Is Yahoo Actively Supporting Adware?

Yahoo has been like this for some time by It+doesn't+come+easy · 2005-09-20 01:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yahoo has been doing something like this for quite some time. Many years ago, Yahoo was the place to go to find the best price on products you could purchase over the net. However, they evolved into a search that only showed the prices from businesses that had a relationship with Yahoo. Mind you, they still claimed to find the best price on the web but in truth they only included companies with an arrangement with Yahoo (and those companies rarely had the lowest price) It may be business, but it's not trustworthy. So for me Yahoo lost my trust years ago. Now they are just one source for information and no more trustworthy than the next source.

--
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.

Re:Yahoo has been like this for some time by Nullan+D.+Voyd · 2005-09-20 12:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now they are using a new trick, or rather an old spammer's trick. They are allowing Fortune magazine to 'top post'. Usenet spammers have long spoofed their time stamp. Now Fortune does it, so that their 'news stories', which are little more than teasers, are always on top of their investment news feed. All it will take is a few more once legit sources to use this trick, and the feed will be worthless. Yes, I have complained, but neither Yahoo or Fortune are listening.
Re:Yahoo has been like this for some time by UnrepentantHarlequin · 2005-09-20 22:51 · Score: 1

I quit using Yahoo search when they started charging to be included in it. I want to search all available websites, not just those run by companies who can pay multi-hundred-dollar fees.
Re:Yahoo has been like this for some time by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-22 10:52 · Score: 0

Big shock, huh? Slashdot, known for their world-class editorial standards, cited the recent BusinessWeek story about Yahoo and decided that I was complaining about Yahoo! supporting adware.

Of course, I wasn't. Neither site bothered to link to my blog post about it (for fear their readers would form their own opinions, perhaps?) or the surrounding context--the two stories I quoted heavily in my own post (1, 2).

What I was commenting on is bundling of one download with another and, more specifically, the fact that one installs the other or makes "helpful" changes (like default search engine or home page) by default rather than being an opt-in process.

Of all the people I asked recently, nobody can find any evidence that I was writing about spyware, adware, or malware. Well, nobody except the folks at Slashdot, I guess.

If you read the BusinessWeek story carefully you likely get what I was complaining about. But not so on the short tidbit posted to Slashdot. Luckily the average BusinessWeek reader is likely to be a bit more thoughtful about such things.

Is Slasholes a word yet?

At least I've got a place where I can attempt to correct their lack of information (and links). Guys, this is 2005! We're supposed to link to sources we cite on the web. Didn't you get that memo?

The funny part is that I really expected to hear from Yahoo! PR, Legal, or Terry Semel's body guard (just kidding) about this stuff. But I didn't. Not a peep. I did hear from a lot of my co-workers and it sparked several very interesting discussions. But nobody from on high said, "you know, we really wish you hadn't written that." Maybe it's because they know that I know that already.

No, the thing that got me... motivated enough to say something now was seeing my name and my words used on Slashdot to paint the company I work for in a more negative way than is justified.

Sorry to disappointed the rationally thinking Slashdot crowd, but there's no adware, malware, or spyware in our software. If you want to perpetuate the "Google is Good but all other Big Companies are Evil" thinking, feel free. But try to use facts instead of fiction. It really makes you look more lame than you already are.

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/005386.htm l

Of course they are by ellem · 2005-09-20 01:09 · Score: 1, Funny

They have nothing to tangible sell. The only way for them to make money is to sell data they've garnered and they users who they garnered it from.

Note CISCO not adding spyware to their PIXs.

*or are they*

--
This .sig is fake but accurate.

Re:Of course they are by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 01:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

They have nothing to tangible sell. The only way for them to make money is to sell data they've garnered and they users who they garnered it from.
Just to point out, you're treading on very thin ice there lad. There is a very popular search engine company who sell some search appliances but whose major revenue stream comes from the sale of targeted advertisements. Targeted? How?
Every time you visit one of this company's pages, you'll get a unique cookie (if you haven't already got one), that won't expire until 2038, and your search terms are logged with datestamp, IP address, User-Agent and, of course, your identification number from that unique, immortal cookie. Not even the CIA could get away with this.
Now look, people tell search engines things that they wouldn't tell their closest friends and relatives. This is a hostile invasion of privacy - or, at least, will become one.
This is precisely the same information that, as you say, Yahoo! garners from its users to sell for profit. Not to say you failed to see the similarity, it's just that people seem to love this company and won't hold it to the same standards that they would expect of others. Classic hypocrisy.
Re:Of course they are by ajs318 · 2005-09-20 03:05 · Score: 1

But it's easy to delete your "unique" Google cookie before they can build up enough information against it to be dangerous. {I do the same thing with Sainsbury's Nectar cards: get a card, build up a few pounds of savings, then claim the vouchers and start again with a brand new card. And, just for the sheer hell of it, I try to skew the stats they are building up ..... but living equidistant from Sainsbury's and Morrison's, I can afford to do that}.

As for Yahoo! messenger, I looked for the source tarball, and couldn't find it; so I went here instead, and never looked back. I stand by my assertion that on at least 95% of occasions, if someone won't show me the code, it's because they are hiding something they don't want me to see.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Of course they are by Etienne+Steward · 2005-09-20 03:41 · Score: 1

I stand by my assertion that on at least 95% of occasions, if someone won't show me the code, it's because they are hiding something they don't want me to see.
And I'm sure that Google would just turn over the code in their toolbar and for their search engines and appliances if you just asked them?

If you do manage to get it from them, I would like to see it, because I could learn a lot from it!

They are a business, like any other. I suppose they try to do good, but the fact that they have to try tells us something right there, doesn't it?
Re:Of course they are by SacredNaCl · 2005-09-20 12:11 · Score: 1

Its very integrated as well. Contests sites like Fuse immediately take you to Yahoo, so they can track you with the full demographic information *(name, phone number, age, sex, address..etc). I've seen a few others that install their cookies as well, and several that try to do it with mini-flash icons.

Have to remember to change the settings in flash if you want privacy. Eventually, even with flash disable, you'll have to click on one to navigate it...

--
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.

In other news Jeremy D. Zawodny fired by mrkitty · 2005-09-20 01:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Google's fired people for comments about the company, will yahoo?

--
Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.

Re:In other news Jeremy D. Zawodny fired by TedCheshireAcad · 2005-09-20 01:17 · Score: 1

Now that it's hit slashdot, almost certainly.
Re:In other news Jeremy D. Zawodny fired by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 06:49 · Score: 3, Informative

What I don't understand is why everybody seems to blame Google for firing this guy.

It is now a regulatory violation for public companies to release financial information early or via unapproved channels - all investors are required to have the same fair first shot at any such info. And what did this guy who got fired do? He blogged financial information early. It didn't leave Google with much choice BUT to fire him. Not very smart.

Nothing New Here by xmuskrat · 2005-09-20 01:10 · Score: 1

I've used Yahoo since 1996 and every time I do a search there, I've always got at least a dozen popups from the top results.

--
activestudios web design

Re:Nothing New Here by drooling-dog · 2005-09-20 02:16 · Score: 1

I've used Yahoo since 1996 and every time I do a search there, I've always got at least a dozen popups from the top results.
Then stop using it.
Re:Nothing New Here by xmuskrat · 2005-09-20 02:21 · Score: 1

Okay.

--
activestudios web design
Re:Nothing New Here by gcw1 · 2005-09-20 02:38 · Score: 1

I get one pop-up when visiting a site for the first time and theres a good chance that I'll never return.
Re:Nothing New Here by xmuskrat · 2005-09-20 02:44 · Score: 1

I agree. I think search engines should lower pagerank for sites that are using popups, popunders, etc.

--
activestudios web design
Re:Nothing New Here by ChocoBean · 2005-09-20 03:34 · Score: 1

LOL
congrats, xmusrat.
Re:Nothing New Here by RLiegh · 2005-09-20 04:12 · Score: 1

If I don't get at least one 'pop-up' when visiting a site I find here, there's a good chance I'll never return
Re:Nothing New Here by Frogbert · 2005-09-20 11:23 · Score: 1

I've used Yahoo since 1996 and every time I do a search there, I've always got at least a dozen popups from the top results.
Have you ever considered switching? I hear there is this new search engine groggle or something like that, anyways if you've bee unsatisfied with yahoo for nine years it might be time to consider changing.
Re:Nothing New Here by xmuskrat · 2005-09-20 11:28 · Score: 1

Switched earlier today. Thanks for the note.

--
activestudios web design

Jeremys post in question.. by grazzy · 2005-09-20 01:11 · Score: 5, Informative

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/005121.htm l

Re:Jeremys post in question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:48 · Score: 2, Informative

For the pleasure of slashdots readers and in the case someone over at zawodny.com would pull the plug, we give you - THE FULL BLOG TEXT!

In CNet's article Yahoo IM users get more than they bargained for:

If you're one of the tens of millions of Yahoo users asked to upgrade your instant-messaging software this week, be on your toes: The update can open the door to unwanted PC houseguests--and setting changes--by default.

By accepting Yahoo's "typical" installation of YIM with Voice, it will also download Yahoo's Search Toolbar with anti-spyware and anti-pop-up software, desktop and system tray shortcuts, as well as Yahoo Extras, which will insert Yahoo links into the Internet Explorer browser. The IM client also contains "live words," which will automatically show an icon when the user highlights words online and then hyperlink to Yahoo search results, definitions or translation tools. Finally, the installation will alter the users' home page and auto-search functions to point to Yahoo by default.

On Make You Go Hmm:

Wonder if Jeremy Zawodny, Russell Beattie or any of their other blogging employees will address these installation practices? Do they agree with them? Like/dislike them? Or are they hoping this story gets buried with the holidays and other more pressing stories in current news? It takes stones to stand up when your company is doing something wrong and IMO, this is very, very wrong. I sure hope somebody internally over there is complaining about these questionable software installation practices. If they aren't complaining, I hope somebody is at least questioning them.

Do I agree with those practices? No.

Do I like those practices? Hell no. It's insulting and disrespectful. I've aborted software installs or upgrades when they try to pull this stuff. In fact, I just had this happen yesterday.

I'm sick and tired of this crap. I don't know which company started using this tactic, but it's become the standard operating procedure for lots of software out there. And it sucks.

Leave my settings, preferences, and desktop alone!

Why do companies do this? Money. And when your competitor does it and you don't, you're letting them take advantage of an "opportunity" that you are not. (An opportunity to piss off your users, perhaps?)

Remember pop-under ads?

I don't know what it's going to take to get companies to stop this crap either. Do you have any good ideas? I'd love to hear 'em.
Re:Jeremys post in question.. by Verteiron · 2005-09-20 03:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why do companies do this? Money. And when your competitor does it and you don't, you're letting them take advantage of an "opportunity" that you are not.

The real problem is even if the Yahoo execs aren't "evil", they have no good way out. If publicly-held company A is making money by taking over users' computers, company B's shareholders will want to know why company B isn't doing the same thing. And if company B's execs say they don't want to do it on something as flimsy as moral grounds, then company B's shareholders will fire said execs and replace them with robot drones.

Publicy-held corporations have a single motivation: profit. Anything you see such a company do, regardless of how "good" or "bad" it appears, was done to make the shareholders more money. If Yahoo's execs refused to submit their users to pop-ups and flash ads and such, they could very well be removed from the company.

Fucked up, huh?

--
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Re:Jeremys post in question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 03:58 · Score: 0

Sounds like a good reason to use Kopete, Gaim, Trillian, or some other third party client.

What popups by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 01:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

What popups?

I use Mozilla and selected privacy options.

Re:What popups by Bob+Lambeau · 2005-09-20 01:39 · Score: 1

Except a macromedia Flash popup I use Yahoo as my home page, but that may change soon......... at least once a week I get a Macromedia flash popup (with an ad) that covers half the screen with "no" x or close button. the only way to get rid of it is to reload the home page a couple of times. the happens both with Mozilla and FF on a Linux system. If you have Windows, it must be hell I wrote to Yahoo and complained, but I still get them.
Re:What popups by sqlrob · 2005-09-20 01:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
- You can use adblock to block swf's from Yahoo,
- You cn use the extension that you have to click to get the flash.
- You can use the underdocumented config setting to turn off popups from flash.
There's no good reason to put up with those popups.
Re:What popups by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:09 · Score: 0

* You can use the underdocumented config setting to turn off popups from flash.
Care to elaborate for the rest of us?
Re:What popups by LWATCDR · 2005-09-20 02:16 · Score: 1

I don't get any of these. Adblock seems to be the key. I wish it would give me a good way to post my filters but alas it doesn't. Use wild cards carefully and you will get rid of most of your problems.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:What popups by amram9999 · 2005-09-20 02:19 · Score: 2, Informative

Sure, see Asa's blog: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/007682 .html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/007860 .html
Re:What popups by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:45 · Score: 0

filterset.g

Google it. Haven't had an ad since.
Re:What popups by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:54 · Score: 0

Thank you!
Re:What popups by LWATCDR · 2005-09-20 03:50 · Score: 1

I did that but it removes all the cr/lfs from the file. But what do you know it works fine here. Some of mine are redundant but it seems two work pretty well for me. YMMV

[Adblock]
http://img-cdn.mediaplex.com/ads/4340/21846/b2s_CE _425x600.swf?clickTAG=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG= 12a75stt6/M=284479.5284529.6412204.1943910/D=group s/S=1705004750:MON/EXP=1094055520/A=2307276/R=0/*h ttp://altfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F4340-21846 -6097-23%3Fmpt%3D1093969120645930
http://ak.bluestreak.com//adv/bellsouth/%5E4626/%5 E255070/468x60shift10dslP33.swf?siteid=346753&adid =255070&cltk=http%3A%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%3A80% 2Fclick%3Bh%3Dv3%7C3186%7C3%7C0%7C*%7Cy%3B9762082% 3B0-0%3B0%3B8426840%3B1-468%7C60%3B6254606%7C62725 02%7C1%3B%3B~sscs%3D%3F&xtrack=xxxtrackxx&mb=http: //ak.bluestreak.com//adv/bellsouth/^4626/^255070/& cp=http://s0b.bluestreak.com/flashtracking/trackin g_&url=http%3A%2F%2Fad%2Edoubleclick%2Enet%3A80%2F click%3Bh%3Dv3%7C3186%7C3%7C0%7C%2A%7Cy%3B9762082% 3B0%2D0%3B0%3B8426840%3B1%2D468%7C60%3B6254606%7C6 272502%7C1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fs0b%2Ebl uestreak%2Ecom%2Fix%2Ee%3Ftr%26s%3D346753%26a%3D25 5070%26u%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebellsouth%2Ecom%2Fco nsumer%2FInternetSvcs%2Ehtml%3Fres%5Fdd%3Ddsl
http://ak.bluestreak.com/
http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ad/advance_aut o/051804matter2_425x600.swf?clickTAG=javascript:YA DopenWindow(1)
http://m2.doubleclick.net/675026/od_tire1_160x600_ 30k.swf?clickTag=http%3A//ad.doubleclick.net/click %253Bh%3Dv3%7C31ac%7C17%7Ccc%7C%252a%7Cb%253B10810 717%253B0-0%253B0%253B9749264%253B2321-160%7C600%2 53B6870819%7C6888715%7C1%253B%253B%257Esscs%253D%2 53fhttp%3A//ads.forbes.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx. ads/forbes.com/lists/story/id1597669/268786021/Rig htMiddle/honda_col_mostconnected_041001/honda_col_ mostconnected_041001.html/343135346538646434313739 37303230%3Fhttp%3A//www.hondacars.com/models/model _overview.asp%3FModelName%3DOdyssey%26bhcp%3D1
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5717&alloc_id=1246

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:What popups by fawlty154 · 2005-09-20 05:47 · Score: 1

Or, I can use Yahoo!'s competitors to get away from all of the cruft.
Last time I checked, there weren't any sweeping SWFs Google's homepage.

More evil? by BoldAC · 2005-09-20 01:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Yahoo in the past has bundled their toolbar with flash and other products. They charge to get inclusion into their infamous directory. Now, they are becoming more linked with spyware?

Yahoo is doing other evil stuff as well:

By accepting Yahoo's "typical" installation of YIM with Voice, it will also download Yahoo's Search Toolbar with anti-spyware and anti-pop-up software, desktop and system tray shortcuts, as well as Yahoo Extras, which will insert Yahoo links into the Internet Explorer browser. The IM client also contains "live words," which will automatically show an icon when the user highlights words online and then hyperlink to Yahoo search results, definitions or translation tools. Finally, the installation will alter the users' home page and auto-search functions to point to Yahoo by default.

To avoid these changes, users must actively choose the "custom" installation and uncheck five boxes.

Evil is yahoo becoming?

Re:More evil? by Prophet+of+Nixon · 2005-09-20 01:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

Er, this is new? I've found Yahoo to be blatantly evil since the late 90s, and I go out of my way to never visit their site. They've done nothing but hemorrhage ads, spam, and crap over the net since they began (and they've spewed plenty of ads into other media as well). I've never understood how a company that does nothing but promote misery stays afloat, much less profits.
Re:More evil? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2005-09-20 01:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yup. And this is what Excite did just before nose-diving into the ground.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:More evil? by popeyethesailor · 2005-09-20 02:02 · Score: 0

Wow. A company bundling its other services with its flagship service? Those Evil BAST4RDS!
But when Google does it, its kosher? WTF?

Everybody is in the bundling game, and guess what; some people like the bundled stuff. If you dont like it, dont use it.
Re:More evil? by suitepotato · 2005-09-20 02:17 · Score: 2, Funny

I've never understood how a company that does nothing but promote misery stays afloat, much less profits.

Neither have I, but somehow those companies spreading misery keep putting the likes of Yahoo Serious, Pauli Shore, Paris Hilton, and the entire cast of the WWE in front of the cameras. It only makes sense if you assume great masochism on the part of the public at large which is not too hard given how many people still use Lynx and Vi right here in geekdom.

--
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Re:More evil? by Secret+Agent+Man · 2005-09-20 02:32 · Score: 1

Slight difference: Yahoo Messenger installs the toolbar, etc. without prior consent of the user.
Re:More evil? by VATechTigger · 2005-09-20 02:49 · Score: 1, Funny

I'm aghast. You mean I have to MANUALLY uncheck a box. Oh the horror...............
Re:More evil? by Captain+Chaos · 2005-09-20 15:22 · Score: 1

Would you happen to know of any investment forums that aren't infested with this type of user? I agree with your comment on Yahoo's, they are next to useless because of people like that. The users of the forum for my previous employer seem to have turned that type of behaviour into an art form. I do get a kick out of some of the users there claiming to have tens of thousands of shares, yet seem unable to write a coherent post. They should use some of those stacks of cash they have lying around and take an English class.

It's True! by tgbrittai · 2005-09-20 01:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah, I installed the Yahoo! Toolbar the other day and ended up with the Adobe Reader on my computer.

What the?!?!?

Re:It's True! by xmuskrat · 2005-09-20 01:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I really don't like those toolbars. It's like giving up screen real estate for things I'm not using. Might as well be a advertisement in that spot. If I want to use yahoo, I'll go to yahoo.

--
activestudios web design
Re:It's True! by Secrity · 2005-09-20 01:21 · Score: 1

And if you install Adobe Reader you end up with the Yahoo! Toolbar getting installed unless you click in the right place.
Re:It's True! by TedCheshireAcad · 2005-09-20 01:21 · Score: 1

Conversely, I installed Adobe Reader the other day and ended up with a Yahoo! Like! Toolbar! In! Adobe! Reader!
Re:It's True! by ajs318 · 2005-09-20 03:31 · Score: 1

You don't need Adobe Acrobat reader. Just # pt-get install gpdf {maybe I should have said # emerge gpdf to get modded up by some Gentoo fan?} Does everything I need.

I'm currently thinking of contacting the webmaster of every website where I see "Requires Acrobat Reader" and pointing out that there are alternative solutions for viewing PDF files.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:It's True! by ePhil_One · 2005-09-20 10:02 · Score: 1

Using the automatic updates there seems to be no way to prevent Yahoo Toolbar from being installed.
So I don't update

--
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.

meanwhile... by cswiii · 2005-09-20 01:15 · Score: 2, Funny

...I load up Slashdot, see this story briefly, only to have the Network Solutions banner at the top expand into an ad that takes up about 1/4 of the browser window on mouseover, thus covering it up.

Re:meanwhile... by Phil246 · 2005-09-20 01:17 · Score: 0

1) install firefox
2) install adblock
3) block ad
4) ???
5% profit!!!
Re:meanwhile... by eggz128 · 2005-09-20 01:27 · Score: 1, Funny

Only 5% profit? Not worth it :)
Re:meanwhile... by cswiii · 2005-09-20 01:27 · Score: 1

On my box at home, that's what I do. Unfortunately it's not an option here. ...and that's beside the point anyway. I wasn't talking about being annoyed by pop-ups, I was talking about an article questioning Yahoo!'s pop-up practices, noting that the vehicle for this article also happened to use them.
Re:meanwhile... by LiquidCoooled · 2005-09-20 01:29 · Score: 1

That sounds horrible.
Is it flash or java driven?

I disable both whilst continuing to download adverts in general, occasionally a still frame will grab my attention enough to warrant a click, but if its jumping up and down like a hyperactive rabbit on heat, then I think I'll pass.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 01:31 · Score: 0

The what in the where?

...oh, you're still using a browser that shows you ads! I'm sorry.
Re:meanwhile... by Captain_Chaos · 2005-09-20 05:33 · Score: 2, Funny

...I load up Slashdot, see this story briefly, only to have the Network Solutions banner at the top expand into an ad that takes up about 1/4 of the browser window on mouseover, thus covering it up.

There are ads on slashdot?

What's next? by Teresh · 2005-09-20 01:17 · Score: 1, Funny

What's next -- Google viruses? Oh, wait...

--
Do you Gentoo?

Re:What's next? by saskboy · 2005-09-20 04:37 · Score: 2, Informative

It'll be easy to avoid the Google viruses though, just never install anything you find on http://virus.google.com/ especially if it's out of Beta version.

--
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.

They are here to make money by drzolo · 2005-09-20 01:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

Lets face it. Yahoo is a huge company, so is Google. These companies are not here to be our friends. It just seems they are our friends, but in fact, their main goal is to make money (duh). So what is so suprising here? If pop ups increase revenue, they are good for the company. Why get attached personally to this? By that I mean, yahoo is for pop ups. Oh no! Who cares? Use Google. Google is bad too? Use Msn Search. If there is enough people who despise the current multi billion search engines, maybe that will give rise to open source search engines. Also, if the guy did post those comments while working, fire his ass. But if he did it outside working hours, I don't see a reason to fire that person.

Re:They are here to make money by bedroll · 2005-09-20 02:17 · Score: 1

Just because Google is another search engine and huge corporation doesn't make them evil. For that matter, I wouldn't even call Yahoo! evil, they're just more interested in the bottom line.
In Google's defense I can say that I've never experienced a pop-up from any of their sites. I've never had to actively work to not install their software. Their software has never done anything more than what I've asked it to do on my machines. With that said, I don't use their desktop search because it requires me to be an administrator and I'm not sure if I really want everything indexed that way.
In Yahoo!'s defense, well, it's a little tougher. I can say that they are one of the best free (as in beer, with advertising) community sites. They have a great mix of services that range from poor to excellent, but most are somewhere in between. It's great to have a single sign-on for all of that, and you can depend on them to be there. Thing is, they depend much less than Google on finding innovative ways to make money without annoying users. They depend on more traditional net-marketing, which has evolved into a battle to get in the user's face as often and bluntly as possible. They can't just up and change now, if they do people will cry foul that they're copying Google. Their investors look at their bottom line and so long as it turns a profit then it won't change.
MSN is a whole 'nother monster. They don't have to be as intrusive because they're much less worried about turning a profit and much more worried about maintaining Microsoft's dominance. MS puts a lot of value on being the only company in the software business, and MSN is a key part of that strategy. Unfortunately, MSN never has been able to outdo Yahoo! or Google, and rarely even AOL.
Re:They are here to make money by drooling-dog · 2005-09-20 02:18 · Score: 1

On the other hand, abusing your customers is rarely good for business, at least not for very long...
Re:They are here to make money by ChocoBean · 2005-09-20 03:44 · Score: 1

Noo! Say it aint so! I know what a lot of people are saying about Google, but I believe in Google! You people are just jealous of what we've got between us...you wouldn't understand, it's special!

I've had my romantic fling with Yahoo! before, but Yahoo! broke my heart by doing something exactly like this.

but Google is different...I know it

the sad thing is, i'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic.......
Re:They are here to make money by Ponyegg · 2005-09-21 00:28 · Score: 1

You're right, it IS sad. Knowing people who work and Google and people who work at Yahoo, I'd say I'm with Yahoo everytime. Google remind me too much of the Moonies.

Trust Yahoo? by Red+Flayer · 2005-09-20 01:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Yahoo Chief Operating Officer Daniel L. Rosensweig insists the company has the highest standards. "Users can put their trust in us because that is what we're built on," he says."

What Rosenzweig fails to mention is that Yahoo, like most companies, will take advantage of that trust to the furthest extent they can get away with.

Trust us because we say our foundation is trust? I don't think so.

How about "Trust us because we take steps to prevent adware, not support it."

Or, "Trust us because we will never piggyback software and settings changes onto downloads from us that you choose to install."

Or, "Trust us because it's not in our financial interest to do bad things to you."

Unfortunately, none of these three possibilities are true... and until they are, I will not trust Yahoo farther than I can throw them.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai

Re:Trust Yahoo? by MagicBox · 2005-09-20 01:31 · Score: 1

at its simplest form Yahoo was created with money in mind. It is not innovation by any means. It's not to make our lives easier. It's a money machine. It's an opportunity taken. It will do whatever it takes to make more money.

--

The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
Re:Trust Yahoo? by Red+Flayer · 2005-09-20 01:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not about Yahoo vs. Google. It's about Yahoo versus me.

That said, I don't trust Google either... I just distrust them less.

And it's not about choice here -- it's about informed choice. As we learn more about the business practices of Yahoo, Google, et al, then we gain the ability to make informed choices. But until every company comes clean about the things that like Yahho has been getting bad publicity about, we don't have real choice.

"Go wank google some more if you don't like it.

Go wank yourself before you make assumptions about what companies I do or do not like.

Bad Troll.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Re:Trust Yahoo? by Red+Flayer · 2005-09-20 01:47 · Score: 1

"at its simplest form Yahoo was created with money in mind... It's a money machine... It will do whatever it takes to make more money."

I'm not disputing that. In this case, "whatever it takes" means gaining my trust... otherwise, they'll never get one red cent from me.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Re:Trust Yahoo? by kwark · 2005-09-20 02:40 · Score: 1

"That said, I don't trust Google either... I just distrust them less."

Why would you distrust them less? For example why does google put an ID in their preferences cookie? That "feature" isn't on the preferences page (neither on hte help page)! And the reason I have to set preferences is because google.com redirects me to the localized version in the local language which I don't want to use on google. Why!!! It's not for loadbalancing purposes since they are the same machine.
Re:Trust Yahoo? by Red+Flayer · 2005-09-20 03:15 · Score: 1

I distrust them less because they do not have as bad of a proven track record.

When I see Google doing the same kinds of things as Yahoo, like in the article, then I will distrust them as much as I distrust Yahoo.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Re:Trust Yahoo? by GoogleGuy · 2005-09-20 13:37 · Score: 1

If you want to get to the main version of Google and skip the localized version, here's a page that describes how to do it without allowing cookies.
http://www.tech-recipes.com/google_tips769.html
Hope that helps; if you want to search without a cookie, that's fine with us. :)
GoogleGuy

Proposed new name for Yahoo! by andy55 · 2005-09-20 01:23 · Score: 1, Funny

In other news, Yahoo! will be changing its name to "Realhoo!"

--
G-Force music visualization

Re:Proposed new name for Yahoo! by zarmanto · 2005-09-20 01:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

In response to: In other news, Yahoo! will be changing its name to "Realhoo!" That's exactly where my thoughts went too; I was always annoyed by the way RealPlayer puts up a dozen check boxes (some of which you need to scroll down to find) and forces you to opt-out of every single one -- which I always have, in those rare instances when I needed to install RealPlayer. Ironically, within the past couple of years I've kept my computer relatively Real-free, because the vast majority of sites which offer Real streams also offer alternative streams in Windows Media Player, QuickTime, or both. I would imagine that I'm not entirely alone in this. (Come to think of it, I don't believe I've heard much about Real in the news lately... perhaps that corroborates my theory?)
So it seems that the question which Yahoo must ask themselves is this: Does the revenue from all those adware related pop-ups (which I believe -- correct me if I'm wrong -- are consistently seeing fewer click-throughs) outweigh the potential revenue from people actually surfing to the Yahoo portal sites?

Here is the real issue...LEGALLY, what is Spyware? by PenguinBoyDave · 2005-09-20 01:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

I work for a company that produces an Anti-Spyware product that got bitch-slapped in court some time back by Gator for calling Gator Spyware. Now...WE all know what Spyware is. They know what Spyware is, but (and please, correct me if I'm wrong, because I might be) until a court of law legally defines Spyware, it seems to me that YAHOO and everyone else can load your machine up without an ounce of legal liability.

--
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.

Re:huh by kevin.fowler · 2005-09-20 01:24 · Score: 2, Funny

He didn't have the $150 to buy the vowel. Damn you Pat Sajak

--
Bury me in mashed potatoes.

Not surprising by highcon · 2005-09-20 01:29 · Score: 1

A big company is going the cheap and dirty way to make some cash, and I'm not surprised. If there isn't a culture of "We make money by respecting the customer" at a company, you can expect the customer to get screwed over as soon as some marketing dude deems it convenient.

--
You can either complain, or do nothing. You don't get both.

Re:Not surprising by JasonKChapman · 2005-09-20 02:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

"...respecting the customer..." I'm sure they do respect their customers. The mistake is in thinking that the users of their free services are Yahoo!'s customers. They aren't. They're the product. The adverstisers, or perhaps piggybacking software companies, are the customers. The free service is the means used to produce Yahoo!'s primary product: eyeballs.

--
Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.

Re:huh? by WillerZ · 2005-09-20 01:30 · Score: 1

s/tv/tiv/ I guess.

Also, to karma-whore even further, here is a more readable version of this page for those who object to slush-brown.

--
I guess today is a passable day to die.

Can I trust Yahoo? I think not. by Futurepower(R) · 2005-09-20 01:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

Over the years, I have learned to have zero (0) trust in Yahoo.

From the Business Week article:

"Sure, no one issue will turn off Yahoo users in droves." One issue will definitely convince a large percentage of people never to visit Yahoo.

Another quote:

"... Yahoo risks tarnishing its reputation as a trustworthy Net player." Notice that doing an internet search is called "Googling". For knowledgeable people, Yahoo has a bad reputation. For others, Yahoo has no reputation at all.

Business writers write a lot of DISGUSTING nonsense about computer technology:

"To Yahoo's credit, it is leading industrywide discussions aimed at devising new practices for the adware companies." Here's another quote: "Yahoo also insists it does business only with adware companies that adhere to best practices..."

It seems to me that Yahoo cannot compete, so it is trying every trick to stay alive.

Not real news: AOL and Yahoo and MSN will merge. The combined company will be called CyberHell.

Re:Can I trust Yahoo? I think not. by 77Punker · 2005-09-20 04:27 · Score: 1

The resulting space-time vortex of suck will be worthy of its own episode of Star Trek.
Re:Can I trust Yahoo? I think not. by frank_adrian314159 · 2005-09-20 08:36 · Score: 1

Notice that doing an internet search is called "Googling". For knowledgeable people, Yahoo has a bad reputation. For others, Yahoo has no reputation at all.
And I believe that we need a new term - Yahoodaling . Any takers for the definition? Suggested usage: "Boy, they really Yahoodled their users with that move!"

--
That is all.
Re:Can I trust Yahoo? I think not. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:50 · Score: 0

Just for reference I would like to say googling sounds just plain retarded. Closest I've ever came to saying that is "google it" only when I was really pissed off at someone whimpering about not finding something.

Yahoo's Reputation by rlp · 2005-09-20 01:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yahoo risks tarnishing their reputation by turning over e-mail accounts of dissidents to the mainland Chinese government. Compared to that, adware is nothing.

--
[Insert pithy quote here]

Re:Yahoo's Reputation by NewStarRising · 2005-09-20 01:53 · Score: 1

A lot of people will not care too much about things that do not directly affect them (e.g. Chinese dissidents in China), but do care about things that directly affect them (e.g. pop-up adverts on their webpages).

Indeed, how can I organise the online protest against Chinese draconian government with all these pop-ups all over the place????

--
b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
MadDwarf
Re:Yahoo's Reputation by clifyt · 2005-09-20 01:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

As much as I hate it, they do have to follow the law of the land.

If the US government had asked them to turn over email for accounts that originated in the US and were maintained on US servers, and the courts agreed with this decision -- they'd turn it over too...just the same way you'd roll if the gov't and the court system told you to do something.

What? You think that just because they are a US company that they don't need to follow the laws in countries they do business?

Again, I don't agree with it either...but so long as they maintain a physical business presence there, they need to follow the law like anyone else.
Re:Yahoo's Reputation by rlp · 2005-09-20 02:06 · Score: 1

clifyt wrote:

What? You think that just because they are a US company that they don't need to follow the laws in countries they do business?

No, I think there's a cost associated with doing the right thing. Sometimes that cost can be quite high. Whether you're willing to pay that cost says what type of person or what type of company you are. I think we now know what type of company Yahoo is.

--
[Insert pithy quote here]
Re:Yahoo's Reputation by a1ok · 2005-09-20 02:09 · Score: 1

I agree with parent - I don't see any point in blaming Yahoo when they are forced by a government to do something, you can't really expect them to fight that.

On the other hand, whether to use adware or not, and things like changing settings on user machines, is definitely within their control. I dislike the bloated Ymsgr which has to include stock quotes, news and lots of other things I don't want or need; but Y! doesn't offer a lighter option. Result: I use msn msgr which actually loads faster (atleast, that's the impression I had), and now am moving to gtalk and planning to dump msn msgr.

Yahoo seems to think that users need to know everything that they can potentially do at Yahoo, no matter if the user actually *knows* he only wants a simple chat client. No - he just hasn't tried our fantastic stock quotes, so what if he's got no money? :-)

In summary, I differ from GP's view in that I don't really blame them for taking actions beyond their control; but I do consider them responsible for only caring about users as a source of revenue.
Re:Yahoo's Reputation by kamapuaa · 2005-09-20 02:58 · Score: 1

It's easy to say it's "doing the right thing," but who wants to see large international corporations enforcing U.S. laws in various countries? China already has its history of economic colonialism and it sparked revolutions for more than a hundred years, culminating in the Communist revolution.
I disagree with the ruling. I get annoyed at Chinese web censorship here in Shanghai. At the same time, it's not like China is the only nation to jail reporters for reporting (just ask Judy Miller, who kept her sources confidential), and it's not like Yahoo! is the only international corporation complying with China's unfortunate internet policies, Google also supports Chinese censorship of the press. I'm not trying to saying "those other wrongs make it a right," but it also means Yahoo! doesn't stand out from the crowd as an exceptionally evil company.

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Re:Yahoo's Reputation by stefanlasiewski · 2005-09-20 05:06 · Score: 1

If a US Law Enforcement agency asks Yahoo for your account information, Yahoo will probably provide it. And this isn't unusual-- most business will comply with a warrant.

Good or evil, one thing is clear -- if you don't obey the law of the land, you aren't allowed to do business in that land.

--
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Re:Yahoo's Reputation by SacredNaCl · 2005-09-20 12:49 · Score: 1

They might care more about the Chinese dissidents if they knew the death vans each have quotas to fill and they turn the executed into cosmetics products... http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/200 5/09/14/2003271560/print

Slather some more dead people on your face. Enjoy it!

--
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.

A New Spelling Low for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 01:39 · Score: 0

Never thought that I would see an entire thread started with a spelling mistake *in the title*. Now this whole forum is doomed.

Ortha, Goddess of Spelling

Re:Here is the real issue...LEGALLY, what is Spywa by HermanAB · 2005-09-20 01:39 · Score: 3, Funny

Well, that should have been a lesson. It is not "Spyware", it is "Fucking Goddamn Crapware". You got to be accurate when you talk about these things...

--
Oh well, what the hell...

Speaking of flash... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 01:42 · Score: 0

Anyone know how I can completely remove flash support from a windows 98 box or do something else to completely block it? Preferably it would not even download.
Neither uninstall nor the instructions on the macromedia site actually remove it. It would also be nice if it did not pop anything up to tell me I need to get a plug in when flash is encountered in a web page...
Thanks

Re:Speaking of flash... by iow · 2005-09-20 02:21 · Score: 1, Informative

Try the flashblock plugin for firefox. You won't see any flash movies unless you want to.
Re:Speaking of flash... by Glsai · 2005-09-20 02:48 · Score: 1

You don't by chance know if there is something like that for Opera do you? It'd be a great help to getting rid of some of these flash advertisements that pop up.
Re:Speaking of flash... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 04:38 · Score: 0

I have never installed flash on my linux box with firefox so I am good there. However I need the old Win98 box with IE. I made the horrible mistake of once installing the flash for this and have been trying to get rid of it ever since. That shit is worse than a virus. I wonder if advertisers realize that they could make a more favorable impression on potential customers by delivering electric shocks to their genitals than by useing flash ads.

Actvely? by ave19 · 2005-09-20 01:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Are the editors actively supporting spell checkers?

I'm joking!

--
...or maybe not.

and I load up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 01:50 · Score: 0

....wakamaru, and it communicates something robotic with the aibo, which in turn goes over and lifts its leg and whizzes on the roombah.

In a perfect world... by Tominva1045 · 2005-09-20 01:50 · Score: 1

In a perfect world they'd be running servers with free Linux and free bandwidth and no ads so everyone could P2P all day...

Dude, this isn't how the real world works. Folks really emotional about what Yahoo is doing could surely start their own portal conforming to their own standards of what is right and good.

However, after investing all their engery in it for some time they would realize, as Yahoo does, at the end of the day you still have to put food on the table.

We all have a choice if we find something we don't like-- navigate elsewhere right?

--
Cogito Ergo Sum

Re:In a perfect world... by drooling-dog · 2005-09-20 02:23 · Score: 1

Folks really emotional about what Yahoo is doing could surely start their own portal
Indeed they could do that, but it's sufficient merely to stop using Yahoo and to influence their 1,000 closest friends to do likewise.
Re:In a perfect world... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:49 · Score: 0

In a perfect world, they'd be running Linux and the Slashdot crowd would rejoice.

In the real world, they run FreeBSD, and to the Slashdot crowd, they're evil.
Re:In a perfect world... by cr0sh · 2005-09-20 04:00 · Score: 1

In a perfect world they'd be running servers with free Linux and free bandwidth and no ads so everyone could P2P all day...
You know, all I really want is to be a real peer on the internet. I will pay for the bandwidth, but I won't be raped for it. I wish I could get SpeakEasy where I live, but I can't - they are an ISP who truely understands what the internet is and why it grew like it has: because all nodes on the network are peers to one another.
Broadband service, while excellent from the point of view from using a modem, lacks this peering ability in most AUPs. I think it is a shame that I cannot get this ability without paying out the wazoo from my provider (Cox Communications, unfortunately - if I wanted the "business class" service, they insist that they charge the hookup fee, though there is nothing more that they do except change some modem provisioning settings on their end - I can see the extra expense for the monthly service, but a hookup fee where nobody comes out? What kind of scam is that?)...

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Re:In a perfect world... by Tominva1045 · 2005-09-20 04:41 · Score: 1

I know what you mean/good points.

Sometime back I discussed with a Verizon marketing bunny (trying to sell me DSL) the idea that I wanted to buy a fixed IP address.

Her response was, "why would you want that? It's dangerous."

Anyhoo, life goes on.

--
Cogito Ergo Sum

Is Yahoo actvely Supporting Adware? by ngyahloon · 2005-09-20 01:51 · Score: 1

Well of course. Jst like the consipracy that slashdot takes away the 6th vowel in some titles.

--
Carpe Diem: Seize The Day!

Re:Is Yahoo actvely Supporting Adware? by PhoenixPath · 2005-09-20 02:20 · Score: 1

Unless you count the "y".

Sheesh.
Re:Is Yahoo actvely Supporting Adware? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:53 · Score: 0

This is so way off topic, it's scary. I am 32, and it was never taught that Y could possibly be a vowel. What is the rule that dictates wether it is a vowel or consonant (correct spelling?... I'm too loaded up on painkiller and lazy to look it up). Seriously. I had not heard of Y as a possible vowel until just a couple of years ago. Anyone know the answer?
Re:Is Yahoo actvely Supporting Adware? by PhoenixPath · 2005-09-20 03:36 · Score: 1

AEIOU and Sometimes Y I'm 31...and don't take it seriously. It was a joke, man.

Yahoo! sucks by twbecker · 2005-09-20 01:54 · Score: 1

I have to say I agree 100%. I've never seen a company that tries to inject it's craptacular toolbars, utilities, etc into a legit software installation as much as Yahoo does. I went to upgrade to Adobe Reader 7 last night, and could not remove the Yahoo Toolbar even when doing a custom install. Now I still run Adobe 6. People download the Google Toolbar of their own volition, because they *want* to. I guess Yahoo realizes they can't compete, or maybe they just think this approach is easier than trying to.

--
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln

Re:Yahoo! sucks by galaga79 · 2005-09-20 02:17 · Score: 1

The Yahoo toolbar can be easily removed from Acrobat Reader 7 by right-clicking and unchecking the "Search the Internet" item.

You can even remove the annoying ads displayed in the right hand corner: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/007183 .html

The Yahoo toolbar is everywhere though, I noticed it even appears in the Plaxo toolbar for Outlook.

--

aus.music.scrapbook
Re:Yahoo! sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:18 · Score: 0

The only way to upgrade to Reader 7 without installing Yahoo! Toolbar is to go to adobe.com and download from the reader section (make sure to un-check the "Install Yahoo Toolbar" option).

Speaking of which, I've complained to Adobe several times (through their automated comment system that probably goes straight to nowhere) and am now looking for alternatives to Reader for customers of mine. I distribute many PDFs and my customers live in developing countries where computing power is low. If Yahoo Toolbar slows down their computers and they get frustrated with using computers it slows my business.

So, my proprietary-format-hating slashdot community, can anyone recommend a free program for reading PDFs that is easy to install & use for a non-nerd?
Re:Yahoo! sucks by twbecker · 2005-09-20 02:24 · Score: 1

Thanks for the info. I'm sure they're betting that most people won't figure out why they can't unbundle the toolbar.

--
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
Re:Yahoo! sucks by hairyfeet · 2005-09-20 02:50 · Score: 1

Ask and yee shall receive--http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro .php

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Yahoo by Kylere · 2005-09-20 01:56 · Score: 1

I have not been to the Yahoo site since the 90's. Altavista once rocked, then they lagged in updating their database, so I switched to Google. I never have liked the overcrowded look of Yahoo, nor the clutter involved in gathering basic info. I understand they added, mail, chat etc and so has google but without being offensive about it. Yahoo deserves to fail for focusing on the 13-18 crowd, all the extra is just making it obvious for the slow.

Re:Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 05:32 · Score: 0

don't like the clutter? try:
http://search.yahoo.com/

How Yahoo Funds Spyware by bedelman · 2005-09-20 02:00 · Score: 5, Informative

For those who are interested, see my article that (I think it's safe to say) sparked a portion of the Business Week piece:

How Yahoo Funds Spyware

I post screenshots and packet logs showing how Yahoo ads get syndicated into notorious spyware -- Direct Revenue, eXact Advertising, 180solutions, and some smaller players too (SideFind, Slotchbar, etc.).

"Don't be evil" and other corporate nonsense by SuperBanana · 2005-09-20 02:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Trust us because we say our foundation is trust? I don't think so.

"Don't be evil" ring a bell? Everyone pretty much "believed" the head honcos at google when they declared that was the company's motto.

Dow's motto is "We Bring Good Things to Life", except they purchased Union Carbide after Union Carbide killed tens of thousands of Indian people when a chemical plant in Bhopal released methyl isocyanate.

Last time I mentioned Bhopal and Dow, someone said "hey, that was Union Carbide, not Dow! Dow just bought them!" Well- Dow management and shareholders didn't seem to have much trouble sleeping at night after buying Union Carbide for a song (Union Carbide after the disaster became next to worthless as a brand.) Dow pretty much turned into a industrial-disaster profiteer.

--
Please help metamoderate.

Re:"Don't be evil" and other corporate nonsense by ivan256 · 2005-09-20 02:19 · Score: 1

Dow's motto is "We Bring Good Things to Life"

Actually, that's GE's old motto, not Dow.

except they purchased Union Carbide after Union Carbide killed tens of thousands of Indian people when a chemical plant in Bhopal released methyl isocyanate

What would you have prefered to happen? Somebody has to end up owning that mess. Or are you suggesting that Union Carbide be left to rot until the value was zero as punishment? Either way, this is an amazing red herring.
Re:"Don't be evil" and other corporate nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:47 · Score: 0

Or are you suggesting that Union Carbide be left to rot until the value was zero as punishment?

Oooh, a death sentence for corporations, I like it! Still not the satisfaction of piercing the corporate veil and punishing the actual people responsible, but it will at least let people pretend that justice was served.
Re:"Don't be evil" and other corporate nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 03:00 · Score: 0

Don't be evil" ring a bell? Everyone pretty much "believed" the head honcos at google when they declared that was the company's motto.

What's your point? Aside from a few cranks trying desperately hard to spin Google as evil, I haven't seen much to contradict that motto.
Re:"Don't be evil" and other corporate nonsense by Red+Flayer · 2005-09-20 03:59 · Score: 1

"'Don't be evil' ring a bell? Everyone pretty much "believed" the head honcos at google when they declared that was the company's motto. "

Speak for yourself -- anyone that truly believed that chose to put the blindfold on themselves. However, it is possible to have a corporate philosophy that encompasses "do no evil." It may even be possible to be profitable, too. The question is, how well is that philosophy applied?

"Dow's motto is 'We Bring Good Things to Life'""

That's GE, Dow's slogan is "living improved daily." Still fits your argument, which reaffirms what my posts about trust and about informed choice had to say.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Re:"Don't be evil" and other corporate nonsense by phliar · 2005-09-20 06:12 · Score: 1

[Dow purchased Union Carbide after Union Carbide killed tens of thousands of Indian people when a chemical plant in Bhopal released methyl isocyanate]
ivan256 asks: What would you have prefered to happen? Somebody has to end up owning that mess.

Red herring or not, it's not the case that someone "owns that mess." Thanks to the excellent corporate atmosphere in the US, Dow only has the assets, not the liability. There are various websites up in arms about it. Also a parody site http://www.dowethics.com/.

--
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Re:"Don't be evil" and other corporate nonsense by evilviper · 2005-09-20 06:33 · Score: 1

Well- Dow management and shareholders didn't seem to have much trouble sleeping at night after buying Union Carbide for a song

Why should they? Perhaps they bought Union Carbide with the specific intention of FIXING the company... Making it safer, cleaner, etc. I don't know if that is the case, but that senario happens all the time.

When you buy a piece of land in the USA, do you have much trouble sleeping at night, knowing you got that land through the mass murder of millions upon millions of Native Americans?

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:"Don't be evil" and other corporate nonsense by RobertLTux · 2005-09-20 10:07 · Score: 1

Dow's motto is "We Bring Good Things to Life" Actually, that's GE's old motto, not Dow. -------- and GE during WWII made a (chain|gattlen) gun so NO Corp has clean hands.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Went to Business Weeks site and got a pop-up! by Viewsonic · 2005-09-20 02:03 · Score: 0

Yeah, real slick there.

Re:Went to Business Weeks site and got a pop-up! by drooling-dog · 2005-09-20 02:25 · Score: 1

Using IE, are we?

Speaking of unrelated bundling... by dark-br · 2005-09-20 02:05 · Score: 1

... my Adobe Acrobat Reader upgrade wants to install the Yahoo toolbar. And no, I cannot opt out.

Re:Speaking of unrelated bundling... by gstoddart · 2005-09-20 04:50 · Score: 1

.. my Adobe Acrobat Reader upgrade wants to install the Yahoo toolbar. And no, I cannot opt out.

Gah! That sounds evil.

It's definitely not good when you have no choice but to install software you don't want to get software you need.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Here is the real issue...LEGALLY, what is Spywa by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:05 · Score: 0

Right. How is banner advertising on a website different to an application on your computer showing banners in it as advertising?

Actvely ? by connah0047 · 2005-09-20 02:05 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Is Yahoo Actvely Supporting Adware?

Is SlashDot ACTIVELY supporting spell checking?

Hello Kettle? Your Black! by OctoberSky · 2005-09-20 02:07 · Score: 1

I come here, read the Slashdot synopsis click on the link and (slow server) eventually get to what resembles a page. Then BAM! popup, my cat like reflexes shut it down before I can even tell what it is, but then BAM! anoter attack. This time by Verizon in a colorful borderless pop up.

Who put this article together? I mean, wouldn't you want to not be seen as supporting pop ups when your running an "expose" on other sites and thier affinity for pop ups?

Re:Hello Kettle? Your Black! by /dev/trash · 2005-09-20 03:45 · Score: 1

Huh? My black is what?

Don't see a reason? by Urusai · 2005-09-20 02:11 · Score: 2, Funny

Employees indulging in spontaneous honesty is never good for business. They should fire him and have a court slap an injunction on him that forbids him from talking about the injunction.

Just look what happened when it was pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes. It destroyed an entire textile industry, embarrassed the nation, and undermined confidence in hucksters *ahem* businessmen with innovative revenue models. We can't undermine the economy in these fragile times! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA????

Re:Don't see a reason? by indifferent+children · 2005-09-20 03:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

It destroyed an entire textile industry
To be fair, that textile industry had no textile workers. The fabric was 'spun' by marketers.

--
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain

Meanwhile, Yahoo stamps their crap on Flickr by Rocketship+Underpant · 2005-09-20 02:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yahoo's engineers and marketers have already had their first stab at ruining Flickr, the wonderful photo-sharing website. The simple, friendly, three-question signup that worked so well before has been turned into a ghastly Yahoo ID signup process that includes the usual corporate interrogation and other goofiness spread across multiple pages and redirects.

Just wait till the rest of Flickr gets the Yahoo treatment.

http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/flickr_signup_f rom_human_to_droid_in_a_yahoo_moment.php

--
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

Re:huh? by op12 · 2005-09-20 02:18 · Score: 1

Or use this link to gain appreciation for the slush brown.

...perhaps not what the engineers want... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2005-09-20 02:24 · Score: 1

but it's probably what the suits want.

It's the same case at Microsoft, I've noticed. The engineers tend to be do-no-evil kind of folk yet market forces elsewhere dictate otherwise. Go figure.

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.

Yahoo Owns Spyware Companies by rAiNsT0rm · 2005-09-20 02:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yahoo OWNS Intermix through Overture who has lost some massive court cases involving spyware. So this is no real surprise. Intermix was ordered to pay 7.5 Million in a seattle case. http://www.technewsworld.com/story/43894.html

--
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea

But they're trying to help! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:28 · Score: 1, Interesting

Yahoo also insists it does business only with adware companies that adhere to best practices and that its ongoing involvement in the industry has already boosted standards.

Can anyone tell me what exactly the standards are for spyware? Hm... slow performance, crashed programs, increased bloat, ... standards? bah!

Re:Here is the real issue...LEGALLY, what is Spywa by yEvb0 · 2005-09-20 02:32 · Score: 1

until a court of law legally defines Spyware

Let's hope they define as clearly as they defined pornography: "I know it when I see it."

--
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"

More complicated than that... by sweetnjguy29 · 2005-09-20 02:34 · Score: 1

Most states have some sort of statute that prohibits and/or criminalizes unauthorized access of a computer. More fundamentally, an action for trespass could be brought against a spyware company, potentially, for installing software on your computer without permission. The real question becomes "what is an authorizated installation of software?". Is a small print disclosure enough? Should the disclosure be BOLDED? Another issue, of course, is slander and liable. If you say a company's product is Spyware, you may have defamed that person's business. So the issue becomes, "is it true that this product is spyware?". Then, a legal definition of spyware becomes important. I think its time for an anti-spyware statute to be passed!

Re:More complicated than that... by swb · 2005-09-20 03:46 · Score: 1

If all that's required is that spyware needs to pass some confusing and oblique definition of "approval", shouldn't I be able to get a bank or other business to agree to some other murky "agreement" which would give me access to THEIR systems, and hence the ability to take from them?

The problem with all of this is the click-through agreement. By using click-through agreements, spyware and companies that distribute it, are able to cloak themselves in legalese and create a (likely) defensable position whereby the user gave them "permission."

Congress needs to *bar* the click through agreement; if software companies want to create a binding contract, they need to get me to sign paper. If they want electronic contracts, there should be a wholly seperate process from the installer *and* some statutory requirement that the language be held to a maximum length and a "reasonable person" clarity requirement, as well as key disclosures like "we can take your information and do whatever we want".

If the spyware vendors and their frontmen HAD to disclose "we're gonna monitor you, mine your private data and install more software you cannot remove" in plain language, nobody would accept it. That they can cloak it in dense legalese nobody understands with catch-all inclusionary clauses makes it meaningless.
Re:More complicated than that... by sweetnjguy29 · 2005-09-20 11:06 · Score: 1

I couldnt agree more.
Re:More complicated than that... by corblix · 2005-09-20 12:07 · Score: 1

If all that's required is that spyware needs to pass some confusing and oblique definition of "approval", shouldn't I be able to get a bank or other business to agree to some other murky "agreement" which would give me access to THEIR systems, and hence the ability to take from them?
Certainly, if the bank agrees to it.
The real difference here is that, in practice, banks carefully read the contracts they agree to.
Re:More complicated than that... by swb · 2005-09-21 07:35 · Score: 1

Including the spyware their employees might install -- or worse, have installed "for" them by weaknesses in browsers?
Re:More complicated than that... by corblix · 2005-09-23 20:45 · Score: 1

Including the spyware their employees might install -- or worse, have installed "for" them by weaknesses in browsers?
I suppose you have a point there.

Two Words by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:36 · Score: 0

HELL YES!!!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2005-09-20 02:39 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Proof FreeBSD isn't dying, rather.... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:40 · Score: 0

...it's popping up all over the place!

Yes, Definitely!! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 02:50 · Score: 0

Yahoo absolutely supports adware and spyware companies. Overture is one of them! I so totally run ad filtering when surfing there.

Adware vs. spyware by Alwin+Henseler · 2005-09-20 02:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm sure this is explained elsewhere nicely, but IMHO what sets spyware apart from other crapware is the lack of user knowledge and approval.

A common scenario would be a user clicking 'Ok' on an EULA which somewhere, buried in a heap of legal speak, mentions "includes <insert favorite crapware here> from <insert favorite crapware company here>". Whatever happens next, that user did agree to installation of this crapware, and could have know about it before installing (if he/she would bother to read the EULA).

I guess what makes this legally a gray area is the 'bundling' aspect. If user agrees to install A, and B comes bundled with A, did user agree to install B as well, or not? What if B is regarded as an essential component of A (not as a separate item B)? What if B is one very small part of a large software suite A? Does it need mentioning at all in that case? How about software that upgrades itself to include new 'functionality'? Very tricky all this.

If not bundled (like installed through a browser vulnerability), it's not much different from installing a rootkit on someone else's machine. Without user approval, THAT is very much illegal where I live (comparable to cracking systems). YMMV, but ofcourse these things are very, very difficult to prove in court.

Maybe that Gator thingie of yours looked like spyware but did get mentioned in an EULA that users had to click through ('upgrading' it to adware)?

you're a fucking hypocrite by Ender+Ryan · 2005-09-20 02:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

In the U.S. now, due to the Patriot Act, the federal government can detain anyone for any reason for any length of time and pretty much do to them anything they want. Therefore, if a company operating in the U.S. receives a court order to turn over information, they should refuse, otherwise they may be unknowingly complicit in violating someone's civil rights.

I really, really doubt the police in China told Yahoo what the investigation was about; you know, police are like that. They just demand information, and the law compels you to obey.

Perhaps we should have a trade embargo against China? That is, logically, the only way to go following your logic. If you operate in China, you have to follow the law. If you don't follow the law, you can't operate in China. The law, in your opinion(and mine too, certainly), violates the peoples' civil rights.

So, how about we stop all trade with China. Seems to be working just wonderfully for the people in Cuba...

Look, Yahoo isn't personally accountable for the actions of the Chinese government. The authorities demanded information and Yahoo obeyed the law. Did they even know what the investigation was about? It's not like the executives at Yahoo said, "No let's see. Who's civil rights can we violate today?" Give us a fucking break.

This is a political matter that deserves attention. When we have some politicians that aren't mouth breathing shit eaters, maybe it can be properly addressed. And perhaps when we damand the same of ourselves that we demand of others, we won't look like fucking hypocrites.

--
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden

Re:you're a fucking hypocrite by Pig+Hogger · 2005-09-20 03:14 · Score: 1

Perhaps we should have a trade embargo against China?
What? Are you insane? Bankrupt Wall-Marde you want??? You must be un-american to want to bankupt Wall-Marde! Without China, how else would get the cheap communist slave-made shit it's peddling to us?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2005-09-20 03:03 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Helloooo geocities... by Spy+der+Mann · 2005-09-20 03:05 · Score: 1

Let's not forget that when geocities was bought by Yahoo!, it became a corporate monster with zero tech support (in a maze of help files where you couldn't find an e-mail or phone number), with ads popping up in your webpage almost anywhere. Geocities filters for the Proxomitron (remember the little triangle buddy that served as an ad filter?) were very popular, and the freaking geocities pages weren't valid html because of their "anti-hack" hacks.

So, is it a mystery that Yahoo fell again in the "annoying users for money" habit? By the way, speaking of annoyances, the stupid ads in Yahoo! mail are all in flash, consuming most of the CPU. I'm beginning to adblock them ALL. Hint: That's BAD for business, yahoo!

Re:Helloooo geocities... by RLiegh · 2005-09-20 04:04 · Score: 1

Yahoo mail wasn't the only reason I decided to start using flashblock; but it was definately half of the reason.

Worked for /. by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2005-09-20 03:11 · Score: 1

I bet taco got a fraction of a penny for the number of times "Yahoo" appears on this thread. ;)

--
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.

Re:Here is the real issue...LEGALLY, what is Spywa by indifferent+children · 2005-09-20 03:13 · Score: 1

No, FGC is already trademarked by Microsoft, and it applies to Operating Systems, not toolbars.

--
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2005-09-20 03:25 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You're kidding, right? It couldn't be any easier. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 03:27 · Score: 1, Informative

You don't by chance know if there is something like that for Opera do you? It'd be a great help to getting rid of some of these flash advertisements that pop up.

Disable popups (unless you click to launch one):

F12 (select) Block all popups

Disable popups (period):

F12 (select) Block all unwanted popups

Don't like Flash anywhere (like me):

F12 (unselect) Enable Plugins

Is Yahoo Actively Supporting Adware? by lbmouse · 2005-09-20 03:38 · Score: 1

Does the pope shit in the woods?

Zawodny's comments taken out of context by tr3y · 2005-09-20 03:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Great article, it almost got the context of Zawodny's comments correct. In his post he was talking about the bundling of the Yahoo Search Toolbar with other Yahoo products. Adware was not mentioned once. http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/005121.htm l

Re:Zawodny's comments taken out of context by mhollis · 2005-09-20 08:44 · Score: 1

No, but a popup immediately appeard underneath the article when I clicked on the link. Perhaps that is the real reason for the submission.

--
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.

Re:Here is the real issue...LEGALLY, what is Spywa by ajs318 · 2005-09-20 03:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Anything that grows in your garden, but that you did not plant is a weed. Anything on your computer that you did not install by an informed, deliberate action is illegally-installed software.

However, just because it's illegal, doesn't stop people doing it. Lots of people transport beneficial plant products across imaginary lines; this is against the law in many countries, but enough of them are getting away with it for it to be worthwhile.

Windows fanboys bitch about it being "complicated" or "awkward" to install software on GNU/Linux, but it is that way for a reason. Yes, you have to open an xterm and type something like apt-get install packagename. One little command. It downloads the software {from an independently-verified repository -- one more layer of safety}, installs it system-wide and updates the menus for all your window managers {if you use more than one}. And frankly, I don't see how this is any more counter-intuitive than having to click twice in rapid succession on an application icon to launch it .....

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Yahoo Toolbar by Colol · 2005-09-20 04:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Speaking of Yahoo Toolbar, I specifically deselected it the last time I installed Yahoo Instant Messenger.

Imagine my surprise the next time I popped into Internet Explorer to check something and a pop-up window didn't fire. Yahoo Toolbar had in fact been installed without my permission, and better yet didn't default to being one of the visible IE toolbars. Had I been, say, my parents, I would never figured out why the hell the Interwebs wasn't working.

An invisible toolbar I specifically requested not be installed silently blocking pop-up windows? That's awesome! I wish I had the foresight to make my software that great!

It makes me laugh when people like Ken "The Incredible Internet Guy" Leebow spout off about how great Yahoo is and how they should make more software and hardware. I can see it now... "Listen to music on your new Y!Pod, featuring Flash advertisements between every song!"

Retch.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2005-09-20 04:21 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:You're kidding, right? It couldn't be any easie by Glsai · 2005-09-20 05:09 · Score: 1

I'd never thought of looking there, thanks! Guess I've been too condition to IE in the past to think of even looking for an option like that.

Here's some more evil they're up to! by centinall · 2005-09-20 05:20 · Score: 1

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/15/wipo_wants_to _give_w.html

MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 05:24 · Score: 0

Sorry, squandered my mod points yesterday or I'd do it myself.

Comparing google to freakin' Bhopal? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-20 06:09 · Score: 0

You're an idiot. Seriously, you should look into getting some help.

Twisted comments by Escalus · 2005-09-20 16:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Not sure if anyone noticed, but Jeremy Zawodny made some comments about these /. discussions in his blog, claiming that his words were twisted: Slashdot Twists My Words about Yahoo

Re:What's next? - it was a joke by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 10:06 · Score: 0

Mods are on crack, the parent post is obviously a joke, since there is no such thing as virus.google.com

Slush Brown? Not Slush Brown? by lpq · 2005-09-23 06:59 · Score: 1

Could either you or your followup friend "op12" explain what you mean by slush brown or slush anything?

Possible differences in my assumptions you are making about people's (or at least my standard config). I read slashdot for information. Being a visually oriented person, I find extraneous graphics and colors, while pleasant, often interfere with with the specific task of getting the actual information I want as quickly as I want. So I normally run in low-graphics mode and have my standard browswer return a browser ID of of some version of "lynx" (for the _rare site that recognizes text mode browswers).

Pictures on websites are only of occasional benefit because they are shot for monitors that seem to average ~19" and 1024x768 in the mainstream, which calcs out to 67 DPI, which falls below the lowest standard res for Windows settings. If they have a 17" monitor, 17" monitor, they are at least up to a low-res windows setting of 75 DPI, but unless you are someone who has a job in the computer industry or a computer enthusiast (like maybe an average slashdot reader), Dell tells me that their largest monitor sales are in the 1024x768 size. Even games have preferred that size as frame rates in the past have traditionally been lower at higher resolutions though that is slowing changing as graphics cpu's get faster -- yet still, no matter how fast the graphics get on a 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 monitor running at 24-32 bit color, it always seems that such games will run faster, and have smoother graphics running in a 1024x768 mode. I almost never see modern games runnning at 640x480 res, and 8-bit color went out in the early 90's I think. However, some less advanced modern games that focus on story lines or other tech [BIOTECH] (www.wilddivine.com) rather than action and frame rate still default to 800x600 color in 16-bit (maybe 24-32) bit color. But the end result is that web designers still design for the middle of the curve 70-75 DPI user.

Only a few years ago, on a 133DPI Dell laptop, I switched between using X' scaleable DPI settings (but a few programs used or expected fixed- sized fonts), to Windows, where I tried to use exact DPI settings (Custom), and the "standardized "Large" size (125 DPI setting), but Windows programmers were just plain dumb from the start, with 99% sizing widgets pictures and text based on pixel sizes, not querying the output device and sizing widgets, text and pictures appropriately. On Dell's newer 1920x1200 laptops, they averaged about 144 DPI. That's almost twice the clueless (or lazy) designer expected, 65-72 DPI. Thumbnails become "pinky nails", 10pt text becomes 5pt text, pictures are reduced to 50% normal size with details being visible with a magnifying glass, or being jaggedly blown-up with zoom features. Microsoft enhanced the "ease of abuse" of end users by conveniently ignoring pitiful user reqeusts to the IE browser to increase/decrease text size on many (most or all) CSS control web-sites.

While I still use IE for some purposes -- simply because it is faster to start, uses considerably less memory, and scrolls in real-time and scrolls smoothly, (vs. fire fox, which "stores" up scroll requests, and even with "smooth scrolling", scrolls so jerkily that that it is impossible to read scrolling text; and then due to stored scroll keys, goes past the point you wanted to scroll to due it's fundamental
inability to use platform native scrolling capabilities). However, I use FireFox when I want a page to display Properly and not have text plotting all over itself (or being cut off) in unreadable ways.

Only website I return the browser name of Internet Explorer, is on Microsoft Sites, as various parts of their site (as of last check) still produce corrupt HTML if the Browser-user-agent string contains "Opera", that corrupts corrupt output on IE displays. It should be illegal to actively generate corrupt/buggy output designed to cause harm to a user's computer display based on

Slashdot Mirror

Is Yahoo Actively Supporting Adware?

176 comments