Slashdot Mirror
Advertisers Escalate Banner Ad War
AnonymousComrade writes: "In today's Newsbytes, there is an article about MediaBEAM GmbH, a German company that say they have developed Web server software that can detect whether a home browser is blocking banner ads or pop-ups. If the Web server detects blocking software, a message appears on the screen advising the 'free-loading' surfer that he has two choices if he wants access to the Web site's content: pay for it or be exposed to the ads. This sounds strange to me. Can they really include something in the download (Java or JS, I assume) that detects whether an ad picture has been downloaded or not? What if you have blocking S/W that not just blocks the download of the ad picture, but also modifies the HTML on-the-fly (a la the Proxomitron). Can they really distinguish this from a remote ad server that just isn't responding? And how long will it take before ad blocking S/W is updated to block this blocking-detection mechanism?"
My sanity.
...that they're fighting this battle on technical grounds. I hope we see a good clean fight, technology vs. technology, with no lawyers.
May the best code win.
--G
I'm okay with the ads on Zdnet and C|net
So am I. But am I the only one that clicks on M$ adverts in the hope that they have to pay more if a user clicks on the ad?
I really doubt /., for instance, could make a living of selling nifty t-shirts.
You mean they have other sources of income??
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
127.0.0.1 ad-adex3.flycast.com
127.0.0.1 ad-flow.com
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad2.peel.com
127.0.0.1 ad.iwin.com
127.0.0.1 adbureau.net
127.0.0.1 admonitor.net
127.0.0.1 adcontroller.unicast.com
127.0.0.1 ads.1bn.org
127.0.0.1 ads.gamespy.com
127.0.0.1 ads20.focalink.com
127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com
127.0.0.1 clubchance.com
127.0.0.1 fastclick.net
127.0.0.1 focalink.com
127.0.0.1 friendfinder.com
127.0.0.1 hits2you.hypermart.net
127.0.0.1 ln.doublclick.net
127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 media.fastclick.net
127.0.0.1 msn.com
127.0.0.1 msnbc.com
127.0.0.1 popups.infostart.com
127.0.0.1 servedby.advertising.com
127.0.0.1 x10.com
What they should do is send the entire page as one huge gif, png or jpg and have a big image map
Stuff like this gotta break some rule of "personal preferences"
Ya. I went into the CD store and told the cashier that it was my "personal preference" not to pay for the content on the CD. She said that it'd be illigal if I left the store without paying for them. It's like our rights are being stripped away from us online AND offline.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
everybody that reads these pages is a tech head to some degree - some more than others.
./ closed down for this reason?
I myself, don't LIKE banner, skyscraper, popups, and button ads, but i KNOW they are a necessity.
Unless web sites use banner advertising to fund themselves, the only option left is to charge for the content. This is a BAD scenario, infact, in this kind of situation the internet would be a tiresome, boring place - more commercialised than ever - you'd only have websites that tried to sell you something - be it content or a product, and those that belonged to hobbyists - showing the whole world 1500 blurry pictures of their pet cat.
Sites like slashdot, google, yahoo do not charge - they are funded by advertising. You must all know this - don't you KNOW where your $80,000 salaries come from!?
The bottom line is that if you get rid of advertising you get rid of websites. If you get rid of websites you get rid of whole businesses, MANY of your jobs, and in a sense, freedom and free exchange of information.
Would you REALLY like to see