Facebook Finds a Way Round the Ad Blockers

Turned on from August 9, 2016

[engine]

Facebook seems to have found a way around the ad blockers on its desktop site so that users will still get the ads on its site.

This will be an interesting one, and i'll be interested to see how this next phase in the battle will go.

On Tuesday, Facebook will flip a switch across its desktop website that essentially renders all ad blockers — the programs that prevent websites from displaying ads on the page when a user visits the site — useless. link [nytimes.com]

[robzilla]

That's the beauty of running your own ads. Smart of them not to settle with the AdBlock makers.

[ember]

First time I've ever liked Facebook.

[tangor]

Wonder what the "ouch" number was which brought this on?

[motorhaven]

I wonder we can can start to see companies like Google supply code it's network can use to load ads server side into the page?

[bill]

This may work around the common ad blockers of today, but they will adapt.There are ways to find common elements of a page and simply block those too, even if the content is served from the same server. For example, early ad blocking schemes, before the advent of massive third party ad serving networks, simply blocked images with the word "banner" in them. Don't expect this to be the end of the cat-and-mouse game that people will play to block ads.

[keyplyr]

There's a FB adblocker add-on for Firefox that still works. In the space where the ad was, the developer puts "Facebook Ads blocked by example" so basically there's still an ad there.

[blend27]

"Facebook Finds a Way Round the Ad Blockers"

2 weeks later:

"And Quickly Looses It...."

[henry0]

LOL, from the very serious French newspaper 'Le Monde'
(sorry comes in FR)
[lemonde.fr ]

Ablock made the promise to block ads again :)

[ergophobe]

I just saw this in Le Monde as well. I'm sure it's been reported in English somewhere... the war continues.

[mcneely]

Here it is on the news -- [cbsnews.com...]

[robzilla]

Adblock Plus has also responded [adblockplus.org]. Seems they've developed tunnel vision.

[mcneely]

Ads, on their own, are fairly innocuous. It's the tracking and personal info gathering that's written into the ads that I take issue with. Organizations are seemingly more interested in gathering your habits and data than they are in actually being interested in having you buy their ad clients products. I can see where they might be interested in statistics as it might be related to ad views, but then to try and follow you throughout the web is another thing altogether.

Facebook did a work-around with display ads, but that's about it. You can see the ad, but Facebook is still not able to track you through that ad - I've used *Disconnect for a long time, and even in spite of the fact that Facebook thumbed their nose at adblockers, they still can't garner any of the info they seemingly so desperately seek whilst visiting their site as it relates to ad views.

Smoke and mirrors - The $5 an hour techs at Facebook still can't prevent you from blocking their info queries - Sure, they can show the ads, but the data queries related to those ads are still blocked.

Traffic and use of Facebook has dropped off over the years, and this story of blocking the adblockers has probably more to do with Facebook trying to stay relevant, than it does with actually coming up with a way to prevent tracking - As it stands today, Facebook still can't block the tracking blockers, which is really what this whole thing is about anyway --

No Facebook -- You still haven't succeeded in your ability to track your users carte blanche -- Sure we can see your ads, and good luck in trying to determine who came and saw what as it might relate to those of us who actively use tracking blockers.

[keyplyr]

"Facebook still can't block the tracking blockers, which is really what this whole thing is about anyway" - mcneely

Not according to most poles. Users just don't like intrusive ads. Pop-up blocking and Adblockers are the extent of what most use (if they use anything at all.)

[tangor]

With near 47% of USA users surfing with adblockers it seems certain the desire for same will continue in the future (if not increase). Somewhere I read that those between 18-35 are 55% engaged in ad blocking.

[motorhaven]

47%? No, the numbers are 26.3% as of June, and expected to go to 32% in 2017. The only 47% I know of is 47% of UK users ages 18-24.

[JS_Harris]

I found a way around Facebook, 2+ years ago, and I don't miss it. I actually call up my real friends a lot more and the grapevine still works.

Ad blocking isn't going away so long as big ransoms are paid by the major companies. The cat and mouse game will continue and someone will find a way to defeat Facebooks attempts too.

Eventually someone will lobby the government successfully and laws will be created to protect big business interests is my best guess on how this ends.

[henry0]

Do you know why the TV remote control was invented?
Way back when, wireless did not exist yet , a guy found a way to put together a device that would mute TV during advertising
This war is not going to stop.

[engine]

Facebook rolls out new code in this continuing war.

[Dave_B]

47%? No, the numbers are 26.3% as of June, and expected to go to 32% in 2017. The only 47% I know of is 47% of UK users ages 18-24.

The 2015 Reuters Institute Digital News Report found 47 percent of U.S. internet users regularly use ad blocking software. Among younger consumers, age 18 to 24, 55 percent block ads online. A 2015 report by PageFair and Adobe estimated that ad blockers cost publishers worldwide $22 billion a year.

[motorhaven]

The 2015 Reuters Institute Digital News Report found 47 percent of U.S. internet users regularly use ad blocking software. Among younger consumers, age 18 to 24, 55 percent block ads online.

"As this survey deals with news consumption, we filtered out anyone who said that they had not consumed any news in the past month"

A 2015 report by PageFair and Adobe estimated that ad blockers cost publishers worldwide $22 billion a year.

Throwing out a number representing the financial loss doesn't indicate percentage.

This same report ( [pagefair.com...] )

"US ad blocking grew by 48% to reach 45 million active users in 12 months up to June 2015."
The number of Internet users in the USA in 2015 was 283,712,407. That puts ad blocker use in the USA at 15.86%.

"UK ad blocking grew by 82% to reach 12 million active users in 12 months up to June 2015."
The number of Internet users in the UK in 2015 was about 44.7 million. That puts ad blocker use in the UK at 26.84%.

[tangor]

As the FB effort is directed to DESKTOP I suspect the actual numbers are quite different. When (not if) mobile users take up ad blocking the numbers will change dramatically.

Note: internet use specified above includes desktop, tablet and mobile. Desktop and adblocking represents the largest number of adblockers installed.... yet are a diminishing part of the internet users as mobile continues to grow. The percentages are a bit whacked when that subset is measured against the greater pool.

[tangor]

This just out from The Register:
[theregister.co.uk...]

[mcneely]

This just out from The Register: [theregister.co.uk...]

That's just flat out funny -- Facebook wouldn't be having this problem if they hired real coders like Google does --

Game on indeed ;)

[tangor]

The only reason this story is getting any traction is FB is the largest site to declare war on adblockers.

Meanwhile, FB screwed the pooch with their attempt (inserting ads as fake posts). That kind of underhanded presentation is not likely to win friends.

Meanwhile, me, FF and the Web Developer tools built in kill the ad nodes in the html (in addition to the noscript and ad block plus installed).

More fun: browser is configured to run in high contrast, accessibility mode. I'm not the only one out there. If the game plays on I suspect there will be a complaint to the FCC as regards FB's attempts to degrade ordinary access for disabled or handicapped persons. Turns out the USA is pretty strict in that regard. Time will tell.

(aside; I won't be a complainant because me and FB only meet once a month)

[tangor]

And while my back was turned here's yet another report!

FB responded and the adblockers fired back and the war continues; [theregister.co.uk...]

[mcneely]

You can opt out of the "personal ad experience" on your phone -- a few taps and it's a done deal -- But desktop is a whole nuther animal --You have to leave your 3rd party cookies enabled so you can opt out of the "personal ad experience" at 5 or so ads sites Facebook lists -- Clear cache/cookies? and you're opted right back in again.

Joe citizen isn't going to waste his time with the process -- He'll go off and get himself an ad blocker instead, and call it a day -- If Facebook was so *well meaning and *concerned about their personal ad experience, they would take it upon themselves to make the process as easy for desktop as they do for phone.

The onus is on Facebook I think -- It's their served ads, their platform, and therefore their problem --

[londrum]

Facebook will never win doing it like this. Adblock will always find a workaround.

what Facebook needs to do is block access to people using the adblocker, and ask people to whitelist them.
They already block people without JavaScript turned on (don't they? I think they do) so it's not such a big leap.