Slashdot Mirror
Livejournal Bans Ad-Blocking Software
Anonymous Emo writes "The community/blogging site LiveJournal recently introduced ads on some pages for free users. More interestingly, they also added a new restriction to their TOS (XVI 17 b.) banning users from using or providing ad-blocking software. The new TOS also permits them to immediately terminate the account of anyone they catch doing this."
I wonder how long until the FireFox AdBlock guys make a work around (a week?)
Mhmm..but (i'm unfamiliar with LJ and such) don't most LJ users login so as to leave comments on other people's blogs and such?
They would be surfing with thei adblockers on, login to post a comment, and could then be considered in violation.
Otherwise the only issue I can see with this is how they enforce someone linking an adblocking software- just because someone has an adblocker doesn't necessarily mean it will be used to block all things. (Personally i only block offensive (loud, animated, large) ads and permit the rest...they need revenue afterall).
Mostly this just seems to be aimed at people using a custom page style and designing it to block out ads.
Actually, Ive always provided free community hosting for anyone without ad's.. Its my way of giving back to the internet...Though I THOUGHT About it.. but then I also thought of how annoying ads are in the first place, so I disregarded the idea all together... I was also thinking of having something like Live Journal for my Network, but I never could find a good one.. But in the mean time, I have all the free hosting in the world Praeon Network (Gotta throw in a cheap plug in for that : ) In regards to Live Journal, and the topic at hand, I can understand where they are coming from, but you would think they would be a little bit more understanding, and realise that not everyone on the internet are as smart as us Slashdot members. : )
Just me
hmm, does lynx count as an ad blocker?
"Terms of Service" and EULAs are interesting from a legal perspective. They say:
1) You have a contract with us.
2) You have no control over what the contract says.
3) We can change the contract at any time. You are bound to the new provisions of the contract, even though you became involved after acceptance of the old contract.
4) We throw in some terms of the contract that try to show that the contract is balanced, and that we are contracting to do something for you. However, there is no balance; if we decide we don't like what we have said we will do for you, we will just write a new contract and leave out the provision we don't like.
It is a measure of the corruption in the legal system that the issues surrounding one-sided contracts like this have never been fully considered either in courts or in Congress. The rich and powerful do what they like, even though what they like is definitely against the spirit of contract law.
One of the problems is that, once you are involved with an online service or an operating system, for example, the cost of changing is very high. Typically online services require investing considerable time to be useful. Typically the cost of software is a small part of the total cost of involvement with an operating system.
Another problem is that Terms of Service and EULAs are usually written in extremely tricky language; it would require a legal professional many hours to understand them. So, users "agree" to a contract they cannot understand.
Actually, the full text of the (first part of the) rule in context reads:
:)
You agree to NOT use the Service to: [...] Employ tactics and/or technologies to prevent the full and complete delivery or display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages. These include, but are not limited to, the following: (et cetera)
Golly gee, I'm not using the Service to employ technologies that block ads. I'm using Firefox to employ those technologies.
This flies in the face of science.
It's cool not to be a money-grabbing bastard, but there's nothing against a realistic business plan.
If putting a clause that certain members should view ads is realistic is a different story, though :) I mean, they can easily check if the ads are downloaded, but how are they going to check if the readers actually see them. Maybe they perform a grep on their entries, if the users are not whining about the ads and finding appropriate emo music that so-much describes their anger on this, then something most be wrong ;)
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
Does this mean they would ban for using Adblock? or flashblock or if i block their ads via my router? Very ambiguous.
Yes, ambiguity is the point of law. It is ambiguous to allow for technological and societal changes (advances?) to fit within the mold. This is why the constitution is still relevant today (plus/minus some amendments :)
Employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages.
Notice that the terms "software programs" and "browser scripts" are not defined. Are these server/client programs? What about the scripts -- are these embedded javascripts or would a ff extension constitute a script? Probably both.
Now a question: it has probably been previously decided what "providing" means in terms of cyberspace. Does anyone know if it means "serving" the scripts (i.e. putting, say, a ff extension on a server, and a link to download) OR can it also mean providing an external link to adblock hosted by mozilla or whoever else? Anyone know? (obligatory IANAL stands of course) -ikChange is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
Actually the first version of adblock did exactly that (downloaded the ads but hid them).
It was a pain though because noone wanted to waste their bandwidth on the stinky ads.
The real issue here is not whether such TOS terms are valid, acceptable or moral.
It is whether companies are allowed to one-sidedly change their TOS in such drastic ways.
It's not like they're clarifying some previously enforced term or merely extending it a bit in the spirit of the original intent; they're making a U-turn in service.
I know companies can insert clauses in their TOS that allow such changes, but surely there must be a limit to how far they can go.
What if they suddenly insert a term that forces all their users to pay $100 a day or leave without even a change of retaining their data.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
since you have the choice of less features or ads, I've already informed all my LJ friends that I'll instantly de-friend them if they switch to ads.
A friend of mine was checking out some of her friends pages of LJ and saw an ad for an Ad blocker for Firefox! Seems they may be contravening there own policies...
There's gotta be some sort of article moderation system to prevent FUD like this from misleading Slashdot readers. I read the front page blurb of this story and was lead to believe LiveJournal was being evil, and if I hadn't taken the time to read the comments on this article (which I usually don't), I'd have had no idea that the entire article was blown out of proportion and context. It's probably the third or fourth time this has happened in the past six months, which is why I hardly even read Slashdot these days.
# wrote sig.txt, 23 lines, 31337 chars
The relevant clause:
2. Employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages.
This can't possibly be about users, for the simple fact that that would be completely unenforcable. As far as I know, LJ pages are normal, publicly accessible webpages not hidden behind passwords or anything (isn't that the whole point?), so visitors don't have to agree with the TOS. And besides, what are they going to do if they catch a visitor downloading the html but not the ad? Remember his ip and block him forever? How quickly will LiveJournal die if they block innocent visitors? This can only be about using CSS or javascript tricks to hide the ads.
XII.
# ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS
You understand and agree that some or all of the Service may include advertisements and that these advertisements are necessary for LiveJournal to provide the Service. You also understand and agree that you will not obscure any advertisements from general view via HTML/CSS or any other means. By using the Service, you agree that LiveJournal has the right to run such advertisements with or without prior notice, and without recompense to you or any other user. The manner, mode and extent of advertising by LiveJournal on your Content and throughout the Service are subject to change at LiveJournal's discretion. Your correspondence or business dealings with, or participation in promotions of, advertisers found on or through the Service, including payment and delivery of related goods or services, and any other terms, conditions, warranties or representations associated with such dealings, are solely between you and such advertiser. You agree that LiveJournal shall not be responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any sort incurred as the result of any such dealings or as the result of the presence of such advertisers on the Service.
There have been instances where the advertisers themselves have been compromised and browser exploits come from them.
There are also people with epilepsy who cannot view flashing material so disable flashing and moving images without prior approval.
liqbase
Mod parent up!
The whole concept of somebody paying a website owner on the basis that visitors to the website might have seen an advert {but probably are not going to do anything about it, and almost certainly not buy the product} is just broken on too many levels to be sustainable.
As people get more and more savvy, so they are going to be less inclined to put up with adverts intruding into their internet experience. In a magazine, you can turn the page; on the TV you can change the station or leave the room. We are already used to that. {In future years scientists will no doubt postulate that, just as human stomach fluid became less acidic when we started cooking our food, so the average urine capacity of the human bladder decreased when every TV programme contained advertisements every half-hour}.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I personally follow the policy of only starting to block ads on a site when i'm confronted with obnoxious ads.
Until i see moving (flash or gif, makes no difference), sound making or content hidding ads i'll keep the ads from a site visible. As soon as i see one of those obnoxious ads on my browser they (and all ads from the same provider) get blocked.
Popups that manage to go around Firefox's pop-up protection are reason for me to block the whole site of the ad provider plus the one of the company whose advert is on that pop-up.
It's a ballance between helping the sites i like to keep going on (and even make a profit) and enforcing the limits i've set for what are acceptable ads.
To all web-site managers out there i say: Don't use ad providers that (try to) abuse the viewer's good will and you won't have any problems with having a steady revenue stream from advertising.
Yea, that sounds a lot less complicated than downloading the AdBlock extension, right clicking on an add and telling it to block it. What are you smoking? Try doing that on a site like Fark where ads are served off the same host as the image tags and such and vast portions of the site will begin to look like ass. Blocking by URL is 100 times better than blocking based on hostname.
Certainly, I'm glad a technical solution to this is already available, but if LiveJournal succeeds (that is, if they don't back down and people continue to visit their site(s)) the next step is forcing people to listen to the NOISE their ads create. An irritating fad in internet advertising is to have some kind of "audio branding" attached to pop-up/pop-over ads. I mute my computer speaker when surfing for this reason.
What next? Being banned if you mute your speaker so the ads that make noise don't disturb the people sitting around you? A significant portion of internet usage goes on in office/computer lab settings, and if "using an adblocker" is reason enough for a lifetime ban from a web-site, how long until "Turning down the speaker" (or not having one at all) becomes a "bannable" offense. Sad to say it, but its only a matter of time before advert-supported content goes the way of the dinosaur.
Look at radio: The ads became so invasive, and took up so much air-time, that now people are WILLING TO PAY for advert-free (or in some cases limited-advert) radio on XM and Sirius. To some extent, they've been doing it for years with NPR and other community supported radio stations on the terrestrial bands...
Who did what now?
e.g. one of the Google eBay ads where they've just bought random words, and when you click on it you find that there is nothing on eBay even remotely connected to the search term. Like 'minions.'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If the ad blocker downloads and then hides the ad, it's impossible to know for sure. Maybe some fancy Javascript might do the trick, but hey, since Javascript is client-based, there's always going to be a way to bypass it.
On the other side, if the ad blocker does not download the ad, then it's a piece of cake for the website to know that something fishy is going on.....
Most people i know use the "remove ad" option in Adblock, not the "hide ad". So they save bandwidth, the page loads faster, but by doing so they hurt the websites by not giving their ads any hits.
I for one use the "hide ad" - so my browser still downloads the ad, the website still makes a little money for "showing" me the ad, and everybody's happy.
Dude, it's only on their actual page - if it bothers you so much, read their blogs from your friends page, or don;t read it. It's not like LJ plastered ads all over your blog or kicked you off because you werent viewing the ads...
Very much seconded.
... Ah, I see, it's due to the images/javascript loading for ads, or failing to, time to block that then".
It's the primary reason I started using Junkbuster, and long-since switched to AdBlock.
"Why's this page loading so damned slow?
Although having said that I find all animated ads entirely obnoxious. Sure, they're doing exactly what they're designed to do, draw my attention away from the rest of the page, but that's exactly what makes me block them. I don't want my attention drawn away in this manner.
Interestingly, I find that this is not true. There are enough people who, although say they hate ads, also keep falling for them. It is one of the reasons why they hate them, because they know they're weak.
Way back in the day before cable got to our area, my boss accessed the internet through AOL. He asked me how to remove the ads that AOL shows him every time he logs in.
It turned out that AOL would show one or two ads as someone logged in and track their usage. If someone didn't ever click on them, they were no longer showed the ads. If someone clicked on them - or worse, bought something - then they would continue showing the ads.
I questioned my boss, and it turned out he had not only bought several things, but regularly clicked on most of the ads and thoroughly read them.
He wanted the ads stopped because they distracted him.
These are precisely the people marketers are targetting. These are also precisely the people who would use ad blockers if they were knowledgable enough to get their hands on it.
Ads on the internet would not nearly be as profitable as they are if an abundance of these people didn't exist.
Wow, that's interesting. It's misnamed though. Rather than "support websites" it should be called "commit impression fraud"
They could extend it just a bit more and add "commit click fraud"
Don't get me wrong, adblock is the first extension I load on a new install, but no way would I turn that on. If people aren't looking at ads, the advertisers should know that. If they think people are looking at ads and never clicking on them, then they conclude logically that web ads are not effective, and they devalue or totally stop using web ads.
It'll probably be the end of lots of free web content at some point, but that's OK by me, I'm willing to pay for the stuff I like. A lot of the stuff I view every day is totally in the "take it or leave it" category though. If it went pay, I'd drop it instantly.
But if the web ads ARE ineffective, then isn't is a strange ideal to say that we should keep them there just for the sake of making the website money?
It seems to me that saying "Keep the ads because it'll help out the webmaster" is just another version of the broken window fallacy -- except that in this case, rather than it being false because we could use the screen real estate to do something else just as financially productive, it's false because the web ads really are useless, whether they're there or not.
If anything, we're saving the sponsors money by not wasting their bandwidth on ads that won't work. (That said, I don't adblock because it eats up too many CPU cycles for my tastes.)
It's been a long time.