I've said it before and I'll say it again: "if you [Facebook] want me to consume ads, make ads I want to consume".

The thing is, this already exists and it's called native advertising. The trick is to create advertisements that, while endorsing a product, have real value for me.

A simple example: a tutorial on doing XYZ with Docker on Google Compute Engine might (A) be relevant to my interests and immediately useful, and (B) incite me to use GCE.

Ad-blockers block the scummy, bottom-feeder, AIDS-of-the-internet ads.

I actually run a local-interest blog for my small city, and whenever I talk to people about it they're amazed I don't have ads all over the place. "How do you make money", "why would you run this site without making money", "you should be getting something for it", etc. They don't immediately realize that 90% of the content on the site is advertising, and I actually am getting paid for it. I'll write an article about whatever I want, in whatever tone I want, for free. But sometimes businesses want to set their own tone, or want me to write about something that isn't immediately interesting to me. Sometimes they want me to run a story before I would otherwise do so. And they'll pay me for that. Not a lot, but it generally covers the cost of hosting at least. I have an entire section, accessible from any page, that goes into my advertising policy and how businesses can contact me.

Ads don't have to look like ads. And ads can give value, too. Did the local tavern pay me to run a story talking about their new 1/2 off drinks special every Wednesday? They sure did. But people clicked on it and read the article and then visited the bar and took advantage of the promotion. Not because they were tricked into doing so, but because it was interesting to them and they got value from it. And those people will come back to the site again tomorrow and read the next one, because my advertising provides real value to them.

Well, that is deception unless you are honest with users. In many countries illegal, and as scummy, if not more, than your taboola ads.

I took the concept directly from Cult Of Mac, so I have a page detailing how I run sponsored posts, and every sponsored post says "Sponsored by Company X" in italics at the top of the post.

I reject your assertion of "my taboola ads". I don't run any kind of third party ad scripts. All my sponsored content is written by me and labeled as such. And I immediately turn down any ad content I myself would not want to see (I run adblockers, too), since it wouldn't provide any value to my readers.

> if not more

Honestly I'm not sure it is. Sure, it's deceptive, but he's not serving ads that annoy, distract and often serve as a vector for malware. It's not clear (to me) that it's worse than traditional web advertising, which tends to be deceptive, illegal, scummy and annoying, dangerous and distracting.

And again, the trick with native advertising is to provide valuable content for the users, otherwise it's just crap that nobody will read. I don't know if the poster in question is actually doing this, but if he is, I wouldn't be so quick to write it off as scummy; bear in mind that oftentimes such pieces are identified as "sponsored content".

Do you disclose that content is sponsored? If not, is it legal?

Yes, I took the concept from Cult of Mac, and I run it exactly like they do. I have a page where I detail my ad policy and every sponsored post says "sponsored by..."

>If not, is it legal?

In most jurisdictions, it's a priori legal unless it falls under some special category (e.g. a political campaign ad).

It's not legal in UK or US.

FTC will regulate undisclosed native content advertising content in US: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/nat...

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...

The Advertising Standards Authority regulate it in the UK:

https://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-O...

About vlogging, but clearly applies to blogging and traditional print media: https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2014/Maki...

http://blogtacular.com/sponsored-posts-ads-reviews-the-asa-a...

It seems so obvious

Why do you feel entitled to use facebook's resources?

Facebook tracks you and shows you ads regardless of whether you use Facebook.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/27/11795248/facebook-ad-netwo...

How is this pertinent to the discussion about serving and blocking ads on facebook.com?

He's saying that facebook feels entitled to my data, even if I'm not using their resources. Why shouldn't I, then, feel entitled to their resources without blocking ads?

Because they insistingly invite you if you happen to land on a Facebook link?

Because they encourage us to use them and make them available for free.

It is available on the condition that you are served ads alongside content.

No one is ever obligated to view ads. I'm not stealing from the billboard company because I keep my eyes on the road, and I'm not a bad person because I mute the television every five minutes when NBC runs ads for things I don't want during the Olympics.

The browser is our user agent. Facebook can serve whatever it wants, but we're under no contractual or moral obligation to look at it.

In a not so distant future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tMXKQdc5ZM&t=9m

Btw. the Black Mirror TV series is awesome.

What makes you think that? I recall reading previous articles linked from HN on this very topic that Facebook most strongly values the network size they can use in marketing sales pitches (i.e. the print circulation equivalent, the "reach"), not the ad impressions specifically.

Is that in their EULA?

Oh but my EULA says "By injecting ads into the articles I read, you implicitly agree to provide me with free resources with no obligation on my part".

That's good, I may incorporate something like this into my User-Agent.

Hah! I'm suddenly laughing and crying inside at the thought of massive Useragent strings with individual EULAs in them.

Because they openly state: "It’s free and always will be.", not "It’s free and always will be if you view the ads we serve in your browser.".

Also my country's civil law (along with any other reasonable civil laws) throws out the three links below out of our contract, as they're neither at a reasonable length nor clearness when the context is considered.