I covered this briefly when mentioning OS and router level blocking for the entire network, as well as carrier level blocking. There are only so many scenarios and technical details I can include in a single article for techcrunch.
I do think it'll get more filtered at the network level for security reasons at certain organizations but then there's the issue of encrypted traffic and embedded sponsored content.
> Ads in native mobile and desktop apps are mostly immune as they have no extensions
But using a "network blocker", be it a PiHole, Privoxy, or a simple HOSTS file, ads and tracking services are blocked at the network level and no native or desktop app is immune to this effect. I believe that's what michaelbuckbee is referring to. So the whole "Where ad blocking doesn’t work" section is in need of more clarification, as there is almost no place where an ad blocking system won't work in one way or another.
I would say hard but not impossible. Privoxy can strip any part of html content at will with its filter files[1]. It works just like AdBlock Plus rules, but on network level.
But there are diminishing results. At this point, the people doing this are in the same bucket as those just using text-based browsers. This goes back to the filtering/censorship argument if it's deployed at a big enough scope (like a carrier) so it'll likely be individuals or small groups doing this on their private networks.
Let's take one step back to the first point: we have shown you above that the whole "Where ad blocking doesn’t work" section does not make any sense, as you can kill any kind of ads on the network-wide level.
Now you are claiming that people using PiHole, Privoxy and the likes are merely "Lynx" users, as if that would discredit the original point, or maybe it will water-down the consequences.
You are also severely underestimating the power of individuals and small groups, see: the initial surge of Firefox install base, anti SOPA and PIPA protests, Ubuntu, and (ironically) the early days of TechCrunch.
There is nothing wrong with this article, as what you have written about is "Browser ad blockers". Hopefully you can write a second article and explain the fruitlessness of trying to play a cat and mouse game with network-wide ad blockers.
I think there might be some misunderstanding here so I'll try to be more specific:
I did mention network level blocking in the article but just didn't have enough space to cover all the details regarding how it works in apps. This is why I used the word "mostly" for those apps. Even network blocks can be overcome though when using closed platform apps like Apple News which runs it's own iAds over the same secure backend. However, thanks for the feedback, I'll definitely strive to make things clearer in future content.
As far as network blocking, my comments were regarding 2 issues: how widespread this type of blocking is and how in-depth the blocking will occur.
I do agree that it will increase in usage but as soon as it gets to any major sized organization, the issues of net neutrality/censorship might come up which is why I think it will remain used by individuals with home networks and small businesses rather than large enterprises and network carriers. Considering the use of adblockers is almost perfectly correlated to the ease of installation, I just don't see widespread adoption here of router/network level blocking given the expertise and effort required. Even if the entire HN audience uses it, that's negligible part of the entire online audience.
In regards to the blocking depth, network blocking still works the same as most blocking does now, by using domain/dns block lists. This opens up the possibility for embedded advertising content to come through and while I understand that HTML can be parsed and edited, it's a far more challenging to implement and maintain that kind of filtering reliably. Domain block lists also remove the vast majority of ads so going further in page processing is what I meant as very diminishing returns for the amount of effort involved.
Why haven't all ad networks gone HTTPS? It's a straightforward infrastructure change and would avoid some of the network issues. HTTP ad servers also make it difficult for content sites to adopt HTTPS because of mixed content warnings.
Because of a lack of priority on tech, poor development practices, global industry requiring international cooperation, and general apathy around the user's experience for most ad companies.
I do think it'll get more filtered at the network level for security reasons at certain organizations but then there's the issue of encrypted traffic and embedded sponsored content.