this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
968 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

34976 readers
289 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] outbound@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I just don't understand why they're trying to solve this issue on the client side. It seems like a losing battle to me.

Instead, focus on the server side. If you want to push ads, then host on (or tunnel from) the content server. Get rid of all the <div\>s and tags and scripts and adserver links that the adblockers are using to identify ads. Just assemble the page on the host so that it looks indistinguisable from the content the user is looking for and push it out. EAT BACHELOR CHOW! NOW WITH FLAVOR! Google could even start an ad-friendly hosting service that does this - some sitebuilder tools, identify where you want Google Adsense, and host the damn thing.

[–] guy@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Unless everybody fully customises the display and styling of the adverts for their own website, there's going to be some sort of targetable, recognisable pattern in the way AdSense content looks. Most developers just want an easy drop-in solution.

Furthermore, Google don't necessarily want to give you that level of control over the adverts, because that makes it easier to game the ads system with malicious, fake and misleading clicks or invisible adverts. They need their tracking tech attached to it.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So render to image? That sounds terribly inefficient. That means you're drastically increasing the load on the server and sending way more data over the wire. And then on the client side, your page no longer changes to fit the huge variety of viewport sizes. And say goodbye to being able to copy-paste. Or any kind of user interaction. And anyone with visual disabilities can go fuck themselves, I guess.

[–] CallumWells@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, they didn't mean to render it all as an image, but that everything comes from the content server you're getting the content you want from and thus the ads should be indistinguishable from content. I don't understand how you could misunderstand it to such a degree as to think they meant to render it all as an image.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Because even if you host the ad content on the same server, it's still possible to distinguish it, such as by URL or element xpath. To assemble the page to avoid this, you'd need to completely render the page.

[–] outbound@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so... PDF then?
/s

Thanks, BTW. It never occurred to me that someone could interpret my comment as "render-as-an-image".

[–] CallumWells@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

You explicitly state "render to image".