Adblockers stop publishers serving ads to (or even seeing) 1bn web users - Press Gazette
-
Its actually not easy to run two of them since they are not designed for using a shared disk (you can get corrupted data). Its also not necessary, you can just leave the secondary dns server blank.
But if you want two because you want high availability in case one of your piholes goes down, you can rsync the settings between the two machines every 5 minutes or so. Its important to keep them in sync that way.
The secondary DNS isn’t for redundancy; machines will split requests across the two for load balancing. If you only have one running, you’ll end up with ads slipping through as the device still uses the default secondary DNS.
-
It would have to be millenials since Gen z exist almost entirely in the walled garden of a phone app.
Most people now a days don't even use a desktop with a browser. I honestly expect that most of what they are "seeing" is just web scrapers for the LLM. Those are likely to "block" ads simply based on efficiency, since it shows down crawling.
Why would anyone use a desktop? That’s like a baby’s toy!
-
The web has almost always been unusable without an adblocker. Ads today are less malicious, but more insidious. Clicking the wrong ad in 2003 would brick your computer. Clicking the wrong ad today means you'll have to cancel a credit card after your personal data is compiled and sold on the black market.
Nothing new. Ads don't fuel a free internet. They fuel a business model. The free internet is fueled by the time and donations of kind, dedicated people.
My view is that if we can’t have the things we want without ads, then we need a new business model. I’m not super into the whole kindness and donations model. If we need it to be state funded, so be it.
-
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.
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.
-
Why would anyone use a desktop? That’s like a baby’s toy!
It honestly creeps me out that so many people don't curate what they watch and just consume whatever 'their feed' puts in front of them.
-
The web has almost always been unusable without an adblocker. Ads today are less malicious, but more insidious. Clicking the wrong ad in 2003 would brick your computer. Clicking the wrong ad today means you'll have to cancel a credit card after your personal data is compiled and sold on the black market.
Nothing new. Ads don't fuel a free internet. They fuel a business model. The free internet is fueled by the time and donations of kind, dedicated people.
You store your credit card in your computer? If browser credit card management isn't secure enough to avoid that attack you shouldn't be using it.
-
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.
Oh no.
-
No point if you have a network in the 10.0.0.0/8 IP range. There is a bug where they will randomly stop serving DNS to IPs outside of their subnet
Unless I’m misunderstanding, that doesn’t sound like a bug at all. Outside of a few specific circumstances, devices shouldn’t communicate with anything outside of the given subnet mask. Rejecting traffic outside of that subnet mask is exactly what it should do. And why wouldn’t your pihole be in the same subnet (or at least be included in the subnet mask) for the LAN? You can have the pihole’s IP address be whatever you want, so give it an IP in the same subnet.
-
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.
Maybe we could turn it around: adblockers are tools that block ads and other kinds of dark traffic such as trackers and malicious scripts.
-
"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?'
-
Gemini looks cool, but I wonder if Gemtext isn't a bit too simple. I think the ideal format would be to go back to the idea of "hypertext", without the CSS and Javascript.
-
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]“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.”
And Scott Messer, founder of publishing adtech consultancy Messer Media, added: “Dark traffic is unlike anything we have seen before. It’s demonetising publisher content at scale without user consent.
Are they trying to present it as if poor innocent users need to be protected from the vile ad blockers?
-
Okay I checked out Gemini. I love the vibes, but the amount of dead links just in the quick start guide makes it hard for me to even try to get into it
-
The web has almost always been unusable without an adblocker. Ads today are less malicious, but more insidious. Clicking the wrong ad in 2003 would brick your computer. Clicking the wrong ad today means you'll have to cancel a credit card after your personal data is compiled and sold on the black market.
Nothing new. Ads don't fuel a free internet. They fuel a business model. The free internet is fueled by the time and donations of kind, dedicated people.
There was a time in the 90's where ads were mostly banners, and that was fine; google's text-only ads were completely acceptable.
But that didn't last long - it went downhill with the proliferation of popups, especially the nefarious kind which created even more popups or tried to stop the user from closing them, and usage of dialog boxes.
And whoever was the first person to add sound to an ad, i wish you and your entire family tree that your genitalia translocate to your forehead.
-
the AIs will just start their own circle jerks
Zombie internet!
-
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.
The tech community is pacified into not taking action against the polluters by our adblockers because we don't see the egregious ads and so we don't fight the good fight for the user.
-
The fbi suggests using an ad blocker. Guess what an ad blocker is as important as an antivirus.
Malvertising has become pervasive enough that adblocking is starting to become a necessity from an IT perspective
-
It's far far worse than American TV. TV commercials are a scattershot hope that you show the ad to 2 million people and 10,000 see it and buy your product.
With Google fingerprint tracking, advertisers are selling hyper-targeted ads so a company buys only ads to show to the right 10,000 people over and over. It's a literal dream for advertisers. But it's a fucking dystopian nightmare for us.
wrote last edited by [email protected]With Google fingerprint tracking, advertisers are selling hyper-targeted ads so a company buys only ads to show to the right 10,000 people over and over. It’s a literal dream for advertisers. But it’s a fucking dystopian nightmare for us.
The hilarious thing is if you turn off your adblocker (or use a service/device that doesn't support it) and pay attention to what is being advertised to you, a lot of it is wildly irrelevant. They'd probably have better targeting by following the old TV Ad model than whatever the heck is happening with targeted web ads nowadays. My wife watches a lot of livestreams on twitch and any ads that aren't for a game just consistently seem to be wildly irrelevant despite being "targeted" or it's even worse when she's listening to Spotify and the ads are so consistently for products or services we would never have a desire to use
-
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.
Goodput vs shitstream.
