They call it “dark traffic” - ads that are not seen by tech-savvy users who have excellent ad blockers.

Not surprised that its growing. The web is unusable without an ad blocker and its only getting worse, and will continue to get worse every month.

  • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    163
    ·
    6 days ago

    The use of the term “Dark traffic” here is to paint the use of ad-blockers as something nefarious. Don’t use it, fuck these people right in their stupid mouths.

    I propose using the terms “clean traffic”, for ad-blocked website traffic, and “dogshit traffic” for everything else.

    • grueling_spool@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      6 days ago

      Maybe we could turn it around: adblockers are tools that block ads and other kinds of dark traffic such as trackers and malicious scripts.

    • DicJacobus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      depending on your household’s browsing habits, it can be downright insane how much traffic goes through ones network (and the web at large), that is just nothing but dog shit.

      I monitored my pihole at my place and my own traffic is usually no more than 15% garbage with about 750,000 domains blocked, but the second grandma or grandpa starts doomscrolling boomer things on their phones and ipads. I saw the network traffic at 60% blocked one time and I had to confront them and flatly ask them “what the fuck are you doing on your phone?”

      also set up a Region exemption or whatever, blocking russian, chinese, and a whole bunch of other untrustworthy TLDs and im literally showing my grandmother the repeated attempts to communicate with something in fucking China in real time whilst she’s playing some solitare game she downloaded.

      • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        I saw the network traffic at 60% blocked one time and I had to confront them and flatly ask them “what the fuck are you doing on your phone?”

        Be careful of the answer. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

        • DicJacobus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          rhetorical question, I know what she’s doing, clicking on random shit and then blaming other people for her problems.

          every intrusive advertisement or popup. “I got hacked” every wrong website she goes to “this is a scam”

        • DicJacobus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          both of them shield, coddle, and enable a 53 year old man who is an overt Nazi and purge/mass death obsessed eugenicist freak, (my uncle), a lot more needs to be said to them honestly.

    • x0x7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      6 days ago

      They are so short sighted to. Ad blocker help advertizers. It allows sites to fill up sites with ads to the point of being unusable while not losing 100% of traffic. That keeps these site relevant enough that old people who don’t have ad blockers end up there too when they follow links or google ranks a site high because it has traffic.

      If they got rid of all ad block somehow they would have to decrease the ads because I wouldn’t use the web. Or online communities would be way more conscious of the ad level of the things they link to.

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 days ago

        The tech community is pacified into not taking action against the polluters by our adblockers because we don’t see the egregious ads and so we don’t fight the good fight for the user.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 days ago

          Ad blockers are the fight. Those users who can’t be bothered to learn a bit about the devices they spend so much time on aren’t owed anything.

          What does “fighting the good fight” even look like to you in this context, anyways?

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 days ago

            those users who can’t be bothered to learn
            snooty tech elitism

            What does “fighting the good fight” even look like to you in this context, anyways?
            We built the entire infrastucture, we can poison it’s business model.

            When the first banner ad appeared on the web, the condemnation was not loud enough and it was allowed to fester.
            At this points these entities have become large enough that the evil practice that could have been snuffed out, is now being accepted.
            Now every slimey thing on the internet is due for the mother of all crackdowns. Something like the GDPR times 911.

            I’m not in the mood for centrist technocratic measured solution at the moment.
            If it makes more than a million a year and it’s using any kind of psychological tactics,
            that’s advertising, sponsored search, dark patterns, then BURN IT ALL DOWN

            • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              6 days ago

              The tech community came up with a technical solution to the ad problem. If the solution you’re looking for isn’t technical, why is your focus on the tech community?

              Anyone can learn this shit. Use any search engine, type “how to block internet ads”, and you’ll see results with “firefox” and “ublock origin”, that can then be put into “how to get” follow up searches.

              The current state of ads is being accepted by those who don’t block them. Everyone who does block them (or refuses to visit ad cancer sites) has cut off that source of revenue, but those who just choose to accept the default option enable them by not just seeing the ads but even sometimes clicking them and buying shit.

    • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Something simple that people would ask why you want it. Also needs to be non-aggressive. Like non-content traffic. Why would you want something that is not the content?

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    6 days ago

    The trade body called it “illegal circumvention technology”, said 12ft.io has been locked by its web host, and promised to take similar action against other paywall bypassing technologies.

    Just because you send bits to my network does not oblige me to render them. That’s like saying I broke the law back when I had cable and changed channels during ad breaks. Falls flat on its face.

    • reshuffle6655@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Tangentially related but britta filters actually suck as far as I know; they’re like the worst water filter for removing materials. Did a test myself with a fresh filter - 105 ppm tap to around 72 ppm vs 0 ppm for zero water pitchers and around 30ish for epic, it’s been a bit so the numbers are rough for the britta and epic but I test my tap and ZW pitcher routinely.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    6 days ago

    Website: “You appear to be using an ad blocker.” Me: “You appear to be correct.”

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    ·
    7 days ago

    People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

    You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

    Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

    You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

    – Banksy

  • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Advertisers do not have the right to demand my attention, or to brainwash me. I have every right to deny them and decide what to allow inside my head. This is war.

    “We paid for the right to show you this!”

    You paid for the opportunity not the right, but you didn’t pay me, motherfucker – and my price is everything you have or fuck off and die.

    Edit: You know what? This is how I really feel about ads.

    This is a consent issue, and I will not allow advertisers inside me. They hire psychologists in order to exploit humans’ most vulnerable mental blind spots. They don’t just brainwash us. They mindfuck the entire human species, and they do not recognize consent. We need to treat advertising as the collective mindr*pe that it is, otherwise they will never stop exploiting us, and we will never be able to build a bright future for humanity and this world. They are manipulating the trajectory of an entire species with zero regard to any future well-being. The butterfly effects are inconceivable. Our minds are sacred. The advertising industry is committing a crime against humanity that we have failed to recognize as such, because money is all that matters today. They must be stopped before Big Tech perfects brain-computer interfaces.

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    6 days ago

    I used to maintain a website for a bicycling club in my county that was great for getting people into biking, getting people out the house, making friends, and staying fit.

    We had a banner ad along the top of the site for a local bicycle/bicycle repair shop that aided the club a lot and was very reasonable.

    He got something out of it (publicity and a seal of approval towards the value/quality of his work), and we got something out of it (money to run the site, and a bit left over for things like puncture repair kits and the occasional celebratory drink after an arduous ride).

    Nobody bats an eyelid to those ads. They are reasonable.

    What we have now isn’t that. What we have now is an insecure, malware-infested privacy nightmare that ruins webpages and stresses everybody out.

    Use Firefox + uBlock origin for your own sanity. Don’t let big tech make you feel guilty for not going along with their game.

    • ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Use Firefox + uBlock origin for your own sanity. Don’t let big tech make you feel guilty for not going along with their game.

      100% this and also, consider allow-listing specific sites which deserve your support, or better yet, contribute directly if you can – e.g. your local bike club forum, your local newspaper, a blogger whose work you enjoy, etc., assuming of course, the ads are reasonable.

    • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Guilty? Hahahahahaha

      They will never make me feel guilty because they are the guilty ones. Guilty of greed and of destroying our society. Fuck big advetisers. They would put billboards in outre space if they thought it would make them a tenth of a penny more in profit.

      I dont even consider them human to be honest.

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    If ad networks weren’t the number 1 way to get malware installed on your machine, didn’t slowly take over the dedicated space for the actual content of a website, or put pressure on the websites in question to only publish things inoffensive to the advertisers maybe adblockers wouldn’t be such an issue.

    If your site can’t exist without being a cesspit of annoying and useless infomercials and a deployment mechanism for malicious code injection then your site should not exist.

    Not too many people had an issue with static banner ads back in the day after all except greedy website operators and advertisers.

    • tempest@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      It would have to be millenials since Gen z exist almost entirely in the walled garden of a phone app.

      Most people now a days don’t even use a desktop with a browser. I honestly expect that most of what they are “seeing” is just web scrapers for the LLM. Those are likely to “block” ads simply based on efficiency, since it shows down crawling.

        • ZeffSyde@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          6 days ago

          It honestly creeps me out that so many people don’t curate what they watch and just consume whatever ‘their feed’ puts in front of them.

  • J52@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    6 days ago

    Bottom line: if I’m forced to consume ads on a device belonging to me - I will rather throw it away!

  • Gibibit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    They got it the wrong way around. Visitors who use adblock are not “dark traffic”, the bullshit scripts and tracking they use are dark. The adblock users are actually the only clean traffic. The adblockers aren’t “brutal”, the people without blockers are being brutalized.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      7 days ago

      “dark” as in “not visible”. Adblock users can’t be tracked (or at least not as easily), hence they are not visible to the ad companies. “Dark”, in this instance, is not a derogatory term.

      “Brutal” is, though. So I totally agree with you there. Ads are the brutal thing nowadays.

      • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        The way you word things matters. How many polls have shown the difference in opinion on ‘obamacare’ compared to ‘affordable care act?’

          • AntEater@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 days ago

            You may be right, technically, but based on the context, I’m quite sure the use of the word “dark” here is intended to frame the behavior as negative. It’s just like when various media authors refer to TOR as the “dark web” even though it has countless valid uses that are not enabling illegal/immoral behaviors.

      • Gibibit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yeah it makes sense from their point of view. I turned it around on them for the hell of it.

  • DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Maybe if they didn’t use very intrusive ads people would not install ad-blockers so much

    Many websites put a video playing in later in top of the text, with another layer of ads and tiny space to read… the website would be unreadable without ad-blocks

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 days ago

    What’s frustrating to me is the idea that law makers and advertisers believe I don’t have a right to alter data that comes onto things I own. And nobody chime in with the brain dead “☝️🤓 actually you don’t own it.” Because even if you wanna waste time with that stupid distraction, I own my computer. I built it from parts.

    Controlling my perception is my right. If I wanna use things that block ads that’s my right. PERIOD. I NEED TO BLOCK ADS BECAUSE OF MY DISABILITY.

    • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      You have that right at least in Europe. The nuance is that website provinding content can choose to not serve it to you. Or something like that but maybe more complexe.

  • pachrist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    The web has almost always been unusable without an adblocker. Ads today are less malicious, but more insidious. Clicking the wrong ad in 2003 would brick your computer. Clicking the wrong ad today means you’ll have to cancel a credit card after your personal data is compiled and sold on the black market.

    Nothing new. Ads don’t fuel a free internet. They fuel a business model. The free internet is fueled by the time and donations of kind, dedicated people.

    • A Wild Mimic appears!@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 days ago

      There was a time in the 90’s where ads were mostly banners, and that was fine; google’s text-only ads were completely acceptable.

      But that didn’t last long - it went downhill with the proliferation of popups, especially the nefarious kind which created even more popups or tried to stop the user from closing them, and usage of dialog boxes.

      And whoever was the first person to add sound to an ad, i wish you and your entire family tree that your genitalia translocate to your forehead.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Ads in the 90’s and 00’s would just layer toolbars onto your browser. Is still have a a nervous twitch when I see a thick toolbars or animated cursors.

        • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 days ago

          The toolbars came from scam software on the '90s. Ads being able to install things came well into the '00s.

          • A Wild Mimic appears!@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            6 days ago

            yeah, there was quite a long time where useful software was bundled with toolbars or, the worse option, malware that hijacked your browser, which was a pain in the ass to remove. I was the techie in the family, and i got pretty good with tools like hijackthis and knowing by heart what services and background programs should start on a standard win98 or xp installation. (in this time i also was THE guy to ask at my job when issues with 56k modems came up, diagnosing a lot of issues by listening to the dial-up tones)

      • m3t00🌎@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        the shocking sound stunts were fun to spring on people. well, for a couple days. recall ads referred to as ‘death of the internet’. adblock to the rescue.

    • elvis_depresley@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 days ago

      Ads don’t fuel a free internet. They fuel a business model. The free internet is fueled by the time and donations of kind, dedicated people.

      I believe this to be true.

    • bargu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      Ads today are less malicious

      I disagree, ads today are way more malicious than they used to be, ads are the biggest vector for malware today, they are used to stalk users to an insane level and most ads are porn, gambling, drugs or fascist propaganda.

      At least back in the day you would only get sketchy ads on sketchy websites.

    • buttnugget@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      My view is that if we can’t have the things we want without ads, then we need a new business model. I’m not super into the whole kindness and donations model. If we need it to be state funded, so be it.

    • x0x7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      You store your credit card in your computer? If browser credit card management isn’t secure enough to avoid that attack you shouldn’t be using it.