/linked/2016/08/11/facebook-ad-blocker-blocker-blocker-blocker

Comments

enough already:
**FACEBOOK TP DEPLOY AD BLOCKER BLOCKER BLOCKER BLOCKER**

Do you think you might have meant **TO** there, John? Or did you slip up and admit that your writing is shit?
1:20 am — Friday, 12 August 2016
One High:
@enough already:
He admitted he has been going all whack-a-mole on himself, what else do you want? It's a hard hand job.
1:41 am — Friday, 12 August 2016
To Be Fair:
The same Gruber who cried like a baby when Adblockers on iOS came out and he found that The Deck's ads were blocked.
1:54 am — Friday, 12 August 2016
chas_m:
I'm certainly not anti-adblocker, but OTOH there is a line somewhere where the owner of a site providing a service people seem to like and use should get compensated for it. FB has a right to get paid for what they do. I personally prefer a subscription model that's ad-free, but that's not for everyone and I get that.

Sites that refuse to run autoplay or video or animated ads get whitelisted in my adblocker. First time I see an autoplay/animated/distracto ad, the site is again blacklisted in the ad blocker. I think if everyone went with that approach, sites would get the message real quick.
4:29 am — Friday, 12 August 2016
To Be Fair:
>FB has a right to get paid for what they do.

Since when? I don't recall that being in the Bill of Rights.

So, in your world view, anybody who runs a business is owed money just for running a business, regardless of its business model, or competitiveness in the market?
8:08 am — Friday, 12 August 2016
Alex:
@TBF

I don't remember anyone having a right to use Facebook unconditionally being in the Bill of Rights either?

Facebook offers a free service on the condition that people let it display adverts on their feeds in return. That's their business model. Nobody is owed money for running a business, but anyone running one has a right to declare the terms under which someone receives a service, and the consumer in turn has a right to decide whether or not to use it.
1:26 pm — Friday, 12 August 2016
anonymous:
FB is worse than Eddy Cue.
4:04 pm — Friday, 12 August 2016
anonymous:
if online advertising were still just old school banner ads, i'd be fine with it. sites that play all kinds of shitty animations, videos, sounds, whatever - fuck 'em. you don't get the right to drain my battery (as well as track my behavior, without telling me) just because you're providing some content.
4:05 pm — Friday, 12 August 2016
anonymous:
Simple: don't use Facebook. They are shady scumbags. Fuck Zuck!
5:45 pm — Friday, 12 August 2016
catfood:
>I don't recall that being in the Bill of Rights.

oh for crying out loud
6:05 pm — Friday, 12 August 2016
To Be Fair:
>Nobody is owed money for running a business, but anyone running one has a right to declare the terms under which someone receives a service, and the consumer in turn has a right to decide whether or not to use it.

That's bullshit. Running an ad blocker is perfectly legal. If Facebook loses revenue because of that, it's their problem. Users are under no legal obligation to see their ads.
6:45 pm — Friday, 12 August 2016
CB:
This is a blocker shocker.
9:24 pm — Friday, 12 August 2016
Tony Soprano:
>but anyone running one has a right to declare the terms under which someone receives a service

They can "declare" whatever the fuck they want, and I will deploy whatever ad blockers I feel are suitable.
12:12 am — Sunday, 14 August 2016
What's the official Facebook PR Take on This?:
daniel?
2:09 pm — Monday, 15 August 2016
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!