Page 1 of 1
huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:31 am
by JDPower
Both Huff Post and AOL have inserted similar adblocking code that isn't currently being blocked by the 'Adblock Warning Removal List' filter, and isn't easily added using cosmetic filters due to element tags being randomly generated.
Using Firefox 52, UBlock Origin
http://i.imgur.com/uLU5QdD.png
http://i.imgur.com/r7ECPkd.png
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:22 am
by smed79
add
or
or
or
Code: Select all
||sourcepoint.huffingtonpost.co.uk^
||sourcepoint.aol.co.uk^
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:51 pm
by Khrin
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:32 pm
by geirsp
Hi,
I'm the CTO of Sourcepoint, a company that helps publishers with monetization and communication (and as part of that, help them deal with their adblocker problems).
These rules will affect many sites in many countries in an adverse way, including sites that don't use the tech in a way specific to adblockers.
Seems like the right thing to do is make them domain specific.
geir
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:43 am
by fanboy
geirsp wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:32 pm
Hi,
I'm the CTO of Sourcepoint, a company that helps publishers with monetization and communication (and as part of that, help them deal with their adblocker problems).
These rules will affect many sites in many countries in an adverse way, including sites that don't use the tech in a way specific to adblockers.
Seems like the right thing to do is make them domain specific.
geir
So you're basically saying its another Anti-adblock. And it shouldn't be treated any differently?
As part of your communication, maybe you should ease off the restrictions and stop treating Adblock users differently. This might help:
https://easylist.to/2013/05/10/anti-adb ... dmins.html follow some guidelines, so we can both work together.
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:08 am
by geirsp
fanboy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:43 am
So you're basically saying its another Anti-adblock. And it shouldn't be treated any differently?
As part of your communication, maybe you should ease off the restrictions and stop treating Adblock users differently. This might help:
https://easylist.to/2013/05/10/anti-adb ... dmins.html follow some guidelines, so we can both work together.
No - what I'm saying is that I think it's sloppy and dangerous engineering to put rules like that w/o understanding the full scope of impact. And borderline negligent when you have been told that it would have adverse impact on sites you aren't even aware of.
You all have tremendous power and I think you should be careful.
Each publisher independently creates their own strategy regarding how they message their site visitors when using our platform. The platform itself has adblock-detection capabilities but is neutral to it - publishers can message people with and without adblockers and they can offer them various compensation options. The key that it's up to each individual publisher. Choice and transparency for all parties.
My philosophical differences notwithstanding... if you want to take action against a specific publisher for doing something that violates some set of rules you created, fine, but be consistent. You do have guidelines, and when you do a global rule like that, these guidelines feel more like a smokescreen behind which you can throw rocks rather than guiding principles for both parties.
My US $0.02
geir
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:24 pm
by gotitbro
@geirsp Why put the onus on the list authors when your technology is being used and all they are doing is protecting users from nonconforming sites which are in clear violation of the ruleset set by the larger community.
If you want to protect your customers who are not part of the anti adblock campaign from these rules you should have segregated them. We want to protect users privacy and aren't going to hunt down every website you're powering.
PS: This is my opinion do let this reflect the stance of the authors.
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:56 pm
by geirsp
gotitbro wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:24 pm
@geirsp Why put the onus on the list authors when your technology is being used and all they are doing is protecting users from nonconforming sites which are in clear violation of the ruleset set by the larger community.
If you want to protect your customers who are not part of the anti adblock campaign from these rules you should have segregated them. We want to protect users privacy and aren't going to hunt down every website you're powering.
PS: This is my opinion do let this reflect the stance of the authors.
To their credit, the list maintainers normally do a good job of being specific - that when they want to interfere with a site's operation, they constrain the rules in a site-specific way to avoid affecting other sites. Clearly there are exceptions - like when there are technologies like pure-play adservers like DFP - but as I said, generally a good job.
As I tried to articulate above - if there is a non-conforming site, do what you feel you need to do to that site. But don't drop the equivalent of a dragnet if you can avoid it when you are uncertain of the results.
Key to what we do is choice. Users do have a right to privacy. My POV is that publishers have the right to compensation for their content, but at the same time believe that publishers should provide choice to consumers. If a consumer chooses to compensate with advertising, who are we to say that they are wrong? Is there any room for discussion here?
geir
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:30 pm
by gotitbro
@geirsp Are you saying that you deliver messages to non adblock users about these compensation messages as well? Are these messages delivered from the same URLs? If yes, while that is a flaw on your side it can be looked into.
Also are you not involved in deploying the anti adblock technology? If that's a yes as well why don't you try to be a little bit more conservative with the anti adblock messages and warnings as described in the guidelines (if this could be done we wouldn't even have to block Sourcepoint).
If you have no control over the usage/deployment of your tech then you should really separate the tech for adblock and non adblock users.
Please be comprehensible about what you're trying to say and be open to working together with the community. We can all be happy that way.
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:47 pm
by geirsp
We can debate the anti-adblock philosophy, but my original point stands - the rules that were placed have effects beyond what was directly intended (stopping messaging on huffingtonpost) as well as acceptable collateral damage (other sites that do messaging).
For example, these rules :
Code: Select all
/sourcepoint.$domain=~brigitte.de
/sourcepoint/*$domain=~brigitte.de
interfere with JIRA, Slack, Confluence, monitoring tools, etc for us, and I assume lots of URLs for companies that are unrelated to us, unrelated to advertising, unrelated ad blocking.
I think they should be removed, or at least constrained with a targeted $domain list vs a dragnet w/ specific exceptions. As I said earlier in the thread, I think it's sloppy and dangerous engineering to put rules like that w/o understanding the full scope of impact. And borderline negligent when you have been told that it would have adverse impact on sites you aren't even aware of.
geir
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:54 pm
by -Mark-
geirsp wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:47 pm
We can debate the anti-adblock philosophy, but my original point stands - the rules that were placed have effects beyond what was directly intended (stopping messaging on huffingtonpost) as well as acceptable collateral damage (other sites that do messaging).
No it does not. That's none of users concern as the website works, end of story and speaking of that, I thought you were here to put your two cents in, but now you're going overboard and going off-topic from the core issue to the so called effects which have nothing to do with Easylist.
@JDpower, it's patched on uBO. Force update your filters. For aol.co.uk add -
Code: Select all
aol.co.uk##script:inject(abort-on-property-write.js, _sp_)
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:21 pm
by geirsp
My point is that users will be affected by the broadness of the rules in ways that you don't currently intend. Just narrow them down so that "the website works", but doesn't affect unrelated sites...
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:10 pm
by LanikSJ
I'm keeping an eye on this thread. If it gets out of hand it gets locked, so keep it civil please.
I know folks are passionate about this touchy subject, and keep the discussion coming, as long as it's in civilized manner.
EDIT: Off topic bullshit removed. Any other takers?
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 3:21 am
by JDPower
The rules posted here have stopped working again on AOL and HuffPo
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 3:47 am
by smed79
HuffPo anti-adb msg
Code: Select all
||huffingtonpost.co.uk/include/geopromo.php
-
http://i.imgur.com/nCpUTAK.png
AOL anti-adb msg
Code: Select all
||blogsmithmedia.com/www.aol.co.uk/assets/js/mmblkr/caol-uk.js
-
http://i.imgur.com/dJ2OBPN.png
AOL ebay ads
-
http://i.imgur.com/uNvUEnJ.png
Privacy
Code: Select all
/msg?*&mid=*&cid=$image
||decenthat.com^$third-party
Generic filters for EL
Code: Select all
/AdsInventory.
/AdStickyBTF.
/ResponsiveAds.
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 2:38 am
by JDPower
Thanks smed79. The HuffPo anti adb one isn't working though.
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 3:20 am
by smed79
Try again with
Code: Select all
||aol-uk.aol.co.uk^
||huffingtonpost-uk.huffingtonpost.co.uk^
or
Code: Select all
||aol.co.uk/|$script
||huffingtonpost.co.uk/|$script
:
viewtopic.php?p=131143#p131143
Re: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 10:30 pm
by JDPower
Both of those appear to work thanks smed79.
Have just noticed some recent (last week or two I'd guess) filter rule change in Easylist (not the above rules from smed79) has started blocking the right hand sidebar news column again (seems to happen occasionally)
