[shopinterest]

The larger issue is this, the AdBlockers block 'independent ads, served via third party services via web' Ad blockers won't block Google Ads via Android or iOS ads in their new "news" apps. Nor it will block Facebook ads, YouTube Ads or some in-app marketing.

So, what I think is missing in the discussion that, perhaps by flaw or mistake, but the original sin of the web (ads) is now the currency for many websites, apps, etc... and it maintains the small, medium and large publishers and companies.

Ad blocking as-now targets the independent web more than anything. It will force Advertisers to give to Google/Facebook/Apple more and basically just suck the revenues of an industry into the hands of a handful of platform. Content has already been centralized by force, now they want the ads as well.

People who say, 'if your content requires ads then its not worth it, or you are in the wrong side of history, blah, blah, blah' fail to recognize how ad monetization happens on web/apps - yes it gets annoying, but it works. Independent sites (arts, news, etc...) like a favorite of mine ArsTechnica, depend on Ad revenue.

Apple releasing Ad Blockers the same day their News app becomes permanent and with Ads that cannot be blocked its not a coincidence. And that is quite a strategic move aimed to move more ad revenue into fewer companies. I don't know if that's the right side of history then. I hope not.

However, it's all in the defaults - 90% of online users (and I cant imagine app users are any higher) never touch the defaults. Sure, a number of 20MM may have downloaded adblockers online, but it is still small. But once the option is there, one day, the iPhone7 might default to 'ad block yes' and obliterate a mobile ad industry. No one likes to defend marketers, but moving us to a system controlled by a few platforms is a bad idea. Say, a presidential election could be influenced by a company deciding it won't allow ads of candidate Y or Z etc... or Donation campaigns won't be able to afford a market price of higher ad prices.

This is a bad idea folks.

[lagadu]

> Say, a presidential election could be influenced by a company deciding it won't allow ads of candidate Y or Z etc... or Donation campaigns won't be able to afford a market price of higher ad prices.

That is a perfect example of why adblocking should be on by default for everything. It'd solve that problem instantly.

[tracker1]

The trouble with this... is that the functionality behind ad service (iframes, remote content, etc) is very functionally useful... as is/was being able to open a window. It's simply abused.

If iframes were limited to 1 layer deep in the browsers that would change a lot, as ad networks wouldn't be able to cross-bounce for 10+ layers if iframes each with their tracking and behavior scripts (poorly written) running in the browser, and throwing up errors all over my console output.

For that matter, It's not unreasonable to serve ads from the origin domain... it is very easy to do, and can cover some interesting models with advertising... integration can come in other ways, as could server-side integration methods. There are better ways to serve ads... the "liquidity" mentioned in another post is generally of poor and dubious quality.