I don’t really use facebook anymore so couldn’t care less; but so happened to log in today to change my password and saw this on my front page.
Ad Blocking is Cyber Security, never ever let anyone convince you differently
if ads were just static PNGs with a link you went to if you clicked I wouldn’t have ever bothered. but ads became a major malware and tracking risk so plugging that security hole became mandatory.
I tried finding that website, but I can’t remember what it is. I’ve seen it use the static image advertisement. It changed on each reload too.
But yes, that website had last update somewhere in the early 2000s.
When I last used it a few years ago ExplainXKCD used static images and had a note about how they hand picked each ad to avoid any problems.
People are gonna say I’m being hyperbolic or crazy, but I swear that the internet died the day the first line of production Javascript was ever written.
The internet died in September 1994 everybody knows that
Hey, that’s not too far away. Javascript came about in December 1995.
Even static PNG ads are purpose engineered to grab your attention. People with attention disorders like ADHD and autism don’t have as much attention to give, and when it’s gone we’re debilitated. We need to start considering cognitohazards a legally prosecutable form of violence.
Could attention grabbing dark-features be considered a violation of the ADA?
Which part of it, specifically?
Edit: No, the ADA word not apply. My point was that you should understand the ADA a bit better and what it covers. Accessing a building open to the public, not facing discrimination in employment, and accommodations in education environments are examples of things it covers. I’m willing to be proven wrong, but don’t just guess or generalize. Please try and understand the topic a bit more as it’s a very important piece of legislation that makes a big difference in a lot of lives and treating it lightly dilutes that in a similar fashion to emotional support alligators vs trained service animals.
Did you really just compare accommodations for ADHD to “emotional support alligators?”
I am not a lawyer, but there is precedent for ADHD to be covered under the ADA and precedent that it (meaning the ADA) applies to websites for private businesses.
Edit: ADHD fits the definition of a disability as defined by Sec. 12102 of the ADA, specifically:
- 1a: it’s a mental impairment
- 2a1: it affects: learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.
- 3B: it’s not transitory/lasts longer than 6 months
Edit 2: a lawyer could argue that adblocking is an assistive technology for people with ADHD. If a person is looking at a tutorial at work and is inundated with ads that effect their performance at work that they can not block using an adblocker, that is denying a person with a disability as (defined by Sec. 12102 of the ADA) the full and equal (to a person who is neurotypical and can more easily not get distracted) use of a title III entities service.
Thanks for taking it seriously, that’s what I was looking for.
I’m also not a lawyer, but I do have a disability covered by the ADA. I understand that ADHD is a recognized disability. That’s not the specifics I was looking for.
That being said, the ADA doesn’t define how to make a website accessible and that typically falls to the WCAG, which is not specifically mentioned in the ADA (though neither is ADHD, those cases you mentioned confirmed it is covered). The best things I can find than might cover the specifics of ads are maybe section 2.2.2 or 2.2.4 or 2.4.1 of the WCAG (the first and last are level A, the middle AAA, with the standard recommendation being AA.). How would you apply those (or others you think are more appropriate to ad blocking) given that the guidelines are for service providers and ad blocking is usually done client-side. Examples for 2.4.1 given by W3C just seem to specify a way to move past things like ads via a link.
Also, some interesting other things:
This mentions the following and cites the case on their site:
For example, a web-only service with no nexus to a physical place of public accommodation is not subject to the ADA under Ninth Circuit precedent.
I’m not sure if that’s changed since 2019 or not. California has more specific legislation that covers that, though.
I’m all for ad blocking and accessable websites, I just don’t think the ADA covers ad blocking through the WCAG.
I’m all for ad blocking and accessable websites, I just don’t think the ADA covers ad blocking through the WCAG.
How would you apply those (or others you think are more appropriate to ad blocking) given that the guidelines are for service providers and ad blocking is usually done client-side.
Probably under WCAG Principle 4: “Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.” If we’re treating ad blocking as an assistive technology, purposely attempting to break an assistive technology would run counter to that principle, much in the same way that purposefully breaking a screen reader would (although, it should go with out saying, purposefully breaking screen readability is much worse).
I’m not sure if that’s changed since 2019 or not. California has more specific legislation that covers that, though.
I’m wondering if legal action is something that could be done on a state by state basis starting with California (which conveniently is where Google is headquartered) or if the case could be made that Youtube is used to stream live events and those events should count as a physical nexus under the ADA.
I’m assuming that addictive ui designs fuck with people with ADHD disproportionally. Since ADHD is considered a disability, could things like infinite scroll that can’t be turned off (for example) be considered an ADA violation?
A violation of which part of the ADA? Can you point an a specific part of the law that would cover it?
That was the question posed, yes.
It’s true. I work in a computer shop and we see literally thousands and thousands of dollars lost from people clicking on ads that look like normal buttons (things like “Download”, “Next”, etc). And not just the elderly either. Everyone has a a combination of inputs to get scared and comply. Folks that are otherwise extremely competent and savvy can get scammed too.
The best security you can have online is adblockers, only beaten by using trusted websites.
Edit, fair points with sites being slimy these days. I meant using legitimate versions of websites rather than copy/fake websites designed to steal credentials.
I dunno’, the way Google themselves have served vulnerable ads, it might be true that ad blocking is more important than using “trustworthy” sites.
But what websites can you trust these days?
YouTube? Serves up scammy bitcoin ads. Google? Places ads as “search results” Twitter?
Maybe that one website unchanged since 1998.
You can’t trust any website 100%
You need to continously verify and reverify the details you can.
I can totally trust the hmpg site.
Space Jam?
It was updated when the shitty new one came out :c
Does anyone have screenshots of these buttons? I didn’t see an ad for so long that I don’t even know how they look like.
something like these
Yes, these exactly. There does seem to be a bias towards sites with multi-page articles (think Yahoo news, BuzzFeed type stuff), and what I’ll call “disposable income listings” like boat and sports car-listing websites.
Definitely. Ads are eye cancer at best, and infiltration channels for malware at worst. Compromised ad networks pumping out executable code via javascript (or back in the days, Flash) are still a major source of trojan infections.
And just to add to your important point, Ad Blockers are really Content Blockers. They allow the user to delete annoyances that have nothing to do with advertising. We should all start calling them Content Blockers.
Have tried the zapper in ublock origin? I love it.
I use it often for sites I rarely will visit again. It keeps My Rules file from getting cluttered.
And it’s fun!!!So fun! I think it gives me a tiny power trip when I feel like Bruce Lee karate-chopping away an annoying part of a website :D
I have said it before, snd I will repeat it as many times as it takes.
Adblocking is security, untill website owners take legal and financial responsibillity for the harm that a hacked ad spreading malware or attenpting any kind of deception, I won’t even consider removing my adblocker.
If this changes, I will consider it, but will still not do it, the risk to my data is too large.
Ads are malware for the mind, even when they’re not malware for the machine.
Well put!
Thanks :) I was quite pleased with that one!
Yeah, there’s no proper screening process and companies aren’t help liable for malicious advertisements. It’s the Wild west out there, and companies take money from anyone due to there being no consequences. Internet advertising has no proper screening process like network television.
Seems like a feature to me.
Oh yeah aunt Greta, I’m still friends with you, but it’s so weird how I can’t see your anti vax “facts”
That’s the government censorship!
I took a peek at my feed for the first time in years. It’s all junk lol, no one I care about is posting anything
The only thing worth seeing is my local Buy Nothing group, but there are other services popping up which do something similar.
Yeah all my actual friends are messaging me elsewhere, facebook is more like a picture dump for old people. I only use it occasionally for joining various expat groups since I move countries frequently for my job, and they are rather resourceful.
It sure might be, but the one friend who got blocked is just casually posting stuff from his personal life, nothing spammy going on there. Either facebook is screwing with me, or they are playing out some friend’s posts in the ad-network stream so you are actually losing some genuine content. That would be evil (and totally something Meta would do), but I really couldn’t care less.
I do think that sounds more like they’re hiding it and blaming adblock than pretending something was missed. Wouldn’t be surprised if it starts small and ramps up over time, but that’s just speculation.
Ok but who the fuck uses Facebook?
Boom boom boomers
So people who don’t know about adblockers, generally.
I love that go-to. The boomers aren’t the ones using it, it’s their kids. I seriously think 90% of the people that use the term Boomer have no clue what generation their talking about.
Eh, I see Boomer used as a state of mind as often as a generation. It’s like Karen, calling soneone a Karen isn’t claiming their name is Karen, it’s calling out a state of mind.
That’s fine, but Karen was always meant that way, Boomer is a very specific generation, which are all geriatrics and even their kids are nothing like them.
There are a few countries where Facebook is still pretty popular. The Philippines, for example
One of my parent’s dozen+ facebook bots that steal their pictures/identity, because they are too dumb to know how to configure FB privacy settings. It’s disturbing how many of them just scour profiles, replicate, and impersonate to scam.
My ASD brother, who prefers to be contacted through it. I want to maintain what little relationship I have with him.
In Brazil, it is useful to contact people that you know in real life, family and friends…
Plus, it sorta works like a Craigslist here. People sell and buy things from Facebook everyday, and people advertise their business and services here (e.g: restaurants, plumbing services, gift stores, etc)
I’ll be that sort of person to say that the change starts when you also start. When messengers weren’t a thing here, I started moving people I talk with to a messenger of my choice. Slowly after some time all the people I know were using it without giving any thought because turns out they just use whatever works. Several months go by and I safely use nothing but that messenger of my choice. Whenever a person asks if I use Facebook/Whatsapp, I just say “I don’t have it, do you have (that messenger of my choice) or do you prefer SMS?” - and it kind of works for me.
I think people are underestimating how important the YouTube thing is.
If they succeed, the entire ad funded internet are going to clone what they do.
It will effect everyone everywhere, whether you run an adblocker or not.
It will benefit the large corporations and choke out the smaller people. It will consolidate control and wealth.
Exactly and I think what we are seeing here is that the other companies are now helping build a very frustrating user experience to break down the everyday user. We will likely see Twitter and others joining in the coming weeks
To you and @xenoclast@lemmy.world (and everyone else); What do we do about it? How can I fight back?
They have already succeeded.
Other than YouTube, I’m basically off all of these centralized social media platforms and it feels great.
I do need to occasionally use Facebook for market place and messenger for contacting business.
Basically every business operates over messenger where I live.
Yes same for me, whatsapp is pretty much the only “genuine” communication channel. I only keep a presence on facebook since I have to move countries frequently for work, and the “expats in $city” groups are quite helpful to find people, and then move the discussions off-platform :-)
I’m trying to encourage people to move to peertube. Not much content there, but i’ll reward what intersting content I find. You should too
Yeah, also please, make some content.
Doesn’t matter that it stinks, we wont watch it till you get better anyway.
There’s just nothing there besides tech content
I’ve been trying to switch over but haven’t found a good iOS app yet. Know of any?
What is wrong with safari?
Someone on here linked to odysee.com which appears to be a better version of YouTube so far, even Louis Rossman is there talking about YT’s new adblock situation as one example: https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/youtube’s-adblock-war-is-backfiring-in:c
Thanks! I always forget about that platform. I did see he made a video about that. I’ll watch it on odyssey now
It’s YouTube (piped when I can but the servers seem to be down) and old.reddit.com for me.
I don’t like that it doesn’t save video progress mid video. It also is not very reliable for me, so I use an iOS extension called vinegar and use YouTube through a browser.
Piped.video does though, if that’s what you want. Yes, reliability is a problem; I’m just waiting for when I’ll host my own piped instance
I will check it out again. I thought it only marked videos as played but did not save the position in the video when you stopped watching.
I find it quite dubious their claim of it blocking posts from friends, vs. ads. Friends don’t post ads, so if it’s blocking posts, they are inserting ads colored up as “friend posts”.
LOL, if you block ads they’ll hide a message from one of your friends that you never would have seen anyway because it would’ve been buried in ads.
I think this is good though. I think this is just what a lot of people need to get them off FB. I mean… have you tried surfing the www without an ad blocker? I’d rather not use the www.
Stop using Facebook.
I’d rather have some false positives than a single unblocked ad.
It’s been for a long time but not overtly. (I’ve never used it, this is someone else’s screenshot)
Facebook splitting the word “Sponsored” to bypass adblockers – r/assholedesignHoly shit that’s devious.
They also use all those uglified class names so you can’t easily target a class to block. They’re total bastards. The Facebook Purity plugin is hip to all these tricks though. There are some very dedicated and talented developers who have put in a lot of time and creativity to circumvent these assholes.
Yes, just like Pinterest. It’s easier to find a direct image URL using Network Analysis than Inspector.
iirc Pinterest just uses a div with a background image. Could’ve been insta though
If I inspect the element in Firefox, it’s a
divwith about 8 layers of randomly named nesteddivs inside, sometimes branching (but the mouseover border preview tool helps). It takes 10 careful clicks to reveal the finaldivand its background image URL. Maybe there’s an “Expand all” button, IDK.
They ain’t my friends if they be posting ads.
So they’re essentially admitting that their advertisements are indistinguishable from your friend’s posts which are the actual reason you visit the site in the first place. It doesn’t matter anyway anymore. Facebook has buried friends list content among absolute bullshit you have zero desire to see. I visited a while ago and 99% of what I was shown was ridiculous groups I tried to block. But there are millions of them. You can block a thousand groups and there’s 999 thousand more that are just like it, waiting to take their place. Facebook is supposed to have this super algorithm that determines what users want to see. If that’s the case, why are they incapable of detecting that I am actively opposed to certain types of content? Maybe they think they’re going to outrage me enough to engage on this bullshit? Nah, I’ll just leave. Bye, fuck-faces.
The algo doesn’t determine what YOU want to see, it’s to determine what the ADVERTISERS want to market themselves to.
Can anyone please get my country off Facebook and Messenger? Please?
What “your country” does is irrelevant. Using Facebook or not is your choice, not others.
I don’t have a choice. If everybody uses Facebook Messenger for communication, then I need to use Facebook Messenger. Not using Facebook Messenger at all in that case is cutting everybody out of my life. I’m not willing to do that.
Use Beeper then, at least you won’t have to use Facebook’s app
True, but good luck getting an acct.
Its just a matter of getting a invite code from someone whose already in the door. There is basically lots of people who generate it for others. Id do it if I was at home.
I have one and would be happy to share my referral code to anyone who sends me a DM
No, it’s not. Is your claim that if you sent an SMS they wouldnt receive it? If you called them would their phone not ring? It’s 100% a choice, your making. Make it if you like, just don’t kid yourself.
5-10 years ago when FB was still popular EVERYBODY I knew used it, including messenger. I never did, I haven’t lost contact with a single person who was actually my friend. Again, there’s a difference between actual friends and FB friends.
Your situation is different from mine. Facebook might not be popular in your country anymore but it’s the largest social media platform in mine. Young people don’t use SMS for communication in my country anymore. The majority has switched to Facebook Messenger now. SMS is only for carrier messages and verification codes. Even if I did get like one or two friends to use SMS again (unlimited SMS not included in phone plans by the way), how do you propose I solve the problem of Messenger group chats? I need them for family, for friends, for college and for work. How do you propose I solve that?
Here people use WhatsApp, not Facebook messenger, but the idea is the same. I left WhatsApp last year. My dearest friends and family have installed Signal after I did. They haven’t left WhatsApp but they use it to contact me. We have group chats on Signal. If colleagues need to reach me I tell them they can sent me an SMS or join Signal. They mostly just send SMS. I used to be in a group chats from my 2 jobs. Luckily I don’t necessarily need to be in either of them, it’s mostly used for trading shifts and there are other ways to do that. Important communication goes through email.
When one method of communication is the norm it is obviously very difficult to move away from it, and for some people it will feel almost impossible. We shouldn’t deny that there is a choice, because there is, but obviously for some it will be a lot easier than for others. I was in the lucky position that it felt possible, and it worked out great. I am very relieved that I am part of fewer group chats now. They’re quite a burden actually. I hope in the future when things shift a little further from the current norm, it will be possible for you as well.
Youve missed the point, it WAS that popular here, that changed nothing. If I sent an SMS , they got it. If YOU send an SMS, they’ll get it.
You can do whatever you like, but you’re intermixing want vs need. So you can either CHOSE to send an SMS or you don’t. But you don’t NEED to. May be more convenient, but you need to decide whether to make like arguably easier, or maintain slightly more privacy. That’s your choice, but don’t kid yourself that it’s not a choice you have.
I used to be nice to use privacy invading convenient things, it was great to tell my phone to remind me of things when I left work etc. but my privacy is more important than that convenience. Using a known abusive data minor as main method of communication is about as bad as it gets for me, at that point, all my privacy efforts are a waste.
I don’t spit in the face of my own privacy to appease others, if you chose to, that’s fine. Just own it.
I don’t think any other site can do what YouTube is doing, because YouTube is almost impossible to replace and find an alternative to. If Facebook pulls this I’m out for good. The only reason I’m on there still is the 3 people who refuse to use anything else that I still care about.
So you use a data miner because other people do, but if they block ads you won’t? Which one is it?
I don’t even get the question. Yeah I use Facebook with a fake name and no data on the account accept a spam mail address to write occasional messages with 3 people. If I couldn’t use ad block on facebook it’d be too annoying to use for me even for that.
I did that and facebook banned me for being a bot
If you create a new account probably. My account is many years old but with little activity. Maybe it doesn’t get bit scanned anymore.
That’s fine, but that’s not really “using it” either. People use it normally and think things like fake emails and bad names changes anything, it doesn’t. Meta is still getting all their data points, those accts are just as valuable, and most people at some point will fuck up and the connection will be made.
Of course they are, that’s how they make their money. Can’t understand the broken logic of anybody that’s suprised by this, what is surprising is that anybody that cares about privacy would ever use Facebook.
I rather doubt ad blockers are that big of an impact for them as the age group for facebook is quite old and very app based in my experience.
They’ve easily wasted more money on the metaverse than adblocking has cost them. Plus since they sell your info, they’ll still make money on you even if you block the ads.
