A Longitudinal Analysis of Online Ad-Blocking Blacklists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Websites employ third-party ads and tracking services leveraging cookies and JavaScript code, to deliver ads and track users' behavior, causing privacy concerns. To limit online tracking and block advertisements, several ad-blocking (black) lists have been curated consisting of URLs and domains of well-known ads and tracking services. Using Internet Archive's Wayback Machine in this paper, we collect a retrospective view of the Web to analyze the evolution of ads and tracking services and evaluate the effectiveness of ad-blocking blacklists. We propose metrics to capture the efficacy of ad-blocking blacklists to investigate whether these blacklists have been reactive or proactive in tackling the online ad and tracking services. We introduce a stability metric to measure the temporal changes in ads and tracking domains blocked by ad-blocking blacklists and a diversity metric to measure the ratio of new ads and tracking domains detected. We observe that ads and tracking domains in websites change over time, and among the ad-blocking blacklists that we investigated, our analysis reveals that some blacklists were more informed with the existence of ads and tracking domains, but their rate of change was slower than other blacklists. Our analysis also shows that Alexa top 5K websites in the US, Canada, and the UK have the most number of ads and tracking domains per website, and have the highest proactive scores. This suggests that ad-blocking blacklists are updated by prioritizing ads and tracking domains reported in the popular websites from these countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".