The only difference is that electron wrapper is a browser that works for them, not for you.

[vintageveloce@techhub.social]

@jwz @mhoye @pluralistic
Never use an app when the webpage will do.

[robinadams@mathstodon.xyz]

@PRSXFENG @jwz @mhoye @pluralistic "Publishers are increasingly focused on building owned audiences."

Shhhh, you're not supposed to say that part out loud.

[yuman@defcon.social]

@jwz @mhoye @pluralistic I know at least one of y'all hates the A-word, but my lineageOS with adaway commits them felonies daily, with zero ads in any apps

[prsxfeng@mas.to]

@robinadams @jwz @mhoye @pluralistic

they say some wild stuff, check out other blog posts
https://www.ad-shield.io/blog/will-restoring-ads-for-dark-traffic-harm-user-experience

"Recover where there is clear user tolerance. IT-level environments, bundled solutions, default opt-ins — audiences where blocking was never an explicit user choice."

yeah right, the IT Manager made the decision, and you overrode it with some wild justifications

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@sakhavi @mhoye [huge banner] GO USE THE APP

.

.

.

[tiny link to the fuckin web page]

[groupnebula563@mastodon.social]

@PRSXFENG @jwz @mhoye @pluralistic i just used their "free consultation" form to request a consultation on meatspin dot com. hope they enjoy that

[groupnebula563@mastodon.social]

@PRSXFENG @mhoye @pluralistic ...ew jwz is in this thread

[fred@social.fthevenet.eu]

@jwz @mhoye @pluralistic

[prsxfeng@mas.to]

@GroupNebula563

you should view source on that webpage, the data validation is entirely vibe coded lol

[prsxfeng@mas.to]

@pluralistic

Oh by the way, these guys holds some patents

US-12438933-B2

"Method and device for providing advertisement by counteracting on violent advertisement blocking function "

[prsxfeng@mas.to]

Oh by the way.

In case you weren't aware

they're the folks behind html-load[.]com and report.error-report[.]com

You've probably seen them around

[ams@infosec.exchange]

@PRSXFENG @jwz @mhoye @pluralistic Wow that's dark.

[jhb17@mastodon.online]

@PRSXFENG @jwz @mhoye @pluralistic

What the HELL are they smoking?

Your users will welcome you trying to defeat their attempts to defeat your ads. ?

[cwbussard@ioc.exchange]

@ianjs @PRSXFENG @jwz @mhoye @pluralistic

"I especially like 'Revenue lost from an audience of which 85% expects or accepts ads'. You mean, the ones who went to the trouble of blocking them?"

Exactly. This isn't any use to someone actually trying to sell a product or service. There probably isn't a single person on earth -- not even one -- who's going to go, "Oh gee, you bypassed my ad-blocker, but, instead of being pissed off at you, I'm going to take a look at your ad, click it, and buy the advertised product."

What's the point then? Probably ad fraud. Charging the companies trying to sell products/services for showing their ad more times, even though those additional showings have zero chance of leading to a sale.

[negahyphen@infosec.exchange]

@cwbussard @ianjs @PRSXFENG @jwz @mhoye @pluralistic

That line also stood out to me: “Revenue lost from an audience of which 85% expects or accepts ads as part of the experience. The irony is cruel, but it doesn’t have to be this way.”

Expects and accepts are VERY different things. I expect to deal with a bunch of homophobic bullshit when I am in Texas. I have never at any moment of my life accepted it. This is massive false equivalency, and also nothing about that is ironic. And until ad networks stop serving malware, it really DOES have to be this way.

We apologize for or revel in our cruelty.

[cameopilot@toot.community]

@mhoye
Well, they just said it's better. They didn't say it was better for *you*.

[tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org]

@mhoye

They leave out, "for us"