back to article Facebook to forcefeed you web ads, whether you like it or not: Ad blocker? Get the Zuck out!

Facebook will circumvent browser ad-blocking tools to push web adverts onto people's screens. The new policy calls for the social network to serve up ads regardless of the presence of ad-blocking software, and in exchange give users greater control over their ad preferences to cut down on intrusive or annoying ads. The …

  1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
    Angel

    FB Purity...

    ...is highly recommended for such situations - I'm sure they'll figure out how to block these elements pretty quickly.

    1. Steve Lionel

      And indeed they already have. beta.fbpurity.com

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        How do they block an element that's in the same domain as the page itself without blocking actual content?

        1. BlartVersenwaldIII

          > How do they block an element that's in the same domain as the page itself without blocking actual content?

          Same way you can currently do in your typical content blockers; find the element hosting the ad (or whatever else you don't want to see) and block it. As a non-ad example, I use the following filter to block the annoying (to me) elements of El Reg;

          theregister.co.uk##.dont_miss.dcl

          theregister.co.uk###top_tease

          theregister.co.uk##.article_img

          Adblock tools like ABP/ABL (with the additional element picker) or uBlock come with GUI tools to help you select and block various elements, else just fire up the dev tools and examine the page structure to write your filter manually.

          I guess next step in the ad-block wars would be to use randomly named page elements but I've not seen anyone try that yet.

          1. Charles 9 Silver badge

            "I guess next step in the ad-block wars would be to use randomly named page elements but I've not seen anyone try that yet."

            I've already seen them: hashed elements so they're unique for each visit (and each visit can be traced). It reaches a point where you can't block one element without blocking ALL elements, INCLUDING the content itself which is kept in a separate frame.

  2. Chris G Silver badge

    Just one

    More reason to not have a Feckbook account and to say FUCK Facebook!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Just one

      I wish I could dump FB but I have some stupid** relatives that won't do standard e-mail and only let me know what they are doing via FB cr*p.

      **I have called them that to their faces many times.

      1. Gene Cash Silver badge

        Re: Just one

        Well that is the only redeeming feature of a social media site, is that it's a lot better than blasting a bunch of people with emails in the hope they find it interesting, and not an annoyance or an intrusion.

        You can say "I got married" or "I pupped out another brat" or "my car exploded" to whoever finds it interesting, and the "friend's" list is sort of self-curating.

        I still don't have a FB account, though. They've sh*t&stirred it so hard, the original purpose is lost.

        1. Someone Else Silver badge
          Facepalm

          @Gene Cash -- Re: Just one

          You can say "I got married" or "I pupped out another brat" or "my car exploded" to whoever finds it interesting, and the "friend's" list is sort of self-curating.

          You know, there is this thing called a telephone....

          1. Martin an gof Silver badge
            Coat

            Re: @Gene Cash -- Just one

            You know, there is this thing called a telephone...

            Or put a line in the Hatch, Match & Despatch column of a newspaper?

            Sorry... coat's over there... the one with enough 50p coins in the pocket to afford a 1 minute call from a phone box.

            M.

            <rant>Would you believe that I found two working phoneboxes within half a mile of each other in a mobile-signal-less part of Mid Wales? They were both working, but neither took cash, neither had a card reader, and when I made a reverse-charge call (not easy as the keypad stopped working as soon as the automated system answered "100") my parents (who were the recipients) were charged NINE POUNDS and SEVENTY FIVE PENCE for a two minute call! Landline to landline!</rant>

            1. BongoJoe

              Re: @Gene Cash -- Just one

              <rant>Would you believe that I found two working phoneboxes within half a mile of each other in a mobile-signal-less part of Mid Wales? They were both working, but neither took cash, neither had a card reader, and when I made a reverse-charge call (not easy as the keypad stopped working as soon as the automated system answered "100") my parents (who were the recipients) were charged NINE POUNDS and SEVENTY FIVE PENCE for a two minute call! Landline to landline!</rant>

              Near Towyn?

              1. Martin an gof Silver badge

                Re: @Gene Cash -- Just one

                Near Towyn?

                't other side - Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant.

                All I needed to do was get a message to my wife, who had gone to Oswestry. She was intending to contact our landlady while there - i.e. while there was a mobile signal - but I met the lady in the village while at the butcher.

                M.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Gene Cash -- Just one

            "You know, there is this thing called a telephone..."

            You know, there are these things called toll charges. Yes, I know, shocking. As it turns out, in many third-world countries, calls and text cost a decent amount of dosh (especially if international in nature) while they can do short facebook trips free. It's true. I've seen them do it firsthand AND seen the ads.

            1. boltar Silver badge

              Re: @Gene Cash -- Just one

              >You know, there are these things called toll charges. Yes, I know, shocking. As it turns out, in many

              >third-world countries, calls and text cost a decent amount of dosh (especially if international in nature)

              >while they can do short facebook trips free. It's true. I've seen them do it firsthand AND seen the ads.

              ITYF in a lot of 3rd world countries people have cellphones and no computer.

              Aside from that, if someone claims to want to know what their friends and relatives are up to yet doesn't want to pay a few pence for a phone call then they quite obviously don't want to know particularly badly. What next - complaining about not getting a free bus/train fare or free fuel for the car when you want to visit them? FFS.

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Just one

          "it's a lot better than blasting a bunch of people with emails in the hope they find it interesting, and not an annoyance or an intrusion."

          Change your email address and don't give out the new one to the pests.

      2. Sebastian A

        Re: Just one

        I've worked out that missing out on the occasional birthday party is a small price to pay for not having to put up with facebook. Real friends will text me if something's going on.

        1. SundogUK

          Re: Just one

          This.

          1. AndyS

            Re: Just one

            > This

            "Gee, if only there was some sort of button I could press that indicated my agreement with a comment which I felt added to the conversation. It would be so much more convenient than having to type "this" so many times every day."

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Just one

        "only let me know what they are doing via FB cr*p."

        Do you care? Do they care if you don't know?

        Just don't use FB & tell them that if they want to contact you they'll have to use email or even - wow! - pick up the phone.

      4. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Just one

      ZUCK off is the new FUCK off!

    3. Mark Simon

      Re: Just one

      The ultimate ad blocker — don’t visit the site.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Just one

        Facebook is the biggest fad of the Internet at this point. And when it comes to ignoring fads, to quote the Smash Mouth hit, "You might as well be Walking on the Sun."

    4. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Just one

      My parents refuse to have one.

      Other relatives post everything on there so I know when to burgle.

      Only not in HOSTS due to wife wanting it.

      Yes until recently FB was a blocked domain

      1. William 3 Bronze badge

        Re: Just one

        You can still allow your wife to use Facebook, whilst blocking all their other tracking on your network.

        Just whitelist m.facebook.com whilst blocking everything else.

        To to best of my knowledge 99.9% of third party websites do not use m.facebook.com as a domain for their facebook tracking crap.

        Using m.facebook.com also stops the autoplay videos as well. (Even on a desktop PC).

        Which is nice.

        The only adverts you see, is where one of your "friends" has "liked" a particular business or some other crap.

        I recommend it.

  3. Justin Pasher

    Errrmmh....

    The thinking behind the move, says Facebook, is to eliminate complaints that folks have had about irrelevant or irritating ads

    ... so, all ads then?

    1. Sebastian A

      Re: Errrmmh....

      The problem here is obviously that people aren't letting facebook profile them thoroughly enough. Please fill out the following twenty-six page survey regarding your shopping habits, personal finances and sexual preferences so we can more closely match you to our advertisers.

      1. theblackhand

        Re: Errrmmh....

        Or maybe FB's ad pimping isn't as successful as it hoped?

        P&G are "scaling back Facebook advertising" as the targeting provided by Facebook didn't provide the expected increase in effectiveness (link to provide full details of claim, you don't have to click it...)

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/p-g-to-scale-back-targeted-facebook-ads-1470760949

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
          Unhappy

          Re: Errrmmh....

          Considering that when I first started using the internet I had a 14.4k baud modem and I now have a 20M+ ADSL connection, web pages seem to be slower than ever.

          Not only that, but when I try to scroll down a page my browser seems to continually lock up and make my whole machine unresponsive, sometimes for 20 seconds!

          Perhaps I've misunderstood the concept of a faster internet connection and that the relationship with how quickly I can view material online is actual an inverse ratio.

          Either that or the web has a deadly disease that sucks up all available bandwidth, has memory leaks and poor process queuing to the point where it can lock up a PC.

          The day that people wake up and treat intrusive adverts as reasons *not* to buy a particular product from a particular vendor - then the disease just seems to spread and spread and spread.

          We're doomed.

          1. SundogUK

            Re: Errrmmh....

            https://noscript.net/

            Problem solved.

          2. Spanners Silver badge
            Black Helicopters

            Re: Errrmmh....

            Either that or the web has a deadly disease that sucks up all available bandwidth, has memory leaks and poor process queuing to the point where it can lock up a PC.

            Its the same disease that causes problems everywhere else - US Corporations. As they are obliged to pay more attention to shareholder remuneration than ethics, customer satisfaction, the law or even good taste combined; human beings are seen as having less relevance than the colour of socks worn by the CFO.

            If companies want to be treated like people, they need to act like adult ones.

          3. Updraft102 Silver badge

            Re: Errrmmh....

            "Perhaps I've misunderstood the concept of a faster internet connection..."

            It's so that the advertisers can load up the web page with dozens of heavy scripts to track you and show you ever more (somehow still irrelevant) ads. It's why we bought more powerful computers with more RAM too-- it's all for the benefit of the advertisers. Whatever we can do to help them invade our privacy!

            When I used to read print periodicals for specialty interests (like computers), I used to look forward to the ads-- I wanted to see what was available. Ads for things I would never be interested in still weren't annoying; I simply did not look at them (once I saw that they were of no interest, of course). They didn't blink or flash or make noise or block content or play videos or force me to wait before I could turn to the page I actually wanted to see.

            Now, though, even if we ignore the obnoxiousness of modern web ads, they are often far less relevant than when there was no targeting (beyond selecting which publication the ad was going into) and no tracking.

            Some time ago, I was on Youtube watching air crash disaster videos and something happened (I must have disabled the ad blocker for testing; I never turn it off under normal circumstances) and I saw an ad. It was for either Boeing or Airbus (I can't remember which). What?? I might be able to afford a scale model of an airliner, but that would be about it.

            It's true that I don't usually see ads or allow tracking scripts, and surely this inhibits the ability of the advertisers to track my interests (by design), but nothing I have ever done online would suggest that I am an executive at an airline or any other person who has a role in selecting or purchasing multi-million dollar airliners. At best, the algorithm clumsily matched an ad about airliners with videos about airliners.

    2. Blank Reg

      Re: Errrmmh....

      The only ads I find annoying are the ones that pop up something over the page you want to see. But I have a solution to that, I never visit the page again. Auto-playing video ads aren't a problem as my audio is normally turned off. As for remaining ads I don't even notice them and have never deliberately clicked on them, my brain just silently filters them out after so long on the web.

      Honestly I don't understand how anyone makes money from online advertising.

      1. Martin an gof Silver badge

        Re: Errrmmh....

        The only ads I find annoying are the ones that pop up something over the page you want to see. But I have a solution to that, I never visit the page again.

        Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face? As has already been mentioned: NoScript.

        Auto-playing video ads aren't a problem as my audio is normally turned off

        Noscript deals with these too, which are a problem even if you don't notice them - they are consuming bucketloads of bandwidth in the background.

        It's all relative, I suppose. It's like the text -v- Word processor thing. A 2k plain text file instantly becomes about 10k of ODT, even when you consider that the latter is (I believe) data compressed.

        What used to be 10k of HTML "back in the day" with another 10k or so of GIFs to brighten things up is now easily ten times that, even on fairly "restrained" web pages. As I write the big picture on ElReg's front page is over 220k. No idea about the ads, as most of them don't load...

        I don't use ad blockers per-se, just NoScript. Seems to deal with the worst offenders, and the others aren't usually a problem.

        M.

  4. frank ly Silver badge

    I'm wondering

    If the website operators (and the advertisers) are so concerned about ads being blocked, why don't they just buffer up the ads at the website server and deliver them as part of the main page? That way, nobody could block them. Some targeting software would need to be running at the webserver end but it doesn't sound too complicated in principle.

    1. Dadmin

      Re: I'm wondering

      Yes, they do that already and call it "Sponsored Content" or some such thing. South Park has a fun sendup of the term in a trilogy from last season. Yahoo! has been doing it since the front page got updated a few years back, and those are not too bad, you just skim over them and onto the next item... then, you click on some juicy news link and get some more ads, but only two or three extra sentences to the "article" which is then linked to the real hosting provider for it, and I go back and do that again. I get to a real article about once in five tries, which is not bad, but not super clean either. It's like qualifying for a swim event at the Rio Olympics; you win, but will you be swimming in a nicely chlorinated pool, or a local toilet?

    2. ElsmarMarc

      Re: I'm wondering

      "If the website operators (and the advertisers) are so concerned about ads being blocked, why don't they just buffer up the ads at the website server and deliver them as part of the main page?"

      Started doing that at least 10 years ago - Ads are small and I limit the number of them to keep them non-invasive. They are from direct advertisers who contact me about advertising on my sites. First I check out the company. If I accept it, they produce a graphic and email it to me, I check it and minimize it. Pages don't call scripts - I keep the graphics on the server.

      I do hope adblock stays as good as it is. I use NoScript, Gohstery and AB+ with Firefox for almost all my browsing around.

      As to Facebook - No account there. No interest. Some friends and family are on it, but they can call me if they have something to tell me. Same with Twitter - No interest, never go there. Waste of time.

      1. Ropewash
        Thumb Up

        Re: I'm wondering

        @ElsmarMarc

        You get all my upvotes.

        We need more people making pages that don't require 3 different blockers just to view them.

        Today I tried using my secondary browser that has no blocking enabled to view a blog that seemed to require cookies and JS and all that nastiness...

        ...Three clicks later the browser jammed solid with a badly scaled reproduction of a Microsoft alert page and two undismissable javascript pop-ups telling me that my computer was infected/hijacked/doomed and to call Microsoft support on the helpfully provided phone number that I'm sure would connect me to a nice Nigerian man who could then explain how "Microsoft" was going to fix this "infection"...

        ...On my Linux machine.

        I'm fair certain the creator of the site didn't intend for that to occur, but when you let every John on the stroll have a go at your CSS it's what's going to happen.

        1. Joe Drunk
          Alert

          Re: I'm wondering

          We need more people making pages that don't require 3 different blockers just to view them.

          Today I tried using my secondary browser that has no blocking enabled to view a blog that seemed to require cookies and JS and all that nastiness...

          ...Three clicks later the browser jammed solid with a badly scaled reproduction of a Microsoft alert page and two undismissable javascript pop-ups telling me that my computer was infected/hijacked/doomed and to call Microsoft support on the helpfully provided phone number that I'm sure would connect me to a nice Nigerian man who could then explain how "Microsoft" was going to fix this "infection"...

          ...On my Linux machine.

          Because this is what the internet has become. It is not the "shiny, happy place where everyone is your friend" experience that social media is brainwashing punters into believing. Your web browser is akin to some sort of sci-fi starship exploring space governed by a corrupt coalition that looks the other way when space pirates loot or destroy hapless vessels because of the percentage kickbacked to the coalition.

          Shields up! (Ublock, Noscript, Ghostery). Activate cloaking device (Tampermonkey Adblock cloaking script).

          1. oneeye

            Re: I'm wondering

            Shields up! (Ublock, Noscript, Ghostery). Activate cloaking device (Tampermonkey Adblock cloaking script).

            I actually use ublock origin, Self Destructing Cookies, and Https everywhere. But....

            Thanks, that was HILARIOUS ! especially considering I'm a Trekie. By the way, if anyone is a Star Trek fan, who loves Fan Films, please consider joining our small "facebook" group. Where I never see ads by the way. Small Access Group,FB

            https://m.facebook.com/groups/301105956896777?view=permalink&id=315998535407519&src=email_notif#!/groups/301105956896777?ref=bookmarks

            And that's curious, because I have never seen one ad in the couple small groups pages I visit. Even in the main News page I never use, but checked today. Maybe the app wrapper I use for the mobile internet facebook access I use. It is called " Tinfoil for facebook" and in playstore.

    3. LDS Silver badge

      Re: I'm wondering

      Possible, but those serving the ads want to retain control to use them as a tracking tool as well, especially since they have to send some (usually pretty faked) data to those gullible people who actually pay to show ads hoping for some promised return in some future life.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'm wondering

        If a site as big as Facebook starts serving ads from their own servers, they'll be blocked by CSS-style blocker rules in no time.

        As long as the ads follow a pattern, they can be blocked. FB can use anti-adblock javascript. Stubborn users can use m.facebook.com with JS disabled. FB can make the mobile site JS-mandatory. Users can rebel against JS... on and on it goes...

        Not that I care; I was using it a little but deleted my account this year. Even the wife has quit. People are starting to organize events the old-fashioned way. It's dead, dead, dead....

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: I'm wondering

          "As long as the ads follow a pattern, they can be blocked. FB can use anti-adblock javascript. Stubborn users can use m.facebook.com with JS disabled. FB can make the mobile site JS-mandatory. Users can rebel against JS... on and on it goes..."

          Simple. Ads can be text-based in nature and served inline to the content. No way to block it without blocking the content, too. Image-based ads can be baked into legit pictures from the article, again making it all-or-nothing. Using randomly-generated tags ensures (a) the visit can be traced, and (b) the ads can't be easily blocked because the content has a similar tag. No JavaScript or external content necessary, and the content's loading can be detected server-side, meaning there's no way to avoid it without at least downloading the content, wasting your bandwidth, and triggering the demographics.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Unhappy

          Re: I'm wondering

          @tnovelli

          "Not that I care; I was using it a little but deleted my account this year."

          No you didn't you merely hid it from view.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: I'm wondering

            @Lost all faith

            > > Not that I care; I was using it a little but deleted my account this year.

            > No you didn't you merely hid it from view.

            I'll never login again, though. It wasn't just Facebook's spying, it was the sum total of affronts that outweighed its slight usefulness to me, even before this adblock outrage.

            Now the network effect works against FB when other people realize they're wasting their time there if they hope to reach me. If enough people do this, it's game over for FB. That's the ultimate solution to this problem.

            1. Baskitcaise

              Re: I'm wondering

              To completely delete all here is a very good guide:

              http://mashable.com/2014/07/02/how-delete-facebook/#YblK8Z_tnmqs

              Yes a pain in the arse but the best way to make sure.

              HTH

    4. bazza Silver badge

      Re: I'm wondering

      I suppose there's also the question of who is responsible for the content. Content checking, management, hosting, click logging, etc. all takes time and money.

      And If you end up unwittingly serving up a nasty trojan-bearing ad the reputational damage is all yours! Using an ad broker at least spreads the blame around a bit.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: I'm wondering

        "And If you end up unwittingly serving up a nasty trojan-bearing ad the reputational damage is all yours! Using an ad broker at least spreads the blame around a bit."

        If you serve up a nasty from your own servers then you're open to actual damages so have good reason to be careful after the first time.* Irrespective of using an ad-broker you're likely to get the reputational damage anyway - the users don't see the broker.

        *Or maybe a whole lot of times if your CEO happens to be a baroness and you're a bit slow moving.

        1. MJI Silver badge

          Re: I'm wondering

          Lumped with it

          My wife set up an account for me!!!

          So I fill it up with as much rubbish as possible.

          Great place to shove gameplay videos on, pictures from within games, anything to fill it up, use from a OC, er no.

          I wonder what happened to the PSN trophy auto posting? That would nicely fill up fartbook as well.

          Photomode in Uncharted 4, how about those for interesting posts?

      2. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: I'm wondering

        Quote:

        "I suppose there's also the question of who is responsible for the content. Content checking, management, hosting, click logging, etc. all takes time and money.

        And If you end up unwittingly serving up a nasty trojan-bearing ad the reputational damage is all yours! Using an ad broker at least spreads the blame around a bit."

        Only yesterday I was shown a fraudulent advert by this very website:

        http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2016/08/10/Jamie_Jones_Scam_adverts_served_by_The_Register/

  5. Shadow Systems Silver badge

    FB force feeding ads?

    Who do you think you are, Windows 10?

    Between my browser's security settings & my HOSTS file, good fucking luck feeding me a damned thing. The fact that I don't have a FB account, don't visit the site, have blocked all your cookies, & will gleefully give you The Finger on both hands might be another hurdle you'll have difficulty clearing.

    Mister Fuckerberg can just Zuck right off.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: FB force feeding ads?

      Thank you. Facebook now probably has enough information to identify you. You probably haven't ID ALL of Facebook's domains, and they probably share some with legit sites so you can't block them without collateral damage. Next thing you know they'll have a fast-flux system so you end up playing whack-a-domain trying to stop them.

      Basically, the only way to stop them tracking you (whether you go to their site or not) is to get off the Internet. And who knows? Maybe they'll start tracking you through the post...

  6. Spoonsinger

    You can earn $1.5 bizallion in four months. Just click http://tiny.cc/001sdy

  7. ma1010 Silver badge
    Holmes

    Simple solution...

    ...is to bin Facebook in the first place. Don't use it. Never did. Never will.

    Of course, if you really like the "Facebook experience," that may be worth it to you, so your mileage may vary. My wife would be lost without it, and many others fall into that category. But I can't imagine wanting to use it or anything that basically sells my personal data to make money (bad enough), then wants to make yet MORE money by shoving ads at me that I can't block. Of course, this is an accepted business model - see Google et al.

    And now we have Microsoft going this one better: 1) They slurp your data, 2) They sling ads *AND* 3) They want you to *PAY* them for the "privilege" of using their operating system. You could even add a fourth item "while it's still in development and, at best, a beta version."

    P.T. Barnum was right, I guess.

    1. lorisarvendu

      Re: Simple solution...

      "Of course, if you really like the "Facebook experience," that may be worth it to you, so your mileage may vary. My wife would be lost without it, and many others fall into that category. But I can't imagine wanting to use it or anything that basically sells my personal data to make money (bad enough), then wants to make yet MORE money by shoving ads at me that I can't block. Of course, this is an accepted business model - see Google et al."

      I'm quite happy for Facebook to see my personal data to make money, since the only data they are selling is my anonymous Facebook account data. I have no data on my profile about where I work, what part of the country I'm in, or even my true age (I had to put something down, so input 1st January 1980). I had an argument with someone at work about this recently. They claimed that we were slurping data about our users, while I tried to point out that all they were picking up was our users' account names, which were linked to nothing about their actual real identities. He still didn't accept that N0458301942@our.company.co.uk didn't tell anyone anything about the person who the username belonged to, since it wasn't linked to their real name, address, age, sex, political affliation...in short nothing worthwhile.

      Going back to the ads though, there are two extremes here - legitimate web sites that have to use advertising and banners (remember them?) to generate revenue to offset the masses of free traffic that the site owner has to pay for, while at the other end we have sites that are practically unreadable through endless pop-ups and secondary pages that obscure the single page you actually want to read. Ad-blockers were created in response to the second of these, while unfortunately also scuppering the first.

      Facebook's ads can be annoying, but they appear to try and tread a middle ground between giving you the experience you want (and keeping you using the service) and funding the very page that you use for free.

      The alternative to this is the Paywall model, which should give a relatively ad-free experience, but which of course people also object to. "The Web Should Be Free!" they cry, ignoring the fact that it costs money to deliver web content, and where's that money going to come from? If ad-blockers had existed twenty years ago, sites like Twitter and Facebook (hell, even Google and Yahoo) probably wouldn't exist by now. And before you say that might be a good thing, bollocks to you. My Facebook friends list consists almost entirely of my extended family who are spread out all over the country, and there isn't a day goes by that I don't get to see and enjoy photos and videos of my young nephews, neices and cousins as they learn to walk and talk, play in their gardens, start at their new schools, attend their proms, graduate from their Universities, and eventually post their own videos of themselves getting wasted in fancy dress.

      You can't send 10 minute videos of junior winning the egg and spoon race at Sports Day by email, and you certainly can't send it through a land-line.

      The world is full of ads, from billboards to shop-windows, to newspapers and magazines. Facebook is no different.

      1. Alister Silver badge

        Re: Simple solution...

        and there isn't a day goes by that I don't get to see and enjoy photos and videos of my young nephews, nieces and cousins as they learn to walk and talk, play in their gardens, start at their new schools, attend their proms, graduate from their Universities, and eventually post their own videos of themselves getting wasted in fancy dress.

        Either you have an inordinate amount of relatives spread over a large age-range, or they live somewhere where time works differently to the rest of us!

        1. lorisarvendu

          Re: Simple solution...

          "Either you have an inordinate amount of relatives spread over a large age-range, or they live somewhere where time works differently to the rest of us!"

          I'm 54 years old. I have 3 children, 3 grandchildren, 2 nephews, 1 niece, 4 cousins, and 2 great-nephews under the age of 2. So yes I do see new pictures and videos every day. I assure you this isn't an unusual amount of relatives and time works perfectly normally where they are.

        2. VinceH Silver badge

          Re: Simple solution... @Alister

          Or he could simply have/come from a large family, covering a wide age range. Some of us do - I have over half a dozen siblings who between them have over twenty kids. Ages range from young enough to still be in nappies all the way up to mid-twenties.

          And that's without considering my cousins and their kids.

      2. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Simple solution...

        "They claimed that we were slurping data about our users, while I tried to point out that all they were picking up was our users' account names, which were linked to nothing about their actual real identities. He still didn't accept that N0458301942@our.company.co.uk didn't tell anyone anything about the person who the username belonged to, since it wasn't linked to their real name, address, age, sex, political affliation...in short nothing worthwhile."

        That's what YOU think. But the beauty about DE-anonymization is that they can build relationships between two seemingly unimportant pieces of data...which in turn get linked to other bits of data UNTIL one of them is linked to an important piece of data. All of a sudden, the entire chain of bits gets connected.

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Simple solution...

        "the only data they are selling is my anonymous Facebook account data" and that of "my extended family who are spread out all over the country, and there isn't a day goes by that I don't get to see and enjoy photos and videos of my young nephews, neices and cousins as they learn to walk and talk, play in their gardens, start at their new schools, attend their proms, graduate from their Universities, and eventually post their own videos of themselves getting wasted in fancy dress."

      4. EddieD

        Re: Simple solution...

        "He still didn't accept that N0458301942@our.company.co.uk didn't tell anyone anything about the person who the username belonged to"

        But if someone tags you in a photo, that facial information can - and will - be used to identify you in other images, either on facebook, or if the rumours are to be believed, anywhere on the interwebs, and using javascript see which other web sites you read, who your relations are - they will scan for keywords, e.g. grandson/father, nephew, etc, and from that, sure as eggs are eggs, facebook will put together exactly who n0458301942 is, where they live and where they work.

        There is no anonymity on the internet any more.

        1. lorisarvendu

          Re: Simple solution...

          I do wonder why the people who are concerned about loss of anonymity on the web not only still post on The Reg's forum, but probably several other forums as well. There kind of seems to be an underlying sense that being a member of Slashdot, Bitcointalk, Linuxquestions, TheRegister (to name but a few) is nice and safe (probably because they're cool) but because Facebook, Google and Yahoo are a) Bad Corporations and b) frequented by everyone else who isn't cool (i.e. Joe Public) then there's some sort of difference.

          1. William 3 Bronze badge

            Re: Simple solution...

            I only post on the register using triple VPNs, on triple level VM's, on triple level encrypted drives, each with their own browser filled to the gubbins with other peoples cookies, thus masquerading as those poor schmucks.

            I usually do this whilst sat outside your house, using your wifi.

            Ouch.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Simple solution...

              "I only post on the register using triple VPNs, on triple level VM's, on triple level encrypted drives, each with their own browser filled to the gubbins with other peoples cookies, thus masquerading as those poor schmucks.

              I usually do this whilst sat outside your house, using your wifi."

              And then you get hit with a Red Pill and it makes its way all the out to the metal. Game Over, man.

        2. Updraft102 Silver badge

          Re: Simple solution...

          Never allow someone who uses social media to take your picture. You might not see them doing it, so it's probably best to never hang out with such a person in the first place. And if I don't have a presence in FB, what would they tag me with? It's usually a link to some other person's profile, isn't it?

          1. EddieD

            Re: Simple solution...

            Nah, you can tag anyone, whether on facebook or not...

            http://tips.slaw.ca/2012/technology/tagging-people-who-do-not-use-facebook-in-photos-posted-on-facebook/

  8. fidodogbreath Silver badge
    Meh

    So FB is taking responsibility...

    ...for vetting each and every ad that runs on their network, 24/7/365.25, to ensure that it does not deliver a virus / ransomware / spyware / browser hijack payload to users.

    Right?

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: So FB is taking responsibility...

      "..for vetting each and every ad that runs on their network, 24/7/365.25, to ensure that it does not deliver a virus / ransomware / spyware / browser hijack payload to users."

      They're going to need to, aren't they? Because every slip gets to be expensive.

  9. Velv Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Irrelevant ads? Never.

    Not a day goes by where I don't wonder what type of jet engine I should buy so it's really useful Facebook keeps putting the Sonsored Links for Pratt & Whitney PT6 engine on my timeline.

    1. Not That Andrew

      Except the Pratt & Whitney PT6 is a turboprop turbine, so still irrelevant.

  10. Vimes

    Is this even legal?

    https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/725670443185790976

  11. Camilla Smythe Silver badge

    Uhm...

    Has anyone noticed FaceBook is smeared all over the Interwanks in much the same way that Google is and as such is spawning their cookies into your InterLooker such that even if you are not a 'member' they are still going to try and sell you the socks you bought last week.

    You can also find them, and the usual suspects, including doubleclick on the nhs.uk, page that deals with your itchy knob problem that might be Gonorrhoea but you did not wish to ask 'The Partner' so you went to a 'Trusted Source' who you thought would not share it with 'others'...

    'Hippocratic Oath' and such stuff...

    http://urlquery.net/domain_graph.php?id=1470769733369

    Ooops. Now DoubleClick, the advertising arm of Alphabet formerly known as Google along with the other Interlocutors.. and there will be more, knows you think you might have a Gonorrhoea problem.

    Presumably Mr Zuch (Known for his Zukkhini sized Penis Zucchini), Page, Brin and Pichai will be checking before they decide to 'get wet' with you whilst they sell off all of your data and pocket the profits from "Compare The Knob Cream Dot Com".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Uhm...

      For the last 5+ years, yup. Facebook, Twitter, Addthis... and Google's the worst. Some sites won't even function if you block google.com - they rely on google to serve JS and such.

      My solution: don't use those sites. (If I really must, I open them in a separate "google crap" browser profile.)

      1. Updraft102 Silver badge

        Re: Uhm...

        Blocking all of Google is likely to cause problems, but you can still block some of it... googletagservices and google-analytics are universally blocked on mine, but everything still works.

        You might want to try Privacy Badger (addon), if it is available for your browser. It sits in the background and simply watches until it sees tracking activity, at which time it blocks the tracking domains while leaving the rest of them available. If the page stops working, you can easily revert the tracked domains from red (full block) to yellow (allow but destroy cookies that are set) to green (allow all) as you see fit.

  12. dmacleo

    host file would still work correct?

    1. Stoneshop Silver badge

      Hosts file

      Unless ads are using IP addresses instead of FQDNs, it will.

      There are a number of domains my DNS claims to be authoritative for, telling anyone on the LAN that 0.0.0.0 is the right address for anything in for instance doubleclick.net. Saves a lot of effort keeping hostsfiles up to date.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

        Re: Hosts file

        Save yourself a few ergs by routing to Null0 instead :)

        1. dmacleo

          Re: Hosts file

          honestly have never tried that will study up on it, thanks

      2. dmacleo

        Re: Hosts file

        I have not yet seen seen ads using ip addresses but yeah thats something I had not thought of

    2. Gritzwally Philbin

      Yup. Set up with Ghostery. make a note of the ads coming in that are slipping past ABP or uBlock, and add to the hosts list. Problem solved.

      I run my browser with NoScript, uBLock and also have a monstrously edited hosts file and nothing gets through. I also haven't had a single site lock up on me in well over a year, which I credit to the hosts file.

  13. John Lilburne Silver badge

    Screw them ...

    "Facebook is one of those free services, and ads support our mission of giving people the power to share and making the world more open and connected."

    ... the only thing that most facebook users 'share' is the thoughts, images, videos, and music of others.

    1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

      Re: Screw them ...

      "Facebook is one of those free services, and ads support our mission of giving people the power to share and making the world more open and connected."

      Our mission of getting people to tell us the most intimate details of their lives so we can mine the hell out of the data and flog it to advertisers, to the greater glory of our shareholders.

      What me live in a place where I bought up the whole street so people couldn't invade my privacy? Nothing to see here, data subject, move along.

  14. malle-herbert Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    "give users greater control over their ad preferences"

    By getting them to tell you what kind of ads they like or don't like, thereby giving the advertisers even MORE personal information about themselves ?

  15. Efros

    They seem to be under the impression

    that we like ad content, and indeed won't use FB if the ads aren't there. In my case the opposite is true, FB is a means for me to keep in fairly regular contact with relatives and friends on 3 continents, the only thing that makes it usable is a collection of filters in ABP along with the facebook annoyances blocker. (http://facebook.adblockplus.me/)

    Filters for ABP

    facebook.com###u_0_0

    facebook.com##._4-u2._5v6e.cardRightCol._4-u8

    facebook.com##._4-u2._19ah._2ph_._4-u8

    facebook.com##.rhcFooterWrap

    facebook.com##.back

    facebook.com##.stickyHeaderWrap.clearfix

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: They seem to be under the impression

      One problem: ABP is ALSO an ad-slinger, as they WHITELIST certain companies who pay them.

      1. Efros

        Re: They seem to be under the impression

        That can be disabled.

  16. TechnicalBen Silver badge
    Trollface

    Facebook can...

    Break into my house and force me to use their site?

    1. Stoneshop Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: Facebook can...

      Soon they will, peon, soon they will.

  17. Barry Rueger Silver badge

    It's Not Ads Per Se....

    Even though I finally succumbed and installed an ad blocker, it wasn't because I have any great resentment to being served ads by the likes of Facebook or Twitter, it's because 98% of what they served up was entirely pointless, of no interest, and a waste of both my and the advertisers' time and money.

    Google, despite their faults, actually managed to push ads for stuff that I might want.

    Do advertisers really not understand that they're paying large amounts of money to have their message delivered to people who don't give a rats' ass about their product?

    Print media would never allow that - they sell a specific demographic to advertisers, and do it very well.

    You would think that, given the volume of data collected, on-line publishers could do the same.

  18. DougS Silver badge

    How are they going to do this exactly?

    If ad blocking software is working properly, the ads are blocked, how is Facebook getting around it? Are they serving them from facebook.com URLs indistinguishable from the URLs that serve content, so there's no way for the blockers to know what to block? Or are they detecting the presence of ad blocking and refusing to serve you anything unless it is disabled?

    It is all irrelevant anyway, as I never visit Facebook on a browser, only on my phone. There's no way to block ads in the mobile app, though fortunately the ads (i.e. sponsored pages) are fairly innocuous. The real problem with ads is when you leave Facebook to visit a site linked from Facebook, and you have to endure the horror of what the web looks like without ad blocking software (since it is using a browser built into the app instead of opening it externally via your phone's app, and their built in browser doesn't support the OS ad blocking or at least it doesn't on iOS)

    I imagine Facebook is probably getting a cut of those ads on linked sites, so they ought to be able to drop ads within the site itself entirely. Or I should say they "could" do it, but they won't because they're fucking greedy bastards.

    1. JetSetJim Silver badge

      Re: How are they going to do this exactly?

      > It is all irrelevant anyway, as I never visit Facebook on a browser, only on my phone. There's no way to block ads in the mobile app

      There's your first mistake. The FB app wants to slurp all your phone data - I guess at least now it's castratable with the permissions setting ability in Marshmallow, but up til then...

      As an alternate, view FB in the phone browser - giving you the chance to ad-block it if you can be bothered to install it and use that specific browser. Or indeed just add the ad-block plus extension to chrome - only a bit of a faff on unrooted phones

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: How are they going to do this exactly?

        Except I believe Facebook paid ABP to get whitelisted.

        1. JetSetJim Silver badge

          Re: How are they going to do this exactly?

          turn that off then, or use a different blocker

      2. paulf Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: How are they going to do this exactly?

        @JetSetJim

        "There's your first mistake. The FB app wants to slurp all your phone data ..."

        The other half found out the hard way that the FB app for iOS "helpfully" backs up all the photos on your phone to Facebook. How kind (not)! Even by Facebook standards this is the most monstrous invasion of privacy as the app should only be uploading photos specifically selected for the purpose not quietly deciding to upload the whole bloody lot. Even with the granular permissions of iOS there are still risks to allowing these slurping apps permission to do anything.

        @ Charles 9

        "Except I believe Facebook paid ABP to get whitelisted."

        I'd be surprised at that considering Zuck's claims about ABP and the whitelist charges in the article. That said, have you ever read through the whitelist? After sifting through pages of Google ad slinging and tracking shit I wondered why anyone would allow whitelisted ads to be shown as they do all the creepy tracking that you'd want an ad blocker to prevent.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          WTF?

          Re: How are they going to do this exactly?

          That said, have you ever read through the whitelist? After sifting through pages of Google ad slinging and tracking shit I wondered why anyone would allow whitelisted ads to be shown as they do all the creepy tracking that you'd want an ad blocker to prevent.

          Bloody hell! Thanks for the headsup. Turn that off and consider looking up the alternatives when I can be arsed.

          Thanks muchly for pointing out AdBlock's whitelist includes the crap you'd want to block most!

  19. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    Proof! that! Yahoo! not! really! dead! (Sponsored)

    I've been getting that zuckload of ads for a couple of weeks now making Facebook look like Yahoo News. You can click "Hide all ads from..." for an advertiser but it's useless against what seems to be infinite permutations of advertiser names.

    1. paulf Silver badge
      Pirate

      Re: Proof! that! Yahoo! not! really! dead! (Sponsored)

      And by selecting "Hide all ads from..." you're playing right into their hands of sorts as you're giving them more information on your advert preferences (other than the one you'd really like to give which is stuff your ads up your chuff, Zuck) which makes their targeting even more valuable (or so the theory goes).

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    A disaster in the making...

    I use adblockers. But not merely to get rid of annoying advertisements and pop-ups (my browser can handle the pop-ups on its own) but mostly to ensure the safety of my computer!

    When I go to a website then I have a good idea what kind of contents I can expect. But it'll always be a mystery to me where the advertisements are coming from. Worse yet: what is going to happen when the source of advertisements gets compromised and starts spreading malware or other virusses (don't try to argue that this could never happen, events from the recent past clearly proof otherwise)?

    So yeah, the moment a website tries to force me to remove my adblocker then the effect is very simple: said website will be removed from my favorites list(s) instead. There are tons more websites which can provide me with the same experience, thank you very much.

    But back to my initial comment: this is a disaster just waiting to happen. Because what's going to happen when FB's advertising source gets compromised and its proven that FB has (indirectly) started spreading malware and other junk?

    Their desire for more revenue could very well lead to their own downfall.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: A disaster in the making...

      "So yeah, the moment a website tries to force me to remove my adblocker then the effect is very simple: said website will be removed from my favorites list(s) instead. There are tons more websites which can provide me with the same experience, thank you very much."

      So you say, but after Kickass went down, no viable alternative appears. If there's only ONE source for the same experience, is it "Walking on the Sun" time?

      "But back to my initial comment: this is a disaster just waiting to happen. Because what's going to happen when FB's advertising source gets compromised and its proven that FB has (indirectly) started spreading malware and other junk?"

      The option has been open for a long time now: just have Facebook itself and the world's your digital oyster.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Remember those days?

    When websites used to put out to tender for advertising, and it was all fairly target market orientated and relevant? All hosted on the site locally, under the webmasters control. Good days. Probably paid more too.

    I used to run one of the largest community websites for a very popular war sim and the developers and publishers used to sign contracts with us for six months of ad hosting for their other related titles for, if I recall, £200-£300 a month based on our pagehits which were huge.

    Life was simpler.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    OK, let's catch that lie: Facebook is NOT free.

    From the article (and FB, apparently): The social network notes that, as a free service, it has to use the ads to bring in revenues.

    Let's nail this one right away: do not Facebook claim that it is free because it is not. You ARE paying for Facebook (and some may say dearly) by supplying it with access to your personal life and even that of your friends (for which Facebook doesn't need to have any of their permission as that is a large omission in privacy laws).

    I would actually like to ask El Reg for stopping to perpetuate the myth that services like Facebook, Google and Twitter are free. As long as your data and activities are analysed, as long as Terms & Conditions claim free access to your information and content and as long as you cannot prevent any of that without losing what is laughingly referred to as a "service", a claim of things being "free" is misleading enough that it ought to be picked up by Trading Standards, together with "Free" WiFi when you need to provide your details first.

    Stop this myth, please.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: OK, let's catch that lie: Facebook is NOT free.

      100%

      Even when you block ads, you're gifting your copyrighted material to Facebook. Content which attracts people who do click ads.

      Since Facebook create nothing themselves, and bandwidth only ever gets exponentially cheaper over time, you are the only thing of value in their business.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: OK, let's catch that lie: Facebook is NOT free.

        Even when you block ads, you're gifting your copyrighted material to Facebook. Content which attracts people who do click ads.

        Worse, even when you're not even IN Facebook you're being tracked by all those nice "Facebook" buttons on other webpages (ditto for any of those other data grabbers such as Goggle and Twatter) which is why filtering webpages is now pretty much mandatory - they quite happily do this without your permission as the worst they can expect is a minuscule fine.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: OK, let's catch that lie: Facebook is NOT free.

      "You ARE paying for Facebook"

      An alternative view is that you're not paying for Facebook. You are what Facebook is selling - to anyone who wants a slice of you.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "our mission.... making the world more open & connected."

    *. Does anyone working at Facebook actually believe this? FB is a cult, with the head priest a kind of data-sociopath. Think about it... It would help explain how Zuk sleeps well as night knowing he's really tracking users down to their behavioral DNA.

    *. Why else would FB sanction experiments to influence user emotion via news feeds! So what's next in connecting the world? Influencing public opinion on a range of issues important to Facebook & its real *paying* users....

    *. How long until elections are decided by FB commentary ala Fox-TV-News... Or Government policy... Or Corporate agendas / spin.... Its already happening...

    *. But soon it'll be on a whole other level, as 'shared data' (just posts you pause on) are used to re-influence your opinion towards that of Facebook! No tinfoil, its real:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-07-03/what-else-is-facebook-doing

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36854292

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "our mission.... making the world more open & connected."

      Does anyone working at Facebook actually believe this?

      At FB, yes, anyone outside, not a chance..

  24. gnufrontier

    Embrace the futility

    Not really being a person who shares much of anything and thinks that if there is something important fro me to know then those who are important to me will contact me, FB offers nothing I want. I will hand it to Zuck though, it is a lemmings magnet.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't have much sympathy for Facebook users

    Let them suffer at the hands of advertising companies.

  26. Jonski

    "Facebook is one of those free services, and ads support our mission of..." making obscene profits from you providing us with information regarding every bowel movement and facial tick you've ever made.

    Fixed it for you Zuck!

  27. Richie 1

    How does it work?

    How do they intend to circumvent the Ad-Blocker software?

    Do the ads come from the facebook.com domain, or somewhere else? If the latter, then they ought to be blocked by default using FireFox RequestPolicy addon (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy/) or similar.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: How does it work?

      And if the former, meaning blocking the ads blocks the content, meaning you can't get in touch with family overseas where Facebook practically IS the Internet (just go to third-world Asia and see; I have)?

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: How does it work?

        "where Facebook practically IS the Internet"

        Only because the mugs have allowed it to be so.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: How does it work?

          Well, they use feature phones for the most part, live in conditions where power isn't a certainty, AND they outvote you.

  28. RobTub

    FB Useful

    Facebook is useful. With it, it is easier to join in discussions with a lot of sites. I just very seldom go into Facebook itself.

    1. Credas Silver badge

      Re: FB Useful

      Using a common Facebook login for website comment sections and forums is possibly one of the most privacy-intrusive ways of using Facebook. Rather than just trivia about what your cats are doing today, they can reveal your thoughts and opinions across a wide range of interests.

  29. Medixstiff

    Failbook needs to up their advertising game.

    I only have an account to keep track of my sisters family in the UK but just about every ad they post is one of those "horny women in your area" friggin' things that you can find on most pr0n sites.

    Obviously Failbook doesn't consider itself a "family" site.

  30. David 138

    You know that the internet is optional? You guys can go back to writing your own content on A4 paper? Or you could start a movement so that everyone pays for access to sites!!! whats that you dont want to pay? People blocking ads will mean less people use them which will mean more garbage ads and less content. the ads most people hate are sites that no one would want to advertise on or providers desperate for revenue. By blocking ads surely your just making this worse? And to those who say "If i have to see ads i'll go somewhere else" You chose to use an ad blocker rather than avoid a site so i doubt that.

    1. lorisarvendu
      Happy

      "You know that the internet is optional? You guys can go back to writing your own content on A4 paper? Or you could start a movement so that everyone pays for access to sites!!! whats that you dont want to pay? People blocking ads will mean less people use them which will mean more garbage ads and less content. the ads most people hate are sites that no one would want to advertise on or providers desperate for revenue. By blocking ads surely your just making this worse? And to those who say "If i have to see ads i'll go somewhere else" You chose to use an ad blocker rather than avoid a site so i doubt that."

      Have your 1st upvote. I wish I could give you more.

    2. Charles 9 Silver badge

      "You guys can go back to writing your own content on A4 paper?"

      Last I checked, we don't have matter transporters yet and not everyone has a facsimile machine, so instant global communication that isn't point to point raises issues.

      "Or you could start a movement so that everyone pays for access to sites!"

      Unless your content is both high-demand and exclusive, paywalls tend to be a downvote for you, history has proven.

      "By blocking ads surely your just making this worse?"

      Worse to the point they have to make a leap of faith: either go all in or check out.

      "You chose to use an ad blocker rather than avoid a site so i doubt that."

      Wanna BET? For many, they think the Internet is becoming a cesspit and are checking out of the Internet...COMPLETELY. At least back in reality they just have to deal with cold calls, billboards, and junk mail.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "At least back in reality they just have to deal with "

        "cold calls" reported for calling a TPS line - fines incoming

        "billboards" very few here - it's rural area - and easily ignored

        "and junk mail" goes back into the post box - I don't care whether it's the advertisers or their side-kicks, the Royal Mail who pay for return to sender, they're all the same to me.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          ""cold calls" reported for calling a TPS line - fines incoming"

          Call comes from an international number: sovereignty kicks in and the fine is unenforceable.

          ""billboards" very few here - it's rural area - and easily ignored"

          Except probably on the trunk roads which are your key ways in and out. Can you say "chokepoint"? It's certainly true in America.

          ""and junk mail" goes back into the post box - I don't care whether it's the advertisers or their side-kicks, the Royal Mail who pay for return to sender, they're all the same to me."

          Except it's the people who pay for the mail ultimately, through postage fees and stamp rates. Keep doing that and you can expect the rates to go up, meaning the people STILL foot the bill.

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      'And to those who say "If i have to see ads i'll go somewhere else" You chose to use an ad blocker rather than avoid a site so i doubt that.'

      Indeed you can doubt it. There's no guarantee that you're right.

  31. Hans 1 Silver badge

    I could not stand Zuck's face, there, so I "ad blocked" it!

  32. DailyLlama

    You know, since I started using AdBlock Plus, and OpenDNS to filter out advertising domains, I haven't had a single thing caught by my Anti-Virus efforts in almost 18 months... and that's a weekly full scan with Vipre and a monthly full scan with Malwarebytes.

    Just saying..

  33. Tom 7 Silver badge

    Diaspora

    really need to get an install of diaspora for the RaspberryPi with DDNS and all that crap so people can just set it up with the minimum of effort.

    Once I get off the Vulture of course

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Diaspora

      Not gonna work. It's like with yacy and freenet. You get hit in the bandwidth costs. AFAIK, efficient decentralized (and possibly anonymous) networking is a physical impossibility because efficiency necessarily creates identifiable traces.

  34. smartypants

    Best advert on Facebook is...

    A gurning picture of Zuckerberg with a like request button next to it.

    On the rare occasion I have gone in there, his face helps me to try hard never to go back.

  35. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    I wonder if they've considered a pay-for-ad-free option.

  36. Yugguy

    "cut down on intrusive or annoying ads."

    Er, EVERY AND ALL ads are annoying and unwanted.

    That's why we have adblockers you colossal fuckmongs.

    1. PapaD

      Re: "cut down on intrusive or annoying ads."

      This will only be viable for me if they include the option to say 'all ads are intrusive and no valid for me'

      Otherwise, Adblockers will continue to be my choice (I have to use the un-adblocked internet at work, and it can make reviewing a whole bunch of website an exercise in painful browsing)

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: "cut down on intrusive or annoying ads."

        "I have to use the un-adblocked internet at work"

        Clearly one of those businesses that can't deal with problems pro-actively. Once they get a malware hit blocking will be compulsory.

  37. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    Only safe thing to do... nuke it from orbit.

  38. Jess

    noscript + https://mbasic.facebook.com/

    The only ads I see are suggested posts.

  39. Wonder Warthog

    Pay to be harassed

    Though I'm not sure how the business model works if inserted ads are not subsequently clicked (do you convince advertisers that the 'potential' for clicking exists, and that they should therefore pay to have the ad displayed?), until/unless the sites injecting the ads into of the content I actually want to see pay me for the bandwidth they consume from my data plan, I'll block all ads all the time from everyone with any method available.

    This utter waste of my money has been estimated at between 25% and 40% of my data usage (http://venturebeat.com/2015/07/08/blocking-ads-can-cut-network-traffic-25-to-40-study-shows/). I don't care if some business 'relies' on web advertising...the data I pay for monthly is not theirs to use. Pay me or find another income method. But stop griping about 'your' loss when I'm footing the bill.

  40. Brian Allan 1

    Just Annoying

    All internet adverts are just annoying. I seldom ever read them and have never clicked on one. Why bother?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019