|
Posted: 12 Aug 2016 10:08 AM PDT
The back-and-forth between Facebook and ad-blocking software companies has become almost farcical at this point: After Facebook said it would block the use of ad blockers, the leading ad-blocking company announced that it will block the use of Facebook’s ad-blocker blocker. And now Facebook says it is rolling out a fix that will disable the ad-blocker’s blocker blocking. As humorous as this cat-and-mouse battle may seem, there is a serious principle at stake for Facebook. If it can’t reliably ensure that users are seeing its advertising, then the $1 billion it currently makes on desktop ads is potentially in jeopardy, and questions might also be raised about its ability to display ads on mobile too, which is a $5-billion business. That’s why the giant social network rolled out its ad-blocker force field earlier this week, with a blog post that spent a lot of time on the controls that Facebook gives to users that allows them to choose which ads they want to see, and very little time on the technicalities of blocking ad-blockers. Within a matter of hours, Eyeo—which makes the most popular ad-blocking software, Adblock Plus—wrote on its website that it had implemented a workaround for Facebook’s force field, and all users had to do was update their software with the new code. In the company’s blog post, Eyeo staffer Ben Williams said that while Facebook had taken the “the dark path” of forcing ad-blocking users to see ads, “we promised that the open source community would have a solution very soon, and, frankly, they’ve beaten even our own expectations. A new filter was added to the main EasyList about 15 minutes ago. You’ll just need to update your filter lists.” Even as the company was bragging about its ability to foil Facebook’s plans, however, the social network was busy with a workaround of its own—as Andrew Bosworth, the VP of product and business for Facebook, noted in a post on Twitter. Bosworth also pointed out that the Adblock Plus software was now not just blocking ads but also removing posts from friends and family of users as well (Naturally, Adblock Plus has since said that it has a workaround for the workaround). The fact that Adblock Plus was removing posts as well as ads reinforces why this particular war is likely to be won ultimately by Facebook. It’s not just because the social network is a $350-billion company with vast resources and thousands of developers—although that undoubtedly helps. It’s because Facebook controls everything about the experience on its platform, from the servers to the content, unlike many other sites. One thing that makes ads relatively easy to block on many websites is that most of the advertising is delivered separately from the rest of the content on the site. In many cases, it comes from ad networks and other third-party providers, who supply the code that displays the ads. That kind of code is fairly easy for ad-blocking software companies to track and identify. But Facebook controls everything about the content on its site, and so it has the ability to make the advertising look exactly like the HTML that displays everything else, whether it’s posts or photos or comments. The result is that blocking companies like Adblock Plus have to somehow determine what is an ad and what isn’t, without any of the usual code or signifiers that allow them to recognize traditional ads. And that means they have to do advanced text recognition, which is not easy. It’s not impossible, but it’s a lot harder than looking for a snippet of code that effectively says “this is an ad.” Could ad-blocking companies like Eyeo come up with more sophisticated ways to block ads that actually recognize text and the content of photos, etc.? Sure they could. But it’s going to take a large investment of time and money, and it’s not clear there’s enough incentive for them to do that. They get paid by companies like Google to “white-list” their ads, but they don’t get paid that much. And while Eyeo and other companies have to get users to update their lists and/or download new software every time there is a fix for a Facebook workaround, it’s fairly trivial for Facebook to roll out new changes without users even noticing. So whatever you think of ad blocking as an ethical choice, it seems likely that Facebook will always have the upper hand in this war. This article originally appeared on Fortune.com |
THE favoured candidate of the white working class in the presidential campaign is a man who travels on his own private aircraft and gives interviews from his penthouse in a building emblazoned with his name in gold letters. When he started out in property it was with a “small loan of $1m” from his father. Among white voters without college degrees, Donald Trump holds a commanding lead over his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. (“I love the poorly educated,” he crowed after one of his many primary victories.)
How did Mr Trump pull this off? The same way unscrupulous people often succeed: he saw an opportunity and exploited it. White working-class voters felt abandoned by both parties. As unions grew less powerful, Democrats became the party of educated coastal voters and minorities. This divide was cemented by eight years of Barack Obama; white working-class voters attracted by Bill Clinton’s folksy charm were repelled by a black president with a foreign-sounding name and a chilly, cerebral manner.
Republicans, meanwhile, consistently argued for free trade and deregulation, policies that, whatever their general merits, left some working-class voters still worse off. Meanwhile, coal is in decline and automation has made secure low-skilled manufacturing jobs increasingly rare. Life at the low end of the income scale has grown more tenuous: the inflation-adjusted income of households headed by a non-college graduate fell by 19% between 1999 and 2014. Also during that period, death rates for middle-aged whites without college education crept up, even as they plunged for middle-aged blacks and Hispanics. The cause was not disease, but suicide and the effects of substance abuse.
Mr Trump has courted these voters as assiduously as he has insulted everyone else. He promises to bring manufacturing jobs back while keeping immigrants out. To minorities, many women and gay Americans, his slogan—“Make America great again”—sounds like a promise to bring back a social order that oppressed them. To white working-class voters, it sounds like the opposite. America’s political system and the white working class have lost faith in each other. J.D. Vance’s memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy”, offers a starkly honest look at what that shattering of faith feels like for a family who lived through it. Not all white working-class voters are rural Appalachians, as Mr Vance’s family is, but the problems he describes are widespread. You will not read a more important book about America this year.
Mr Vance’s family comes from Jackson, a small town in Kentucky’s coal country. In a culture that prizes toughness and honour, his family was “hillbilly royalty”: his grandmother came from “a family that would rather shoot at you than argue with you”. One day when his grandfather came home drunk, his grandmother, having threatened to kill him if he ever did that again, doused him with petrol and dropped a lit match on his chest. He survived with only minor burns after their 11-year-old daughter put out the flames. Mr Vance’s great uncle once heard another young man make a crude comment about his sister, the author’s grandmother; the man said he wanted to “eat her panties”. Mr Vance’s great uncle forced the young man to do just that—at knifepoint.
For his family, as in many others like his—ethnically Scots-Irish, rural—“poverty is the family tradition”. In the southern slave economy they were day-labourers and sharecroppers. Eventually many became miners or millworkers. In the 1940s his grandparents, like millions of other poor white Appalachians, left to find better jobs (this overlapped with another mass migration—of African-Americans, out of the rural South to cities in the north, West, Midwest and north-east). The Vances ended up in Middletown, a steel town in south-western Ohio so full of people like them that it was known as “Middletucky”. His grandfather worked in the Armco steel plant, and raised a family on his salary.
But then things started to go south. Mr Vance’s mother abused alcohol and prescription pills, and had a steady stream of unsuitable male partners; Mr Vance barely knew his father until he was almost in his teens. The relationship lessons he learned from his mother included: “Never speak at a reasonable volume when screaming will do…it’s okay to slap and punch, so long as the man doesn’t hit first; always express your feelings in a way that’s insulting and hurtful to your partner.” Steady jobs for workers without college degrees grew scarce. In the 20th century Appalachians mined the coal and made the steel that built America; in the 21st, however, the divide deepened between Appalachia and the flourishing coasts, and few people in Middletown knew quite how to bridge it.
Mr Vance figured it out. He joined the Marines, and then graduated from Ohio State and Yale Law School. Today he works at an investment firm in San Francisco and is happily married. What did he have that others didn’t? His grandparents made sure he studied hard; along with his older sister, they gave him some semblance of stability.
But he also had grit. He refuses the easy consolation of excuses. Addiction may function as a disease, but believing that it is one makes it that much easier to take the next drink or pop the next pill; the user can cede responsibility for his own actions. Government may have let Appalachians down, Mr Vance argues, but government does not make them skip work, smack their kids or turn every disagreement into a blood feud. Mr Vance is a conservative in the oldest and best sense, and his prescription is a bracing tonic for the poison being sold to his people by the pandering huckster seeking the presidency: “We hillbillies must wake the hell up,” he urges. “It starts when we stop blaming Obama or Bush or faceless companies and ask ourselves what we can do to make things better.”




