China Bans Ad Blocking (adexchanger.com) 126
An anonymous reader writes: Two weeks ago, China released its first ever set of digital ad regulations that impacted Chinese market leaders like Baidu and Alibaba. "But hidden among (the new regulations) is language that would seem to all but ban ad blocking," wrote Adblock Plus (ABP) operations manager Ben Williams in a blog post Wednesday. The new regulations prohibit "the use of network access, network devices, applications, and the disruption of normal advertising data, tampering with or blocking others doing advertising business (or) unauthorized loading the ad." There is also a clause included that addresses tech companies that "intercept, filter, cover, fast-forward and [impose] other restrictions" on online ad campaigns. ABP general counsel Kai Recke said in an email to AdExchanger that the Chinese State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) has much more control over the market than its otherwise equal U.S. counterpart, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). "After all it looks like the Chinese government tries to get advertising more under their control and that includes that they want to be the only ones to be allowed to remove or alter ads," said Recke. "Ad-block users are a distinct audience and they require a distinct strategy and ways to engage them," said ABP CEO Till Faida at AdExchanger's Clean Ads I/O earlier this year. "They have different standards they've expressed for accessing them, and advertising has to reflect that."
I think I speak for all America when I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
...bite me, China!
Re: I think I speak for all America when I say... (Score:1)
I wouldn't invite them to Hoover me either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have the "freedom" to use pirated versions of Windows or hack foreign nations either. I'm sure this law will be enforced just as diligently as those.
I'm waiting for (Score:2)
"China accidentally bans the declaration of new laws that have accidentally restrictive clauses."
That's OK (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't use an adblocker, I use a scam/malware remover, bandwidth saver, page quality enhancer, and internet speed enhancer. But by a strange coincidence, it is called AdBlock.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to add that while it does sometimes block ads, it only blocks ads that aren't really owned by any legitimate businesses. For example, none of the businesses whose ads get blocked actually take responsibility for their ads should their ad be a scam ("Your computer has a virus, click here for your grandmother to install one for you while you aren't here to warn her its a virus") or directly contain malware with a Flash exploit.
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't you use ublock origin? It's like the others except leaner and doesn't make you faff around blocking "permitted" ads or whatever they call them.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't use an adblocker, I use a scam/malware remover, bandwidth saver, page quality enhancer, and internet speed enhancer. But by a strange coincidence, it is called AdBlock.
Do you think such an argument (even if it is true) would actually work in China if they tried to enforce this policy against you?
(Then again, would any argument, short of being a relative to somebody with real power, actually work in China if the authorities really wanted to get you?)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the judge doesn't speak English, doesn't care about your version, and won't even see your face before sending you a few years to prison.
Well, I never thought I'd say this, EVER... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
APK has nothing to do with it, there are several ways to manage a hosts file without requiring you to use a spammer's software to block ads. A quick search shows a program called HostsMan, for example. There's a small list of hosts managers here [ghacks.net] (including the one I mentioned, but that list doesn't include the software written by a notorious spammer), and another list here [majorgeeks.com] (also with a notable exclusion).
Even if you want a program to help you manage your hosts file, you still don't need to stoop to the le
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, tnx. I don't live in china so I would probably never search for these programs.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the lack of mods indicates that people have grown apathetic to APK. He used to be a serious nuisance, but the lack of his shit posts in threads lately indicates that the site managers (or others who have been contacted and made aware that he is using their names and reputations in his spam) mean that he has probably decided to find something else to do. I'm sure he'll be along eventually to pinch out a post or two, but you'll notice, for example, that instead of the direct links to his programs he
Re: (Score:3)
I'll just quote myself.
He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing
Thanks for proving me right.
Re: (Score:2)
He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing
Over, and over, and over again. Go ahead, post again and prove me right yet again. Maybe you should link to a past argument we had as "evidence", even though it only shows me making fun of you. That should help your case.
Re: (Score:2)
How about me?
He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing
Seriously APK, just keep on fucking that chicken, man. All I do is say that you keep claiming victory in a game that you're the only one playing, and you respond by barfing out a bunch of your "achievements", as if anyone gives a flying fuck about what you're doing. In other words, you do exactly what I said you were going to do.
Here, let me try to illustrate. Recently I spent a few weeks traveling around Brazil, and I got engaged to my girlfriend. Do you fucking care about any of that? No
Re: (Score:2)
The 1 program I put out here is more than you can show
Keep proving my point, buddy. You are the only one playing this game. Just because I choose to not show you anything I've done, and thereby reveal who I am, does not mean I have nothing to show for my work. Again, keep proving me right. Keep playing that 1-player game and shouting "victory!" Maybe one day someone will believe that you've won something.
You're sitting there playing a game of checkers, except you're moving the pieces for both sides, and halfway through the game you take a shit on the board
Re: (Score:2)
APK, how many times are you going to keep trying to prove me right? You've already done it buddy, take a rest. Take a little break. You've proven me right, what, four times in this thread alone? Five? How many more times are you going to prove me right?
Well, shit, might as well make it one more time, right? So, go ahead, respond to this post by saying how your work is so much more impressive than mine, even though you know fuck-all about my work, and make sure to add something about the fact that I wa
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, right on schedule, again I appreciate you continuing to prove me right.
As for me "talking shit" about you, in the first 2 posts in this thread I called you a spammer (which is a demonstrably true fact, not a statement of opinion), and then I predicted exactly what you were going to do over, and over, and over again. That's not talking shit, that's telling it exactly like it is. I give you a rope, and you hang yourself with it. So that's my "shit talking", a couple statements of fact, which were qui
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what's that sound? Is it the sound of the exact same BS being trotted out for a seventh time in a row? APK, the only sound I want to hear from you is soft slurping as you gently caress my balls.
Get a new argument. Haha, sorry, I know you can't. I just like to dream.
He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, wow, you really showed me, APK. You're truly a mental heavyweight of debate and argument, what with your endless repeating of the same tired bullshit. I didn't learn that tactic, that must only be taught in the master classes.
I dusted you
Pointing out that an application uses SQLite and only has a 32-bit version is "dusted". Learn something new every day I guess.
You're still a spamming troll though, that much isn't going to change. And anyone else is still flat-out stupid for running any executable delivered b
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, stop dusting me please! I just almost got all of the dust off me, and look at this, you just toss all of this more on!
Listen, I'm not going to do a feature-by-feature comparison of other programs compared to yours. There are several reasons for that. The primary one is that I have never and will never use your software, so I don't know or care what features it has.
The entire point of bringing up other programs is to show that using software written by a spammer is not a requirement if you want somet
Re: (Score:2)
You're off topic
No I'm not, I responded to a suggestion that someone should use your program with a series of alternatives. Then I predicted that you were going to show up and start trolling. Then you showed up and started trolling. And here we are.
You know all about trolling. Maybe you should go troll the other comments I'm posting and then talk about how you're on topic, not a troll, and not a spammer. Because when you're jacking off some 4 year old kid while yelling that you're not a child molester it totally makes
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, APK. Some things never change. Like your arguments. Next I'm sure you're going to claim that you don't post as people other than yourself, let's go back to that old classic.
This is going nowhere. Like your life. Take care.
Re: (Score:2)
You came in here talking shit about me & my program, so I CRUSHED YOU ON THAT MUCH + the fact YOU CANNOT SHOW YOU'VE DONE BETTER YOURSELF for giving users more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity online (but I can & have using what they already NATIVELY have that does more for less)... apk
In other words, the same tired argument you always try to trot out. Face it man, you're a spammer and if people don't want to use your software then they have alternatives. It's really that simple. No one deserves to be hounded and trolled by you for not wanting to use software that they see advertised in spam. And I didn't talk shit about your program, or you for that matter, I only pointed out that you were a spammer and that people don't need to use software published by spammers. Those are factual
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations man, it's not even possible to carry on this stupid thread in Slashdot because of the filters they have to stop you.
Here you go, like I said there, I'm done with this idiotic thread. [pasted.co]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
linux libc is in usermode and it processes dns resolution.I don't know about windows.
We're not talking about performance here. just functionality which I think is fairly good for the matter at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're usermode again
Your honour, I rest my case.
Re: (Score:2)
which he RAN from
I like how you link to a post from Feb. 25th in a thread that includes posts by me up to Mar. 8th (the last word, even). That's a seriously slow run I've got there, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
It has a major benefit though: it's not developed by a known spammer/troll.
All You Need to Know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The real reason (Score:2, Interesting)
So is this just a tacit admission that AdBlockers are inadvertently screening out some of the government surveillance tools?
Money Talks Again. (Score:2)
Re:Money Talks Again. (Score:5, Insightful)
if ads == money
There's a false equivalence if I've ever seen one. If that's your premise, and your premise is false, then the rest of your post doesn't matter.
Ads are not the same as money. Ads are also malware distribution vectors, privacy invaders, resource hogs, a waste of screen space, etc. Money is none of those things. If ad distributors wanted to actually take responsibility and clean up their industry, fine, we would be having a different conversation. But they have proven for decades that they don't want to do those things, so this is the conversation we're having.
Re: (Score:2)
Great Firewall (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes indeed, I was just thinking that now some Chinese website needs to have embedded Google Ads.
What about text-only browsers? (Score:1)
They inherently block ads that contain no text.
Does this mean blind people will be forced to use a regular browser and a screen reader so as not to block the ad from showing up on their computer? That seems inefficient to the point of being stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
In a word, yes.
If the TPP is past, this will come to America (Score:4, Interesting)
If the TPP is past, Corporations will be able to sue Governments for getting in the way of their making profit. So you can damn well bet that the advertisement networks will sue to get any type of ad blocking banned. And they will be backed by most other corporations also, so ya, this will be coming to America.
Re: (Score:1)
Good thing the TPP is future, then.
Re: (Score:1)
You underestimate American lawyers' ability to play word games. It's not "ad blocking", it's "untrusted access prevention". It's "unrequested bandwidth waste reduction". It's "filtering of invalid data".
Nobody is going to watch anyones' ads unless they wish to or are too uninformed to use an ad blocker, both of which are the watcher's fault and no one else's.
Malware creators everywhere rejoice (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially the government sponsored malware.
If they go too far (Score:2)
If the Chinese go too far, people will sour on the whole idea of business. There will be a backlash. They'll have a communist revolution on their hands. Of course I've been making this joke for a while now...20 years seems about right. The insanity just keeps rolling along... like a tank.
Re: (Score:2)
That's Insane! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would a communist country ban a program defeats a device of capitalism?
In Communist China... (Score:3)
...Ads block you!
"Take that, you capitalist running-dogs!"
Probably not (Score:2)
... prohibit "the use of network access, network devices, applications, and the disruption of normal advertising data, tampering with or blocking others doing advertising business (or) unauthorized loading the ad."
I have read through this string of words several times and still find it hard to read that interpretation into it. The way I read it, it says that it is illegal to hinder your competitors' online advertising in any way - and even I, who fundamentally dislike adverts in any form, find it hard to see that as anything but quite reasonable. Banning users from using adblockers etc would be absurd - like demanding that people must stop to look at advertising posters or have to watch tv adverts. Another thing I
Re: (Score:2)
Plus of course it doesn't prevent you from just not attempting to access the server hosting the ad content in the first place.
Which is what good ad blockers actually do.
I think the issue is not ABP / uBlock (Score:2)
Our usual ad blockers are probably not what is targeted by this law. And if they are, it is easy to work around it by shipping the software (which is basically a browser-based firewall) and the lists separately. uBlock especially doesn't even market itself as an ad-blocker.
What is more problematic is when the end user is not in control of the list. For example, some ISPs offer (or offered) an ad-blocking option. This is totally against net neutrality, I don't want my ISP to decide what is good for me or not
Great job! Karl would be proud. (Score:2)
Unenforcable anyway. (Score:1)
I doubt they are going to check every computer for Adblock. Either banning ad blocking was an unintended side effect of overly broad language or the brains behind this legislation is clueless about technology.
review (Score:1)