Hi Professor,

Here is a link to my ad-blocking assignment!

https://hackmd.io/@aadouko/H1WSJ1Ex-l

Best, Athalia Adouko

Dear Professor Reagle,

I hope this email finds you well! Here’s my required reading response for today: https://hackmd.io/@VNSFbBHkS4mR-HHppIp6Sw/HJXOThVlWg

Please let me know if you would like any more information. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks and Regards, Rohan Biju

---

Online ads & blockers

Adblocker Assignment

Before U-Block Origin Adblocker

After U-Block Origin Adblocker

Reading Response

Advertising is eating itself alive through a bizarre paradox where “the more targetable that an ad medium is, the less it’s worth.” Don Marti makes a counterintuitive argument that targeted ads actually destroy the fundamental value of advertising as a credible signal. Historically, expensive ads worked because they demonstrated a company’s confidence in its product. If you’re willing to spend big money on a glossy magazine ad that everyone sees, you believe in what you’re selling. But targeted ads break this mechanism entirely. Marti shows how advertisers now openly admit, “we’re going to place ads there for a little bit, we’re going to drop cookies, we’re going to figure out who your readers are, we’re going to find out what other websites they go to that are way cheaper than your website, and then we’re gonna pull our ads.” This creates a classic market failure where quality publishers lose revenue to cheap content farms, advertisers waste money on surveillance infrastructure that makes their ads appear less credible, and users respond by ad-blocking. Sven Taylor reveals Adblock Plus charges companies a 30% licensing fee to whitelist their ads, meaning ad blockers are literally getting paid to show certain ads. Finally, Ax Sharma shows malware being distributed through legitimate Google ads for GIMP.

What strikes me is how this connects to the consequences we’re seeing everywhere now. YouTube has shifted to longer unskippable ads and aggressive premium pushing. Netflix and other streaming services are pivoting back to ad-supported tiers after years of claiming ads were obsolete. X’s advertising relationship collapsed entirely when brands realized that the platform couldn’t credibly signal quality anymore. This seems like a tragedy of the commons where the “free” ad-supported internet model is fundamentally unsustainable. Individual companies can’t resist the short-term gains of targeting, but collectively they’re destroying the medium’s value. Maybe advertising only works when it’s expensive and hard to target. This is when companies have to actually commit resources in a way everyone can see, rather than quietly tracking individuals across the web.

Hey Professor Reagle, Here is my practical for today’s class and below is the markdown. See you soon! Best, Sara

Online ads & blockers

Ad Blocking

Before:

After:

Reading Response

The promise of targeted advertising was simple: ads would become so personalized and relevant that users would actually want to see them. Instead, as these readings reveal, the opposite happened. The more ads learned to follow us around the web, the faster we learned to block them, and the less valuable online advertising became for everyone except for the intermediaries.

The economics behind this failure are surprisingly elegant. Traditional advertising worked as a “signaling” (Marti, 2017) mechanism, where expensive ad placement demonstrated a company’s confidence in its product quality. A full page ad in a glossy magazine costs serious money and stays there permanently for all subscribers to see, which tells consumers something meaningful about the advertiser’s commitment. But targeted ads destroy this signal. When I see an ad following me across websites, I automatically assume the algorithm has followed me, deciding I’m it’s latest sucker who might buy whats left on the shelf. As Marti notes, print advertising still makes more money when compared to online display ads, 3.94$ return per dollar spent compared to 2.63$ for online ads.

I experienced this first hand after installing an ad blocker on Chrome. I visited thesaurus.com and saw it transform from cluttered chaos, with ads interrupting text, banners everywhere, into a clean, usable page. Now, I can’t go back, how did I ever stomach the old website?!

Though, ad blockers themselves are proving to not be as reliable as we once thought. Major services like AdBlock Plus now are accepting payments from advertisers, up to 30% of additional revenue, to approve “acceptable ads” that still track users. Most disturbing is the malware problem. Google ads for legitimate software like GIMP have redirected users to phishing sites distributing info stealing websites disguised as perfectly normal that can harvest passwords, crypto currency wallets, and personal files.

Through all this I still find myself wondering, should users be expected to protect themselves from hoards of ads? Or is it on the big advertisers to prevent malware from penetrating the average internet user?

Ad Blocking https://hackmd.io/kTGqUfmTSiKeDS6VYft7ZA

## Nov 14 Fri - Online ads & blockers Many internet users pay hundreds of dollars for online subscriptions like Netflix, Spotify, or New York Times, but what about paying for a subscription to block ads? While internet users can pay for ads to be blocked, the question that arises is what happens to those companies that pay for their advertisements to be displayed? The issue with downloading an ad-blocker is that many times they do not fully work. While some advertisements may be blocked, some companies will use a program called “Acceptable Ads”, in order for their ads to still be shown to users. Shockingly enough, “Around 90% of the participants in the initiative do not have to pay a fee since they don’t get enough additional ad impressions.” (Taylor). I think this statistic goes to show that big companies will always hold the power over individuals who use the internet and pay to have ads removed but are over passed.

Another thing that I found very interesting was that “Google lets publishers create ads with two different URLs: a display URL to be shown in the ad, and a landing URL where the user will actually be taken to.” (Sharma). This seems like a form of disinformation, and I am surprised that such a big company like Google would allow this, especially since many of the false sites could be harmful to users. Given this information, I think that users should be able to easily block ads. Not only does blocking ads allow for less annoyance on the users end, but it is also a safety issue, and blocking ads can save users from that.

Before Ad Blocker

After Ad Blocker

Here is the link to the homework page: https://hackmd.io/@w9OlQyKiSGmwVtySkM7rLw/BkvcaoQgWx And the link to my home page : https://hackmd.io/@w9OlQyKiSGmwVtySkM7rLw/rkvB8mooex Thank you.

Best regards,

Lissa Herrera

---

She/her.

B.S Biology, Expected 2028.

Herrera.li@northeastern.edu

NUID: 002365278

Good Evening,

Below are the links to the homepage and the assignment, along with the markdown.

Homepage: https://hackmd.io/@Zl89uXlCQ7mhk5UPRPU93Q/HydS-eC5xx Ad Blocker: https://hackmd.io/@Zl89uXlCQ7mhk5UPRPU93Q/SyvSvPe2ge

Markdown: Ad Blocker

Ad Blocker: Before and After 1. Buzzfeed Before: After:

2. YouTube Before: After:

3. Macy’s Before: After:

Reading Response:

Did you know that certain ad-block extensions do not block all ads? A program called Acceptable Ads collaborates with several popular ad blocker extensions that allow certain ads to bypass blocking. Under this program, up to 200 million ad-blocker users worldwide are seeing the ads that companies pay to be shown. This creates a confusing expectation of what ad blockers are supposed to do. They were created to block all ads, but when some ads are allowed, it undermines the purpose and confuses users. Additionally, ad blockers provide information on the acceptable ads, but this information is often hard to access, isn’t obvious, nor clearly labeled. One of the biggest ethical concerns this article raises is how the participants in the Acceptable Ads program are not required to refrain from tracking users or collecting data. This means that even if ads seem “clear” and “not suspicious,” there is a chance that they may engage in privacy-invasive practices. Due to this concern, it is clear that in some cases, acceptable ads are not necessarily safer but equally invasive. People who are using these ad blockers may not realize that tracking can potentially happen. It creates a false sense of security for the users who think they are being protected when, in reality, they could be exposed. Lastly, the article ends with how all ad blockers should block all ads or be more honest and transparent about the acceptable ads. They advise users to choose an ad blocker that does not participate in the program, such as uBlock Origin or AdGuard.

Bots such as ChatGPT or Perplexity are now capable of creating realistic images and strong writing, and the consequences will most likely reflect on some of the concerns mentioned in the article. Transparency is a rising problem where being honest and open about your work is going to be harder to maintain. Like how ad blocker companies hide information about the acceptable ads, AI can do the same by making it hard to differentiate what is real and what is automated. It will be increasingly harder to recognize when people are being influenced. Like previously mentioned, the acceptable ads can track users without users knowing. This is similar to how AI systems are trained to collect great amounts of data. This presents another consequence where privacy concerns and manipulation become harder to detect because of data collection. All in all, AI systems and bots can harm people in ways such as enabling manipulation, limiting privacy, and blurring the line between real and fake information.

Best, Tammi

Link

Before Ad Blocker

After Ad Blocker

---

Not many people would choose to browse a site flooded with pop-ups and floating ads that distract users while tracking their activity for consumer data. So is it wrong for people to want to block ads? Individuals should have the freedom to install ad blockers. Lekander (2020) explores threats posed by online advertising, explaining that “the advertising networks frequently install trackers on your device.” A drawback to ad blockers is the decrease in revenue for companies that rely on ad sales, but these companies could turn instead to sponsorships or direct donations from users willing to pay to maintain free content and services.

To mitigate revenue loss from ad blockers, companies should revisit offline advertising strategies and develop creative ways to capture consumer attention. In an online world saturated with ads, it can be difficult to stand out, and as Marti notes, “web ads are consistently less valuable to advertisers than ads in older media.” Looking back at successful campaigns that generated strong consumer engagement, celebrity endorsements, or collaborations stand out, such as Travis Scott’s partnership with McDonald’s to create the Travis Scott Meal, or Coca-Cola’s Share a Coke with campaign, which encouraged people to find drinks with the name of loved ones and share them.

These offline and experimental marketing techniques demonstrate that companies can still generate attention and revenue without relying solely on intrusive online ads. There are countless creative strategies that encourage consumers to interact with products in meaningful ways. For these reasons, users should be able to install ad blockers without penalty, as effective methods of advertising do not have to rely on online methods solely.

Connor Matulonis

Home Page https://hackmd.io/XXijy5XpQl-o48Kqt-_-ew Reading Responses https://hackmd.io/_uJTP5_KTs-f9oG9MV44zQ

Reading Response 1

To begin, I think it is insane that adblockers are willing to sell out to advertisers to make some money by showing “acceptable ads”. Generally speaking, when a user downloads an adblock, typically off the chrome web store, they can assume that there will be no more popups or ads on their content. However, a lot of these ads can be used by advertisers to collect information, so it isn’t just a nuisance. Ever since I discovered the chrome web store, I’ve started using adblockers. I hated having the content I wanted to get to covered up, as well as numerous ads throughout YouTube videos. However, it turns out that since 2011, the adblocker I first started using was already selling out to show acceptable ads “in support of the website.”

It is a little irritating when products follow you everywhere due to tracking from those ads. According to the opt in page on AAX, they collect viewing information from users to personalize the user’s future ads, which defeats the entire purpose of getting an ad blocker within the program. At a certain point, I had gotten tired of having to install ad blockers, some that don’t even work (likely because it was AdBlock Plus or something similar), and swapped to Brave, which blocks ads by default. On top of that, I had downloaded a second ad blocker out of pettiness, as some ads just won’t leave me alone. I do also notice a lot of websites asking user’s to turn off their ad blockers, and refusal to do so might prevent my access or sometimes add a delay before I can enter a website.

Home Page: https://hackmd.io/x-FASIIQTNioc1TphKDTLA Adblocking: https://hackmd.io/CKwZDFDgQSOCkqGhOslflA Markdown: Online ads & blockers

Online Ads and Blockers

Before Installing an Adblocker

After installing an Adblocker

Chrome Super Ad Blocker

Nov 14 Fri - Online ads & blockers

We believe that ad blockers completely remove ads from websites we visit, but many of these companies allow certain ads to be shown because they profit from the “acceptable ads” programs. As we’ve discussed in a past class about advertisements and my last reading response, advertisers will always find a way to reach audiences. They do this by paying money to be labeled as “acceptable,” therefore, ad blockers allow them to come through even when we have the blockers enabled. Ad blockers don’t eliminate the ads we see; they just filter them. The ads that are shown are from companies that can most likely afford to pay to be displayed. People should be able to completely block ads on the websites they visit because they track us without consent.

In his findings, Alex Lekander states, “Based on recent estimates, ads from a select group of advertisers are appearing on the screens of up to 200 million ad blocker users worldwide thanks to a program called Acceptable Ads.” (Lekander 2020). Ad blockers don’t always do what we think they do. Advertising industries have manipulated their way through to keep their content visible. We believe they are protecting our online experience, but in reality, they will always find ways to reach audiences through paid exceptions called “acceptable ads.” Because of this, people should have the right to completely block ads. If advertisers can pay to keep them visible, we should be able to take control of their privacy and online experience without being forced to accept ads we specifically blocked.

We should have the right to our privacy when visiting websites, but blocking the ads takes away the revenue that keeps that content free. Don Marti quotes AOL CEO Tim Armstrong, “only 25% - 45% of online ad spending makes it as far as the publisher.” (Marti). Marti also found “40% of digital advertising budgets going to ’working media.” (Marti). When it comes to the “who pays” question, websites get less than half of the money when you visit. The rest of the money doesn’t reach the people who made the content you’re seeing.

Users should have the full right to block ads and protect their privacy online. “Acceptable ads” continue to track us, even though we install ad blockers in hopes of blocking them completely. Even when we think they may protect us, advertisers will still find ways to buy their way onto your screen. Targeted ads harm both us and publishers. Because the tracking invades our privacy, while the revenue fails to keep the content free. Our online experience is never truly in our control.

I used AI to clarify quotes and make them easy to understand. This response is my own idea. Not copied from AI.

Dear Dr. Reagle,

I hope this message finds you well! :)

Homepage: https://hackmd.io/jZYF64BISuKK-hiQpP-xVg?both Adblocking & Reading Response: https://hackmd.io/BvxRdcEVS2e2zjCzexPljA?both

Markdown:

Adblocking

Reading Response

Nov 14 Fri - Online ads & blockers

Sometimes online ads know we browsed Sephora before we even remember. When we open Nike minutes later and see the same Sephora product again, it proves how online ads “follow them around.” Online advertising has become what Marti (2017) calls a “market for lemons,” where “tracking and data leakage” make ads less trustworthy. Specifically, Marti argues that “targeted advertising is considered harmful” not because ads annoy people but because “retargeting… causes users to see ads following them around from one site to another.” In fact, this destroys the “signaling” action that comes from credible publishers. Meanwhile, Lekander (2020) also points out how this broken system extends even to ad blockers. For example, through “acceptable ads,” companies can be “paying off” ad-blocking firms to “gain access to screens, track user, and undermine the true purpose of an ad blocker,” which users are automatically “opted-out,” since the function is “on by default” like a surveillance.

Sharma (2022) shows how a Google ad redirected users from the lookalike site GIMP.org to gilimp.org by adopting the difference between a “display URL” and a “landing URL.” It served malware of a 700MB VIDAR infostealer disguised as an installer. Therefore, online ads are shifting from a funding source into a security risk that exposes users.

While reading these three articles, it brought me back to Stokes’s (2014) online advertising concepts, including “banner ads,” “clickthrough rates,” “paid search advertising,” and “display networks,” which are tools to expand reach, yet they also make “data leakage,”whitelisting,” and “malvertising” from the three readings possible. Additionally, this connects to what I learned about brand context in my Media, Culture, and Society course in which websites use positive ads to shape reputation. However, as Marti states, signaling collapses once ads rely on an “automated system” instead of context. In that case, blocking ads protects privacy. Most importantly, it links back to who pays for the web, and to Marti’s argument that a healthy advertising system should be based on context and publishers.

Application

I used BBC News as the website to test. My browser was Chrome, and I installed uBlock Origin Lite as the ad blocker. As the screenshots show, before enabling the extension, the BBC page displayed a hero banner for Rolex. After turning on uBlock Origin Lite, the page removed all advertisements and only showed the Stranger Things content I was reviewing.

Before

After

Sincerely, Yun-Chen (Janet) Wu

Hi Professor Here is my HackMD page with the screenshots and reading response: https://hackmd.io/@JamesGordon0724/SkqPWd7lbe Please let me know if anything needs to be adjusted. Thank you! Best Yanjun You