocking adblock users earlier this year. At the time, Wired stated that ad block blocking was necessary because on an average day, 20% of Wired readers block Wired ads:

"On an average day, more than 20 percent of the traffic to WIRED.com comes from a reader who is blocking our ads. We know that you come to our site primarily to read our content, but it’s important to be clear that advertising is how we keep WIRED going: paying the writers, editors, designers, engineers, and all the other staff that works so hard to create the stories you read and watch here."

Wired's ingenious solution to this problem was to impose a system that's so shitty, it can't detect whether you use an ad blocker or not? A solution that's so ham-fisted it's actually pissing off and blocking users that have never even considered using an ad blocker? Like paywalls, Wired's also alienating editors and writers that might otherwise link to its content, but decide not to for risk of annoying their own readers. Wired's "solution" causes far more problems that it fixes, and so far the company's been mute to user complaints, likely in the hopes that annoyed users will just pony up $1 a month for its "ad free" option.

Since users being sent to these websites are increasingly annoyed, moderators over at the technology subreddit have announced they're considering banning ad block blocking websites from the subreddit completely. They don't even mention that these blockers don't work, but they do point out that websites like Forbes have been pushing malware at users should they lower their defenses:

"It has come to our attention that many websites such as Forbes and Wired are now requiring users to disable ad blockers to view content. Because Forbes requires users to do this and has then served malware to them we see this as a security risk to you our community. There are also sites such as Wall Street Journal that have implemented pay-walls which we were are also considering banning. We would like all of your thoughts on whether or not we should allow domains such as Forbes here on /r/technology while they continue to resort to such practices."

It's entirely possible that the mods face pressure from higher up to avoid this route, but it remains an obvious indication of a growing annoyance among consumers, many of whom see ad blocking technologies as just another privacy and security tool. And like any such tool, the rise of ad block blocking has simply given birth to another game of cat and mouse -- the development of tools to help ad block users block detection more easily. Yeah, we're now busy blocking the blockers of blockers. This is the glorious "solution" to a problem that started with websites pushing too many poorly designed ads and intrusive technologies?

So what has trying to block ad block users actually accomplished outside of annoying potential readers, reducing traffic and making your website look tone deaf and foolish? Here at Techdirt we let users disable ads, but simply ask they try to support us in other ways (the Insider Shop, Deals Store, or one of our crowdfunding campaigns). That seems like an easier route than forcibly trying to dictate what tools consumers can and cannot use. Meanwhile, if websites really want to have a "conversation" about ad blockers, the first step would be to really listen to customers when they explain why they're using them.

Filed Under: ad blocker blockers, ad blockers, ad blocking, internet ads, links, social media
Companies: forbes, reddit, wired

Guy Argues That Anti-Ad Blocker Systems Violate EU Privacy Laws

from the well,-that's-a-twist dept

We've talked about how ridiculous it is that many news sites (including Wired and Forbes -- and apparently, now, the NY Times) have started using annoying anti-ad blocker software, in which it will block visitors from viewing their content if those sites detect (or think they detect) that you're using an ad blocker. This is ridiculous on any number of levels, but most of all because it is forcing people to put their computers at risk. Plenty of people have tried explaining to publishers that this practice is a bad idea, but to no avail.

However, over in Europe, one privacy activist thinks he may have found another path. Alexander Hanff wrote to the EU Commission with his reasoning, claiming that anti-ad blockers are a form of spyware that illegally violate the EU's ePrivacy Directive by not getting consent. As you may have noticed, not too long ago, when you started visiting EU-based websites, it would always inform you of its policy on storing cookies, and requesting that you "accept" the site's policy. This was because of a new electronic privacy directive, that some have called the Cookie Law. However, as Hanff notes, it's quite possible that using an ad-blocker detector script is basically doing the same sort of thing as a cookie in terms of spying on client-side information within one's web browser, and a letter he received from the EU Commission apparently confirms his assertion.

With client side scripts is a breach of Art 5(3) of 2002/58/EC and thus ILLEGAL in Europe #privacy #adblocker #slamdunk

— Alexander Hanff (@alexanderhanff) April 19, 2016

Since so many people are bugging me for them here are photos of the relevant pages of letter. pic.twitter.com/vcTG0qdhIC

— Alexander Hanff (@alexanderhanff) April 20, 2016

It's unclear from the excerpt of the letter that he's posted if it's quite as slamdunk a case as he's indicated, but it certainly is an interesting read of the law. Either way, Hanff has made it clear that he's going to use this "opinion" from the EU Commission to go after a ton of websites using anti-ad block systems:

This is huge, I am about to launch legal complaints across multiple EU member states & now have formal @EU_Commission opinion to support

— Alexander Hanff (@alexanderhanff) April 19, 2016

To all #publishers currently detecting #adblockers in EU - look out, I am coming for you and I am very well armed. #privacy #spyware

— Alexander Hanff (@alexanderhanff) April 20, 2016

Of course, from the sound of things, if Hanff is correct in his analysis, this could make things trickier for EU sites that want to use anti-ad-block software, as they'd have to first get users' consent, and give them some level of control (possibly allowing them to just bypass the ad blocker check entirely). There are all sorts of reasons why the war on ad blocking is a bad idea, but here's one more possibility, especially for EU sites.

Filed Under: ad blockers, alexander haff, anti ad blocker, cookie law, eprivacy directive, eu, media, privacy, spyware

Why Are People Using Ad Blockers? Ads Can Eat Up To 79% Of Mobile Data Allotments

from the zero-rate-this dept

By now, usage caps on both fixed and wireless networks have grown increasingly common. And while broadband carriers are endlessly looking toward caps and zero rating for a competitive and financial advantage, overlooked is the fact that a huge amount of a user's monthly bandwidth allotment is now being eroded by good old advertising. How much? According to a new study by Enders Analysis, anywhere from 18% to 79% of your monthly data bucket can go toward delivering advertising. Previous studies had pegged this between 10% and 50%.

Looking at individual page elements, between the ads and the Javascript used sometimes to deliver them, this data consumption can be substantial: Especially if you're on a fixed-income using a limited data plan, current, bloated ads can become a real problem:

Entry-level mobile data plans start at around 500MB/month — which Enders says could be used to load the text of the King James Bible around 100 times. So "resource-hungry" advertising could clearly become a concern for some users. That's not to mention that ads can increase page-load time, Enders adds.

It's important to remember this as websites begin waging all out war on ad blockers. Users aren't just using ad blockers because they think it's fun to generate industry histrionics about the end of publishing and journalism as we know it. Users are using ad blockers to protect themselves from annoying malware and poorly-designed advertising and web formatting. They're also using ad blockers to help protect their wallet from broadband provider overage fees. Block the blockers, and you're blocking an effective consumer technology tool.

You also have to keep in mind that usage caps (especially on fixed line networks) are entirely arbitrary constructs, not tied to any real-world costs or engineering necessity. And while carriers have worked tirelessly to zero rate their own content or content from the biggest companies on the Internet, so far nobody's rushing to cut consumers a little slack and zero rate advertising at any meaningful scale. In other words, not only are consumers paying an arm and a leg for mobile data, they're paying an arm and a leg predominately so they can be marketed to.

When these consumers turned to ad blockers to reduce costs, websites like GQ, Wired, Forbes, and the New York Times decided the best course of action was to accuse these ungrateful bastards of selfishly trying to demolish online content creation. Wired was in such a rush it designed a miserable adblock blocker that's still blocking users that don't use adblockers (or in my case have whitelisted the site). It's just one more reason why adblocker blocking is a lazy "solution" to a misunderstood problem. Don't want users using ad blockers? Design better, leaner, more efficient and more intelligent ads.

Filed Under: ad blockers, ads, data caps, mobile

GQ And Forbes Go After Ad Blocker Users Rather Than Their Own Shitty Advertising Inventory

from the stay-on-target dept

And so the war on ad blockers marches on. Lots of sites have recently made ad blocking software a target of their ire, complaining that such software ruins everything and is a form of puppy genocide or whatever. We, of course, know that to be bullshit, so we think it's just fine if you block ads (in fact, we make it easy to do so). Still, some of these attempts are getting more and more aggressive, such as what two recent sites, GQ and Forbes, have decided to do.

Let's start with Forbes, in which the website was recently putting up a "none shall pass!" wall for users who attempted to access it while using an ad blocker.

Reports are coming in from Twitter, and I can confirm, that Forbes is now preventing all (most?) visitors who use an ad-block tool from viewing any articles. From what I can tell, the ban on ad blockers is only rolling out today, and it is not affecting all visitors. I have a report from a uBlock user, as well as one from the UK, which say that they got through just fine.

Those who didn't get through receive a page that reads "Hi Again. Looks like you're still using an ad blocker. Please turn it off in order to continue into Forbes' ad-light experience."

Here we get into the crux of the problem. First, anecdotally, I see these same messages from sites on occasion. My reaction is always the same: close out the tab, move on to find another source for whatever I was looking for. I have literally never shut down my ad blocker in order to continue to the site. Which, in the case of Forbes' ad-light experience, would only have caused me to frantically turn it back on to begin with, as the reports from readers indicate that ad-light translates into real-life speak as a barrage of advertisements. Add to all that, that the barrier only affects certain users using certain ad blockers, and this all devolves into a DRM-esque game of whac-a-mole. Go ask the gaming industry how well that money-pit has turned out for them.

But GQ goes one further. Instead of only giving users the choice of turning off the software or moving on, GQ additionally offers potential readers the option of paying for every single article they read! Progress!

“Turn off your ad blocker or purchase instant access to this article, so we can continue to pay for photoshoots like this one,” it concludes, pointing to an image of Amy Schumer dancing with stormtroopers.

Readers who choose to pay for their content rather than view GQ.com’s ads for beard oil and expensive clothing are directed to start an account with content, a micropayment company that allows you to pay the $.50 fee to read whatever story you were trying to reach.

GQ's advertising is notable in that it is the worst and most annoying kind. Multiple auto-playing videos with volumes ratcheted up, banner ads that fill up the space and auto-expand, and ads that follow you around as you scroll the page. Or you can pay four-bits per article, which is an appropriate phrasing of the price, since apparently GQ believes it's still operating in an old-timey online ecosystem where it can hold content hostage rather than working to make itself more attractive to readers.

And that's the crux of the issue. The war against ad blockers didn't start when users began using the software. It started when online outlets refused to understand that content is advertising and advertising is content, and if any part of that equation is bad, the whole thing falls apart. There's a reason why users use ad blockers after all: many online ads suck harder than a vacuum cleaner looking for love. But they don't have to. Everyone has their stories about ads they have liked or loved. Some readers will always block ads, but not most of them. If ads were good and fun, they wouldn't need to be blocked and users wouldn't want to block them. Fix that and the war on ad blocking can be retired.

Filed Under: ad blockers, ad blocking, forbes, gq, journalism, paywall
Companies: forbes

Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem

from the refreshing dept

Reader jorshw was the first of a few who sent in this recent NY Times article questioning how Google would deal with the fact that people are now creating ad blocking extensions for Google's Chrome browser. What's really telling is the comment from a Google engineering director, Linus Upson, about why this is no big deal:

"It's unlikely ad blockers are going to get to the level where they imperil the advertising market, because if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying. So I think the market will sort this out."

This is the exact right response to this kind of question. It's a user-centric response that doesn't immediately rush to the "simple" answer that ad blocking somehow "takes money" away, but realizes that if people are so intent on blocking ads -- then the problem isn't with the people blocking the ads, but with the advertising itself.

Filed Under: ad blockers, ad blocking, competition, quality
Companies: google