They call it “dark traffic” - ads that are not seen by tech-savvy users who have excellent ad blockers.
Not surprised that its growing. The web is unusable without an ad blocker and its only getting worse, and will continue to get worse every month.
Dark traffic?!?! LMAO. Can we start calling malicious ads dark advertising?
The trade body called it “illegal circumvention technology”
Lol. Fuck off.
And this is exactly why Google did away with Manifest v2 (what uBlock runs on) and why they wanted to introduce their “web integrity” standard. At that point the pages would be signed with ads and in the signature didn’t match the page wouldn’t even be shown.
They tried to play it off as “ensuring that you truly get the correct copy of the page and no bad hackers have intercepted it” but really it would have 100% forced ads.
To think that Google once had ads that I considered OK, just a bunch of text and links. How times have changed…
Advertisers will always keep pushing things trying to find the limit where people will just barely tolerate it. Then when they push it too far they cry “no fair!” When people stop putting up with it.
Then I guess I’m not looking at those pages. No skin off my nose. That said, Firefox with Ublock Origin plus a couple of other ad-blockers seems to be working pretty well for me. Anything with a paywall, I just move on.
Then I guess I’m not looking at those pages. No skin of my nose.
That works until every website starts doing it.
:shrug: So be it.
Exactly. I’ll go back to browsing the web with Lynx before I accept ads. If it breaks, it breaks…
Gladly go back to every site having an animated ‘under construction’ gif.
I use Mullvad’s VPN and DNS on a router level. Every device on my network is blanketed by it. Some services don’t work, but I am willing to sacrifice their profits for my integrity. Thus, to them I say 然らば fuckmothers.
Yeah. As if hacking into someone’s mind is their right. Talk about entitlement…
The O.G. add blocker.
The concept is close to the same, how could something like this be seen as “illegal circumvention technology”?
It just shows us how disconnected the people in these positions can be that are regulating these things.
Once the data enters my network it’s my fucking data and I can do with it what I please.
Likewise, I can prevent anything from even entering my network that I don’t want on it.
That’s more to the point!
Unless it’s intellectual property that belongs to the movie industry. Then you better not touch it. Or that’s illegal.
But if it’s advertisements, then you have to watch it, or that’s illegal.
Mildly pedantic, but uBlock blocks the connection before it enters your network
What should be considered illegal circumvention is allowing articles behind a paywall to be included in search results.
Say here’s a thought: can we sue ad companies for theft of electricity? They’re using my electricity to display their ads, without my consent.
Not to mention my internet fees.
Lol they will even say blocking phishing links are unethical
Fuckers want to colonize my property (my computer). that’s what’s illegal!
That was for 12ft.io Bypassing a pay wall. Not blocking ads.
They can still fuck off.
They wont be happy until eye tracking technology makes sure we sit and watch their fucking ads before the actual content appears.
I mean, none of this is getting better. Its only going to become worse. I have ads in the fucking pause screen on my streaming tv app. So if I want to take a toilet break, I get an ad in my face. Its just so ridiculous.
What most of these people don’t get is if they didn’t get so invasive with those ads, people would not have to resort to ad blockers. Be it tho shut up the ads every few seconds on YouTube or having to play whack-a-mole every time I read an article, eventually you run out of patience and say “enough!”
I actually agree with that but the only other solution is subject yourself to deeply concerning levels of surveillance, not to mention surveillance pricing.
I use AdNauseum and they have a toggle for privacy-conscious ads and I leave that on. That’s my best compromise.
All ad networks, even the less intrusive ones, can be abused to distribute malware. In this day and age not having an ad blocker is like rawdogging internet strangers.
You could say the same thing about the webpage itself.
Toggles like that are available in other adblockers too and they pose a problem. They ad a ransom to showing you ads. You don’t want the ads but if the advertisers pay the adblocker company they get whitelisted and you see the ads anyway.
Never use those toggles.
They ad a random to showing you ads
hhwat
sorry, fixed.
Do you have some evidence of this?
Okay, I’m assuming that you are asking for evidence of the paying of adblockers to allow some ads through, and not for evidence that he fixed the typo he thought you were actually posting about?
Do a quick search for why we all now use ublock origin rather than ublock plus, and then for why we were using ublock plus rather than ublock, and then for why we were using ublock instead of adblock. There might be some adblock plus in the middle of that somewhere as well.
The trade body called it “illegal circumvention technology”, said 12ft.io has been locked by its web host, and promised to take similar action against other paywall bypassing technologies.
Just because you send bits to my network does not oblige me to render them. That’s like saying I broke the law back when I had cable and changed channels during ad breaks. Falls flat on its face.
The use of the term “Dark traffic” here is to paint the use of ad-blockers as something nefarious. Don’t use it, fuck these people right in their stupid mouths.
I propose using the terms “clean traffic”, for ad-blocked website traffic, and “dogshit traffic” for everything else.
depending on your household’s browsing habits, it can be downright insane how much traffic goes through ones network (and the web at large), that is just nothing but dog shit.
I monitored my pihole at my place and my own traffic is usually no more than 15% garbage with about 750,000 domains blocked, but the second grandma or grandpa starts doomscrolling boomer things on their phones and ipads. I saw the network traffic at 60% blocked one time and I had to confront them and flatly ask them “what the fuck are you doing on your phone?”
also set up a Region exemption or whatever, blocking russian, chinese, and a whole bunch of other untrustworthy TLDs and im literally showing my grandmother the repeated attempts to communicate with something in fucking China in real time whilst she’s playing some solitare game she downloaded.
Maybe we could turn it around: adblockers are tools that block ads and other kinds of dark traffic such as trackers and malicious scripts.
Clean traffic, smooth traffic, able-to-get-to-where-you’re-going traffic
They are so short sighted to. Ad blocker help advertizers. It allows sites to fill up sites with ads to the point of being unusable while not losing 100% of traffic. That keeps these site relevant enough that old people who don’t have ad blockers end up there too when they follow links or google ranks a site high because it has traffic.
If they got rid of all ad block somehow they would have to decrease the ads because I wouldn’t use the web. Or online communities would be way more conscious of the ad level of the things they link to.
Something simple that people would ask why you want it. Also needs to be non-aggressive. Like non-content traffic. Why would you want something that is not the content?
Goodput vs shitstream.
An adblocker on your devices is equivalent to putting a Britta filter on your water tap.
What’s frustrating to me is the idea that law makers and advertisers believe I don’t have a right to alter data that comes onto things I own. And nobody chime in with the brain dead “☝️🤓 actually you don’t own it.” Because even if you wanna waste time with that stupid distraction, I own my computer. I built it from parts.
Controlling my perception is my right. If I wanna use things that block ads that’s my right. PERIOD. I NEED TO BLOCK ADS BECAUSE OF MY DISABILITY.
Maybe if they didn’t use very intrusive ads people would not install ad-blockers so much
Many websites put a video playing in later in top of the text, with another layer of ads and tiny space to read… the website would be unreadable without ad-blocks
So this confirms that people have a negative reaction to ads, which every actual internet user knows in their bones already. This means they ALSO are not even doing their one job of persuading people to buy shit. Of course this won’t lead to companies reducing investment for ad carrying or finding ways to make them more appealing, that costs money, instead they will use AI generators to produce WORSE ads and leverage their capital to have governments capitulate and force users to watch by banning blockers, probably VPNs too. Bill Hicks was the most correct about advertising, and remains undefeated.
I used my mother’s laptop once 2 years ago, and i was like, how the fuck do you people browsing without an adblock?
i know this may go against the general attitude here but i gotta say this does make me a little sad when i think about it. and i use adblockers as well, but i never knew what the numbers were. when it’s put into context like this it’s hard not to be discouraged by the fact that this is still probably a minority of users. i mean what the hell, how are people still using the internet with ads turned on.
People don’t mind ads for the most part it’s the fact that they take over 3/4 of the screen and generally try to be as obnoxious as possible.
If we stuck with banner ads no one would care, but they just had to make ads as shitty as possible.
I absolutely do mind.
“The growth of dark traffic undermines the ability of publishers to fund the production of quality content, or even operate as a business. We must recognise users are not the main driver causing this.”
“It’s demonetising publisher content at scale without user consent.”
They act like we don’t know what we are doing and want the ads. People who block ads in browsers like ddg and brave choose those browsers for that reason.
Without user consent? That’s exactly the opposite
Yeah, but bad ad choices cause people who would otherwise be fine with ads that fund content to block. Some will never go away, in the same way some will always pirate, but the ad landscape has become like the streaming landscape and pushed people towards these choices
Absolutely. Too bad that even unobtrusive ads still can’t be trusted not to have trackers.
Bottom line: if I’m forced to consume ads on a device belonging to me - I will rather throw it away!
Maybe the problem is the advertisers and not the consumers. Jeeeesus.
They got it the wrong way around. Visitors who use adblock are not “dark traffic”, the bullshit scripts and tracking they use are dark. The adblock users are actually the only clean traffic. The adblockers aren’t “brutal”, the people without blockers are being brutalized.
“dark” as in “not visible”. Adblock users can’t be tracked (or at least not as easily), hence they are not visible to the ad companies. “Dark”, in this instance, is not a derogatory term.
“Brutal” is, though. So I totally agree with you there. Ads are the brutal thing nowadays.
The way you word things matters. How many polls have shown the difference in opinion on ‘obamacare’ compared to ‘affordable care act?’
That is not wrong. But interpreting “dark” as “evil” is just wrong in this context.
You may be right, technically, but based on the context, I’m quite sure the use of the word “dark” here is intended to frame the behavior as negative. It’s just like when various media authors refer to TOR as the “dark web” even though it has countless valid uses that are not enabling illegal/immoral behaviors.
Yeah it makes sense from their point of view. I turned it around on them for the hell of it.
