Slashdot Mirror
A Campaign to Block Firefox Users?
rarwes writes "A website is aiming at blocking Firefox users. This because a fraction of the Firefox users installed an Ad Blocker and are therefor 'stealing money' from website owners that use ads. They recommend using IE, Opera or IE tab. From the site: 'Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.' Be interesting to see where they are getting their numbers from.
....don't need their stinking website!
It's in the "ABP Slander" list. Anyway, User-Agent switcher usually gets around any of these sort of lame attempts, and a lot of other software blocks ads besides, ABP.
Anyone savvy enough to block ads is probably savvy enough to have their browser present its user-agent as Internet Explorer if necessary.
Particularly, don't use ads that jitter about by a couple of pixels, or flash bright contrasting colours. Not only do they not make me want to buy from you, they make me want to avoid *ever* buying from you.
Be interesting to see where they are getting their numbers from.
I'm not actually that interested in looking up their arses.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
You can send me the ad; I don't understand why I'm under an obligation to look at it or why you have the right to demand that my computer display it.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
I hit a lot of websites and I've never been redirected to this page. Does anybody actually use it, or is it something someone tossed up just to generate flames (AKA a troll)?
I read the internet for the articles.
Said website's descent back into obscurity.
Deleted
I tried to look at the website but I can't. Any ideas?
Oh, wait...
So they are worried about ad-blocking and recommend installing Opera which has an excellent content blocker built in. Seems odd.
I clicked on the link and just get a blank page. Is their entire page an advertisement being blocked by my Adblock extension? How ironic unless that was their intent.
When all the Firefox users Slashdot that website and they have to pay for the bandwidth, that will have a financial impact.
Ha ha!
So is this the point where we starting hearing that blocking ads is just like running out of the store with a pair of blue jeans? I mean really...
At what point do businesses start realize they they are providers of information and not the gate keepers for information...
The connection has timed out
The server at whyfirefoxisblocked.com is taking too long to respond.
* The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few
moments.
* If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.
* If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
I've already won my free iPod by clicking on the dancing monkey.
I don't need another one, thank you.
Sounds like someone has an axe to grind. If Firefox users were a small percentage of total browsers, and a smaller percentage of them use Ad Block, why would you worry about the resources you claim they're "stealing." I suppose they're trying to raise awareness that blocking ads hurts their business, so why not try something different?
If end users hate your marketing attempts enough to go out of their way to block them, perhaps your marketing attempts suck.
Try donations, try offering merchandise, try anything. Don't just blame the end-user because your stupid punch the monkey, seizure inducing flash crap is obnoxious.
third freeloading firefox post! thinkgeek? havn't seen it!
I mean it's not like you can make any money from advertisements, unless you are Google of course.
Besides, the Firefox users would really use Internet Explorer, they would block advertisements there, too.
It's trivial for any browser, just make some entries to your hosts file. (even avaliable on Windows!)
I can accept displaying advertisement banners on my computers, but I cannot accept beeing forced to.
Hmm, I'd love to read the article, but it's either Slashdotted, or they're not letting my FireFox see the page that says why FireFox can't see the page. :(
The Digital Sorceress
must be all those ad revenue stealing firefox browsers
I consider this a win-win.
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
Ok... let's break this down...
It looks like the website is suffering from slashdot overload...wonder how many firefox's they see now? ;)
"they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending"
Yes, and now, not only will we not wish to be bothered by the incessantly annoying ads that show up on your web sites, we won't care about your products, either.
If you, as a web site owner or developer, wish to alienate us from your products and services, this is a great way to do it. If presented with two sites with a competing product, one of which unjustly treats me like a criminal, and one of which does not, I guarantee you my (apparently non-existant) online spending will be done at the latter.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
can't you just use a firefox plugin to change the user agent? I bet that's all they're doing...
You've reached this page because the site you were trying to visit now blocks the FireFox browser.
The Mozilla Foundation and its Commercial arm, the Mozilla Corporation, has allowed and endorsed Ad Block Plus, a plug-in that blocks advertisement on web sites and also prevents site owners from blocking people using it. Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing. Millions of hard working people are being robbed of their time and effort by this type of software. Many site owners therefore install scripts that prevent people using ad blocking software from accessing their site. That is their right as the site owner to insist that the use of their resources accompanies the presence of the ads.
While blanket ad blocking in general is still theft, the real problem is Ad Block Plus's unwillingness to allow individual site owners the freedom to block people using their plug-in. Blocking FireFox is the only alternative. Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers..
Since the makers of Ad Block Plus as well as the filter subscriptions that accompany it refuse to allow website owners control over their own intellectual property, and since FireFox actively endorses Ad Block Plus, the sites linking to this page are now blocking FireFox until the resource theft is stopped.
Netscape users can simply set their browser to IE mode to continue to enjoy the site that sent you here. FireFox users can use Internet Explorer, Opera or Netscape (in IE mode) to access it. FireFox users also have the option of using the IE Tab plug-in which uses the IE rendering engine to display pages, but also disables the Ad Block Plus plug-in.
If you are offended by the Mozilla Corporation's endorsement of dishonesty please contact the Mozilla Foundation and ask them to stop empowering internet theft.
Other comments on ad blocking...
PopularTechnology.net--Why Adblock is bad for the "free" Internet
Adblock effectively robs these free sites of their revenue. If Internet Explorer came with a feature such as Adblock, you would effectively wipe out thousands of websites, maybe more. These are the same free sites users of Adblock frequently visit. The irony is how this is self-defeating.
Information Technology and the Law--Firefox Adblock a Contributory Infringer?
Judge Posner, elucidating the holdings of WGN v. United Video (1982) among others, reasoned in Aimster that:
"[Commercial-skipping] amounted to creating an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner's income from his original program, since "free" television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers."
Like free television broadcast content supported financially by advertising, much of the content on the Internet today is distributed free to end-users for an indirect exchange of advertisement revenue. When a user loads an ad-driven copyrighted website, he produces a copy of the work due to the inherent architecture of the Internet. If this user is using Adblock to screen out annoying advertisements, he is creating an unauthorized derivative work analogous to skipping television commercials. By the letter of copyright law, this practice would most likely be seen as an infringing use.
You say you want a revolution....
Create an internet explorer plugin that blocs ads also, if one doesn't already exist. What will they say then?
Uhm, excuse me, but in Opera you don't even need to install a plugin.
Am I on Dilbert TV?
*waves for the camera*
Hi Mom.
If there's not already an extension that can get around this, then I'm sure that one is being written right now.
While blanket ad blocking in general is still theft
Is this a joke?
Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing.
So, if I don't watch the advertisements during commerical breaks of "30 Rock", I am essentially stealing the broadcast content of that program. Perhaps my analogy is off base...but still, this is ridiculous.
Must be some pretty crappy sites that do this anyway. And, provide quality content is not usually the case...
as a business to refuse service to anyone. Why should I care about how asinine their policy is?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
What's the best ad blocker add-on/plug-in for Firefox?
I don't mind seeing a well placed ad that grabs my attention whether it be on tv , radio or the net. What i don't like is when ads decide that they want to take over my browser, try to make me go into seizures or just look plain gaudy. If your going to force me to accept IE on my Linux machines you don't have another thing coming (me to your site!)
some people are a "glass half empty" some are "glass half full" i'm a "there is something in the glass be happy" person
Might as well block them as well because they won't see the ads. And better get the text browsers, phones and anyone who uses an ad-blocker for IE.
Sounds like one of the pinheads who thinks he has a god-given right to ad revenue. That, or it's someone who has a reason to beat up firefox. I wonder who that could be.
As for a campaign, Google has this to say: "Your search - link:whyfirefoxisblocked.com - did not match any documents."
Great start on that campaign!
Lets see... I have at my company purchased at least $400,000 of goods and services on the internet.
We have standardized Firefox at my office.
Good shooting Tex.
BTW I am not a big fan of wholesale ad blocking. I am actually pretty selective in what ads I block. If they would all go to simple text ads then I would be happy to not block. If they use 1. Flash, 2. Java, 3 Any animation, or 4 pop up or under or sideways then I ban them and the domain they come from.
I will do the same with IE, Opera, Or any other browser I use.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Myth - "Firefox is not a Religion"
Reality - Type in about:mozilla into the Firefox address bar to get "The Book of Mozilla".
I think anyone intelligent enough to be aware of what Firefox is and how to use it would probably also be capable of seeing that this is rather absurd.
root of all...
I do almost all of my holiday and gift shopping on-line.
On the other hand, I seldom ever click on ads on sites. I shop at on-line stores. I find those stores by searching Google for the items I want.
So, yeah, it probably isn't in your best interest to have me use up your bandwidth to read your opinions on X in the hope that I might click on an ad for Y or Z.
My time is valuable. What are you offering me as incentive to read your ads? Specifically.
The only reason I use firefox is this lovely plugin. I maintain my own block list for every place I use internet: home, notebook, office etc. I really want to have such plugins (compatible!) for other browsers.
Because you're going to HIS site. He gets paid to support said site by your browsing displaying the ads, which is tracked by image requests to the ad server. The ad blocker extensions usually ignore the ads entirely, so the browser doesn't generate any hits for the ad, and the site owner loses money.
He wouldn't have a problem if the ad blocker would still generate a hit but use CSS to make the image hidden on the browser. Of course, the ad companies themselves would then have a huge problem with that, since they're paying people for "displaying" ads nobody sees.
I'd think that a better ad blocker would be one that just blocked flash and converted animated GIFs into non-animated images and then displayed them. A static image isn't that irritating, it still generates hits, and so long as advertisers aren't being dumbasses, their ads will still be seen.
I guess nobody's showed them AdBlock for Opera (or even Opera's built-in "content blocker", admittedly not quite as good as the real thing since it lacks regexps, though), or Ad Muncher for IE.
... does anyone think this may just be a troll / hoax? I've learned never to question the stupidity of people, particularly people on the Internet, but this seems like it's just a bit of a stretch. It kind of reminds me of an Adequacy.org post.
Maybe when they find out about those, they'll do the world a favor and just block everybody from their site?
Also
The blocking that they seem to be advocating that others use is pretty standard "HTTP_USER_AGENT" querying using a PHP script, so it's not like it would be hard to get around. (Incidentally, I've always felt that the USER_AGENT header was something of a bad idea; maybe it's time to kill it, or at least disable replying to it by default?)
What I'm slightly more interested in is how they're blocking the main page. It's not the same as the script that they're pushing; the page actually loads (you can view the source in FF), but it seems to take advantage of some rendering quirk in IE to produce a blank screen when rendered on Firefox. That actually strikes me as a little more subtle, although it's still dumb.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Well, obviously, if you block me from viewing your site, you have nothing worth looking at. Duh.
i use firefox solely for ad block. why? because the animated ads are so distracting i cannot read the content of the site.
if it weren't not for ad block i would hardly web surf anymore; and i DO shop a lot online, just never from animated ad on websites. if they were static ads it wouldn't bother me at all. it's a case of asking for too much attention got them nothing.
besides that firefox also lets be block stupid avatar and signatures images i see constantly on forums, and i'm sick of. great way to knock off that animated bouncing boobie gif the frenetic forum poster always uses.
Perhaps if the ads weren't so obnoxious, and we didn't have to worry about malicious content, spyware, pop ups, and porn ads showing up while trying to browse otherwise tame sites at work, then we wouldn't NEED the ad blocking features.
we just don't like capitalists or capitalism! You top-hat wearers can use all the IE you want!
So...if I surf channels while my favorite tv show is on a commercial break,is that stealing too?
Just wrap everything in something with the id of "ad"
"Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.."
So, if the number of Firefox users is somewhat small, how do they figure they'll get tremendous financial rewards by blocking them?
Asshats...
Not only firefox users constitute a small percentage of the internet and online spending power, they constitute almost entirety of the IT/Web professionals in the world.
I wouldnt piss of such a small percentage if i was anyone. it would be folly for anyone to jump in that bandwagon.
Read radical news here
I'm really not sure what "rights" they are talking about...
By the same reasoning, they should be blocking Googlebot and all other user-agents that don't slurp down ads.
There is NOTHING in the HTTP protocol that states that user agents must pull down all embedded objects in a document. Heck, Netscape used to default to not downloading images (or mabye that was the way I used to always set NS...we had two 28kbd modems supporting an office of 50 people...).
It's a simple matter of complex programming.
Sorry for the n00b question.
| (ceci n'est pas une pipe)
So they think refusing Firefox users has only little financial impact? What, like five percent? What kind of idiot would you have to be to give up five percent of your revenue voluntarily? Imagine being a webmaster trying to explain to the marketing guys that it is a good idea to reduce their revenues by five percent.
This reminds me of past stupidities, where web designers didn't design for Mac users, because Mac users are idiots who spend much too much money on shiny computers where a $400 Dell would do just fine. And marketing says "idiots who spend much too much money on shiny toys are _exactly_ who we want to visit our website"!
I saw this story on SA earlier this morning, went to the site, checked the "Myths" link, and on top Google Adwords had, I shit you not, 3 ads to sites to "Repair Internet Explorer", and one to "Get Firefox!". It would appear the owner is a complete and total failure, way to be a living joke!
Bothering some girl by constantly asking why she won't talk to them.
They'd be better with a campaign to get people to secure their websites etc so IE is safe to use as the default browser!
Why do they think people want to use something other in the first place.....cos IE's so much more vulnerable to malware than a.n.other browser.
So let's say you go ahead and use IE, Opera, etc... just go over to this website and get a set of host file entries that just redirect this nonsense to your localhost. Works great, you can even use the entries on your IPCop box or the like and protect your whole setup. Just a thought!
Literally. The blurb reads like a sixth-grader wrote it. Although most sixth graders may have a better grasp of the technology involved.
They must not know that Opera has an ad blocking feature built-in, and like Firefox, IE has ad blocking add-ons also. Will they also block text browsers such as Links since I can't see there image/flash crap ads also? Why single out Firefox/adblock? I guess any site that only depends on ads to earn revenue and is willing engage in blocking a certain segment of web users, must be devoid of any interesting content and not worth my time anyways.
freedom to block? now that's a textbook oxymoron. How about freedom to let people use their plug-in the way they want?
My sig has been answered.
that's funny, because opera has ad-blocking ability without need of any extension. just click right button anywhere on the page and click Block content... select banners and since then, you will never see banners from selected ad-servers again...
Grr. Statements like this:
... and other statements that adopt a very polarizing / extremist ideal, really upset me. What am I stealing, their opportunity to display their message to me? If this is the case, then if i'm driving along 80 or 101 and I put down my passenger visor in order to block out those irritating way-too-bright huge plasma billboards, am I "stealing" as well? I can see it now -- advertising companies sue automakers for allowing an ad-blocker in my car ...
"Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing."
Regards,
John
Falling You - beautiful
That page was written with Microsoft FrontPage 4.0, how "hardworking" could they be?
What, you mean their new uptime numbers after publicly urinating on a large group of very, very Internet-savvy programmers? :)
I would expect, as a more internet saavy pool of users than the general population, that Firefox users tend to spend more online. I know I use Firefox and I'm probably in the top few percent of people in terms of money I spend online, since I tend to buy everything from clothes to electronics online.
I can *kind of* see where they're coming from. If you run for-profit web pages and Firefox users don't see your ads and don't buy anything then they're costing you money in terms of bandwidth. I wouldn't liken it to theft. But if these businesses want to block a certain user because it costs them something then it makes sense.
/. is probably typical of the demographic that they're talking about. So it's definitely possible to appeal to this group of people and convert that traffic. But if they feel like blocking the traffic and not trying to do things better, so as to turn that loss into profit, then that's their decision to make. Those users (who use FF + AdBlock) are obviously the type who do not enjoy surfing that kind of web page anyway. And there's lots of other sites out there that will / do step up and convert the traffic by appealing to the group instead of blocking it.
Not saying there isn't a better way. Like others have said, why not make better ads that aren't intrusive, don't piss off your users and don't get blocked by Ad Block ?
I've actually profited from posting comments on Slashdot (without getting modded down or shunned by anyone), and
In fact, I've published my AdBlock List.
I don't block text-only ads, or even graphical ones that aren't annoying, but fit within the context of the site. But ads that obscure the content, or are offered in popups, intrusive flash, or similar mechanisms? Bye.
Am I "stealing" from the sites trying to get ad revenue? I don't think so, but neither do I care. I do not have an ethical or moral obligation to view their ads, any more than I have an ethical or moral obligation to sit and watch TV commercials or read every billboard on the highway. If they want to block me because I won't look at their ads, that's their loss, because if they insist on showing me the annoying ads, I don't want to visit their site. The annoyance of the ads is greater than the value of their site.
The beauty of the web is that everyone has a competitor, and eventually I'll find one who won't block me for behaving in a reasonable manner.
sigs, as if you care.
but hitting reload repeatedly doesn't seem to show me anything. Maybe I'll hit reload a couple more times. In rapid succession. Over and over.
These people are stealing my time by forcing me to look at materialist crap. I mean the audacity of them to claim that I owe their business model a right to profit. Its sickening. I have often thought of billing people that send me snail mail spam for my time shredding it. 49.99 per incident should do nicely. I benefit not a lick from advertising, the vultures that make money off of my eyes, polluting my brain can eat a dick.
Make no mistake, advertising is pollution.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
I love the fact that one of the reasons they "cite" for blocking firefox is a blog post from an undergrad course I took a while back. If this is the level of market research they're doing before blocking off a significant portion of their site traffic, more power to them... Darwin will take care of them in due course.
The value formula of the internet (Z-squared) indicates that the value impact of their shortsighted decision results in an exponential DECREASE in the value of their site. The founder of 3-Com proposed that the value of a network is the square of it's nodes, where nodes can represent visitors, clients, and any point of the value chain.
That principle works the other way too. So if the blocked users represent 10% of their visitors the relative NEGATIVE impact on their site's value is about -20%. Let's hope they continue this trend since some websites simply do not belong in the iPool.
Hope is the currency of fools
This article's a troll. Depending on the audience of the site, dumping Firefox user-agents means dumping 10-60% of your US traffic - and considerably more in Europe and Australia.
Nobody (at least nobody in business for long) is going to do that just to spite the few % of Firefox users who run Adblock. It's inconceivable that any major web property would shoot themselves in the foot this way.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Look at the header of that page:
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
I guess they just can't make decent HTML that work on every browser, and blame firefox for their stupidity, after all, things that work good and nice in IE display crappy in Firefox. Instead of learning to do proper HTML, they just want to block firefox so everyone will see their crappy html right.
Who needs adblockers anyway? My brain quite successfully filters out all banner ads. I just skip right past them, at most I recall there was a rectangular area on the page I ignored. The ads that pop-up over the content, requiring you to manually close them to continue reading are a bit more annoying, but I find I'm getting pretty good at clicking the close buttons without even seeing what the ad is for.
You see ads if you want to see ads. On the internet, anyway. On TV (not that I watch nowadays), radio (not that I listen to it nowadays) and outdoors (although I try to avoid the centrum nowadays) I find them more annoying.
.. in setting up a site with a blocking notice, if this site itself seems to block my browser? Erm what .. flames out of the server room? Never mind.
'Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet [...] therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.'
So if FireFox users are so few in number, how can ending their 'resource theft' result in 'tremendous financial rewards'?
The annoying things will be washed away while the really useful things will flourish. Welcome to the web Ad 2.0.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
I would almost agree with you except for one key feature that IE lacks. In Firefox, you can highlight a word or phrase (say, "Firebug extension" in your comment), right click on it, and do a google search. I frequently find myself gnashing my teeth that IE doesn't have that capability.
P.S. I'm only using IE on Vista because both came pre-installed on my laptop, and I haven't gotten around to upgrading it to Firefox/Linux yet.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
If you have something that's worth paying for, then (many; not all -- see RIAA) people will pay for it! Advertising may be appropriate on some sites, like Slashdot, but I'm increasingly getting pissed off with AdWords banners appearing every-damn-where. No amount of clever "content-relevant" algorithmically derived adverts can make up for the fact that they don't belong on someone's crappy backwater blog.
Webcomics are a good example of the way it should be done. I read http://xkcd.com/ and http://questionablecontent.net/ daily; I've supported them (in a very real, more financially impacting way) by buying several tens of dollars worth of t-shirts.
Subscriptions, merchandise, who cares. Just please, stop it with the irrelevant ads already!
"Netscape users can simply set their browser to IE mode to continue to enjoy the site that sent you here. FireFox users can use Internet Explorer, Opera or Netscape (in IE mode) to access it. FireFox users also have the option of using the IE Tab plug-in which uses the IE rendering engine to display pages, but also disables the Ad Block Plus plug-in.
If you are offended by the Mozilla Corporation's endorsement of dishonesty please contact the Mozilla Foundation and ask them to stop empowering internet theft."
I have another option!
It's a simple 5 step process:
1) If I ever come across a site that throws me at that piece of donkey crap site
2) I will just reopen the same site using your handy dandy babelfish.altavista.com (using firefox), translate the referring site to any language (spanish is fine), then click on the "view this page in it's original language" [the query will come from babelfish, instead of my personal browser, and babelfish doesn't use firefox, it uses a proprietary browser script]
3) I will read the page for a contact address
4) I'll sign said contact address up on the "myfreexbox360.com" style sites
5) I'll inform them that advertisements that they are so fond of are now heading their way, while I enjoy my peaceful ad-reduced surfing, a seperate email to the contact address shall inform them Happy ad-filtering MOFO.
whois whyfirefoxisblocked.com...
Registrant:
Danny Carlton
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
See also, dannycarlton.com/net/org.
Living in Cantoosa must leave you with lot of time to ponder the big questions and it seems like Danny has plenty of opinions. His blog (which does not, by the way, block FireFox) includes his opinions on everything from homeshooling to "Jesus Camp" to pet food names like "baby-poop mustard" (to distinguish the fancy kind from plain yellow) and "booger bread" (9-grain style).
All we have here is an insignificant Internet rant. Nothing original there.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
If we are just small group of people, why do they need to block us?
They should put their time on coding infinite popups rather than checking browser client variables
I say we send junk mail to this guy's house along with notes explaining that he is stealing money from businesses if he doesn't read it.
Domain Name: WHYFIREFOXISBLOCKED.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrant:
Danny Carlton
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
Clear Channel bans the blind from US streets because they can't see the their billboards...
"Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
I consider my smells copyrighted and wearing a gas mask while being in my proximity is an infringement of my rights, as the smells are blocked. Please understand that this extreme measure is necessary, since the unique cacophony of smells usually causes nearby people to give me money to leave their vicinity - but those who would wear a gas mask aren't forced to do so. It's bad for business.
Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
Whoa.
I didn't even think to check for that. I was giving these guys a lot more credit than they deserve (see my comment above). I thought that they were using some difference in the rendering engine between IE and FF to produce a page that rendered (correctly) to white in FF but because of an IE quirk, showed content when viewed with IE.
It never occurred to me to check AdBlock and see if it was actually being *blocked*...
That's actually rather troubling. I use EasyList USA, like most AdBlock users, and I'm not particularly sure I like the idea of them slipping a "Firefox/ABP Slander" filter into the ad-blocking list. That doesn't seem quite kosher, as obnoxious as I find the "Why Firefox is Blocked" fools.
But lo and behold, when I disabled that line on the ABP list, the page shows up.
I still think that the "Why Firefox is Blocked" people are a bunch of assholes, but that's not a particularly good showing from the ABP/EasyList people either.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This is almost always a mistake:
Anyone savvy enough to block ads is probably savvy enough to have their browser present its user-agent as Internet Explorer if necessary.
Necessary is the keyword, and no site dumb enough to do this is necessary. The site authors are misinformed if they think Firefox users are not affluent decision makers with significant if not majority of on line purchasing power. They might get more click through from the IE crowd, but advertising is mostly about brand awareness and click through is a misleading metric. A business that would exclude one in twenty of it's customers for having the wrong brand of anything is insane, and Firefox has way more than that kind of market share. Only a few M$ partners are going to do this and they will be punished with lower market share and revenue. Their advertisers will have their brands further besmirched by association with the lowest of the low and dishonest business practices.
It's better to punish the offending site by going elsewhere. When you change your user agent, you tell the world that it's OK to do dumb stuff like this.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What bullshit. The site claims it is contributory infringement and in violation of copyright law. If so, then take it to court.
Of course, isn't that what Zango, Gator (Claria, or whatever name they use today) also do?
Fight Spammers!
Doesn't the ad still get called up? It's still accessed, just not displayed on the client side. Or am I not understanding how the Firefox ad blockers work? I thought it was all just a client side shuffling of what gets displayed on the page.
Actually, I am using IE6 right now and can do exactly what you are talking about. You have to install the Google Toolbar though if I am correct.
Wow that's the biggest load of crap ever. I'm afraid they have it backwards. I block ads because I have never, and will never click on them. As a result, THEY are wasting MY money by wasting MY time on increased page load time, and indirectly through bandwidth usage. The way I see it, I'm saving them money by reducing bandwidth that would otherwise have been a 100% waste, and more importantly saving myself time. I'm doing them a favor. Sounds like they like to equate every ad blocker as lost revenue, just like the RIAA stupidly equates every downloaded copy what would have been a buyer. Sorry retards, that's not how it works. They own neither my computer, my bandwidth, my time, nor my attention, and I owe them none of it.
/rant over
Forgive the rather emotional reply please, it sickens me to no end how pervasively advertising has invaded our way of life. Every damn commercial break is a hand full of bullshit car commercials, every web page wants to rape your eye sockets with their garbage, spam, web 'forms' that serve no purpose but to get you added to a spam list that ends up being sold around to all the ad agencies like a 2$ whore. Pathetic.
I do have Firefox, I do not have any ad blocking plugins installed. I however, still don't have to look at most ads because the biggest ad servers are blocked by my HOSTS file. Gotta love 127.0.0.1
Their position is absurd, but the argument leads somewhere useful. They say,
So when I view the ad, I'm giving the advertiser something. This is true. But then, being forced or tricked into viewing advertising is also theft.
Here's a hint to all website owners: advertisement is not a guaranteed revenue that pays for your bandwidth. If your plan to pay for your bandwidth relies on advertisement alone or for the most part, rethink it.
People have been claiming that popupblockers, adblock and whatnot have been "stealing their revenue" since the late 90s. This is for the most part caused by people who forget to do an analysis of what costs and what revenue they can get from their websites. I've seen this happen a lot times, and what happens in the end is that those guys complaining usually disappear because they just didn't think things through.
I've got adblock enabled for most sites. Popups annoy me (thanks firefox), flash stuff that makes sounds annoys me, flash stuff that could cause a seizure in an epileptic annoys me, etc etc. The few sites that I think are worthy of the extra revenue I disable, and if they ever put up flash stuff with sound they'll be blocked and never unblocked. The only thing that doesn't really annoy me is text-ads. Websites have mostly themselves to thank for this because they've made internet advertising so obnoxious and a pain in the neck.
So yeah, I'm stealing revenue from you. Revenue that you shouldn't be counting on in the first place, and revenue that makes me wonder if you actually thought things through properly before you started your business.
If that's the case, then who cares? Why bother to block them? If they're just a wee group of cheapos who aren't likely to respond to ads whether or not they're displayed, why go to the trouble? Spite?
.... whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers..The logic here is somewhat baffling. Looks to me that while they try to diminish concern about blocking it by characterizing its users as a small group of non-spenders, in truth they're scared shitless by firefox and especially ad-block.
Loose lips lose spit.
"...they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks..."
"...whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards..."
Analysis of Web traffic shows that not only are there miscreants who look at Web sites without viewing the ads, there are also thieves out there who will actually view the ads, but then turn around and not purchase the product being advertised, as they are morally obligated to! Have these people no shame? Surely every Web site visitor should 1:1 to an ad impression, an ad click, and a sale for the site's advertisers. But, with all the rampant thievery going on, this isn't the case. Where will this repugnant behavior stop? Not only do these people defraud honest and hardworking Web site owners, but they probably also do morally equivalent acts like flipping TV channels during commercials, failing to study each billboard they drive past, or carrying out armed bank heists.
No, you're not.
And his
But the ads change. This is NOT like "product placement" in a movie. I cannot "fuzz out" a can of Mountain Dew (tm) in a movie. But whether I have to walk past an ad for Mountain Dew ON THE WAY INTO THE MOVIE or an ad for Coca Cola (tm) does NOT alter the "work" that is the movie.
The frame is not the painting.
Do they think that forcing someone to use a different browser is going to get them to click on the ads?
I use Firefox and I don't use an ad blocker.
I ignore ads the old fashioned way. By not looking at them.
Technoli
Any browser can be fitted with an ad blocker so why just target Firefox and not the ad blocking process ?
I think somebody, somewhere doesn't want you to use Firefox - I wonder who that could be !!!
Art Makers Just an excuse to show photos of naked women !!
The WHOIS database shows that for the domain,
Registrant:
Danny Carlton
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
This guy has a grudge over AdBlockPlus and you can read more at
http://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1540
http://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1567
Apparently he has nothing better to do because one can block ads in most browsers anyway.
In any case, to block ads, install AdBlockPlus from
http://adblockplus.org/en/installation
It is also recommended to try "Element Hiding Helper"
http://adblockplus.org/en/elemhidehelper
which allows in an intuitive way to block specific elements off a page.
They are really going about this the wrong way; after all, this is the internet we're talking about -- stealing is cool!
Is that some people are going to realize "Hey, I can block ads?!" and then go install Ad Block Plus.
They are stealing my processor power, screen space, and electricity to display their shitty adverts. If someone want to display adverts on my computer, they will have to offer far more than free web content to do so. My current price is $100 USD / £50 per advert. Even if they were displayed, they wouldn't benefit the advertiser, since i avoid products that have annoying advertising.
It's nearly trivial to detect whether users are actually blocking (i.e., not downloading) ads, so why not just block people who block ads?
Blocking a particular browser doesn't make sense; there are ad-block solutions for every browser, and it is easy for browsers to lie about who they are. This "campaign" sounds like Microsoft astroturfing.
'Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.'
That just doesn't make sense. If Firefox users are only a small percentage of all users, then how would blocking them result in 'tremendous financial rewards'? If there are so few of them, then how would their usage of AdBlock result in any huge financial losses?
And haven't we heard this kind of reasoning before from the TV industry? "GRRRR!! Tivo bad, ad-skipping bad!! You have a contract to watch our ads!! Or else kittens die! Harumph! Harumph!"
owns this domain. http://whois.domaintools.com/whyfirefoxisblocked.c om
Apparently he runs some sort of blogads company.
The followup story on Slashdot in a few weeks will be:
Danny Carlton accuses communist firefox users of destroying his reputation and business.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
I'm not even going to comment on all that useless and baseless drivel and "interesting" definition of theft. I wouldn't even know where to begin. Instead, I present to you that snipped above. It just says it all and IMHO is the best summary there is.
:/- spoon(_).
... you are a intelligent and not the sort of obvious retard we can fool into becoming a customer.
Ah, what the hell, we'll ask anyway, are you SURE you don't want to enlarge your penis?
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
WHOIS entry for the site, some goatroper from Bumfuck, Oklahoma, have fun with the email address/phone numbers: Registrant: Danny Carlton 19724 E Pine St Suite #149 Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015 United States Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: WHYFIREFOXISBLOCKED.COM Created on: 06-Aug-07 Expires on: 06-Aug-08 Last Updated on: 06-Aug-07 Administrative Contact: Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net 19724 E Pine St Suite #149 Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015 United States (918) 697-4039 Fax -- Technical Contact: Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net 19724 E Pine St Suite #149 Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015 United States (918) 697-4039 Fax -- Domain servers in listed order: NS1.FAMILYNETHOME.COM NS2.FAMILYNETHOME.COM
As the owner of a large european Porn network/site we cannot confirm these numbers. Actually according to our sales, it's the other way around, FF users are more likely to buy (porn) as they're often more experienced users with faster machines and used to buy stuff online.
If anything, they should block users with dialup connections and Windows 9x, as they purchase less than average.
Thats our experience in the porn-business.
Be nice.
? domain=whyfirefoxisblocked.com
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp
Registrant:
Danny Carlton
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: WHYFIREFOXISBLOCKED.COM
Created on: 06-Aug-07
Expires on: 06-Aug-08
Last Updated on: 06-Aug-07
Administrative Contact:
Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
(918) 697-4039 Fax --
Technical Contact:
Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
(918) 697-4039 Fax --
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.FAMILYNETHOME.COM
NS2.FAMILYNETHOME.COM
The person running this website is Danny Carlton, a man from Catoosa, Oklahoma who seems to be in the market of web design and blogging for AdSense revenue--hence his dislike of any browser that doesn't provide him with income. Some of this sites include: LetsBlameBush.com, a satirical site lambasting criticism of President Bush; BlogAdSwap.com, an ad-exchange service for bloggers; Family Net Home, a web hosting service for "family-orientated" (ie: Christian) organizations; and Memorite Rogue, a novel he had written.
His WHOIS contact information, in case anyone would like to provide feedback for his service, is:
Danny Carlton
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
I doubt he's a front for any larger corporate interests, just a right-wing blog pundit who advocates the use of insecure browsers for more revenue.
I use Firefox exclusively on Mac, Win and Linux platforms. If I get to a site that doesn't even look readable I don't try to fix it, I just go elsewhere. People that cannot build proper web sites probably don't have the information/product that I am looking for. And if there site sucks that much then I will probably regret relying on them for anything else I may need.
Ignore them and move on, the web is a big place.
The real problem is all the blind and deaf people - cant see or hear any advertising. We need to sue those bastards!
with the right firefox extensions, spoofing the user agent is just as easy as blocking ads.
i use adblock to prevent seizures from flashing ads. as stated above, if they put ads that didn't flash, jitter, or even animate in any way, i would be much more inclined to view them.
Cool I just found out about this plug in so thanks to them I just installed it. That is good advertising.
As ad blocking spreads, web sites will find more intrusive ways to serve ads. This will become much like DRM.
..is that it's the only browser that works with filtering proxies, like junkbuster. If you just switch away from this terrible browser, then you're safe from accidentally having your proxy filter out ads and other objectionable content.
The parent poster didn't make any such accusation. They simply stated that they guessed MS partners would be the ones most likely to actually do something like this, which is an opinion. One I think is hard to argue with.
E pluribus unum
Administrative Contact:
/.ed his email. I'm not recommending that we mail bomb him, but if everybody sent him one email objecting to this concept. I also plan to point out the various tools for the other browsers, as well as my enormous spending habits on line (B&H Video and Photo rocks! Broadway Photo rips off).
...
Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
(918) 697-4039 Fax --
Perhaps if we
Ads steal bandwidth that I pay for. I wonder when the carriers are going to ask for a cut of the ad revenue, since they (the carriers) have to pay for all that bandwidth. Oh, wait
Bottom line here though is that the advertisers brought ad-blocker on themselves by presenting the intrusive ads in the first place.
Would you buy a paperback that had an advertisement in between every twentieth word on the page?
That's your average website.
The argument that we need to "pay" for these sites to stay in business is similarly bogus. We are all paying for out bandwidth from the ISP's and paying quite a lot in most cases.
This is similar situation to television. The reason for advertisements in the first place was to pay for the broadcasting of the programs which at the time were freely available through the air. Now we have to pay sometimes hundreds of bucks a month to access the programming on cable and the "free" broadcast TV is being shut down. Logically, the advertisements should then either disappear or at least be somewhat reduced, but that isn't the case at all.
In general we are now paying far more than we ever have, for telecommunications services and entertainment that has more advertising on it than ever before.
In the old days, the web was 100% free of advertising and the argument was that once added, the necessary capitalist miracle would occur where everything would be cheaper and better. We would have more access to more information of higher quality and it would be generally free (because of the ads). This hasn't happened at all. The internet is far bigger than it was in those days, but the majority of what has been added is commercial junk. You still can't do *any* of the great things that people assumed were in the future in those days like connect to the local library and read electronic books, etc. We now *buy* digital information with our hard earned cash, but do not own them. We also have to navigate malware and advertisements just to have the privilege of doing so.
The Internet is currently all links and no sausage IMO.
The digital revolution that we were promised has been significantly delayed by these commercial interests.
that is: avoidance of ads, which is the only reason most media exists (tv, newspapers, radio, internet sites, etc.). this whole concept seems to undermine the existence of all media. but it doesn't. why doesn't it?
because there's no force involved
temporally oriented media, i can flip the channel when tv shows an ad, likewise with radio. newspaper and internet is spatially oriented, so i just don't look at the ads. so advertisers have no expectation of forcing someone to watch their ads. like someone else said, if they use ad block, they're probably not going to click on an ad anyways. but it's also true then, if you're not going to click on an ad, there's no reason to use ad block either... why block something that is not forced on you? it seems to be an issue for a fringe group of strange brittle characters
in other words, advertising works psychologically because you are getting something you want for free, in exchange for the possibility of being exposed to someone who wants to sell you something. and this works, because no one is forcing anyone to do anything. the idea you are being forced to look at ads would immediately drive you away. but advertisers know this, so they don't force you to do anything. that's why all those interstitial ads have a link allowing you to skip an ad. if the feeling was you actually had to sit there and wait through an ad before you got content, you would go somewhere else and never return
so this whole issue is a tempest in a teapot. there is no force involved. force would remove the subtle psychological sense of obligation of getting something for free that makes people tolerate ads. so its in no advertiser's interest to force you to do anything, a la eyes pried open in front of content like in a clockwork orange. it would create a sense of hostility towards the advertiser. the advertiser wants you to like their products. so their game is about seduction, not force
it takes extra effort to filter out ads, and nobody is really exerting the effort, because no one is forced to view ads. and even if they are exerting the effort by using ad blocking software, they are generally some sort of fringe weirdo, who feels threatened by something that is nonthreatening
this whole issue is a big joke, and as others have noted, indeed, most probably a troll
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So if you want to force them on me, go make a new protocol. And good luck getting people to use it.
The author of those pages is a right wing religious nut; have a look at his diatribe against atheists:
e ism-and-Morality
http://www.udolpho.com/weblog/?id=01170&title=Ath
Catoosa is a suburb of Tulsa, and my kin are from Muskogee.
Like most famous Okies, I've emigrated to California:
http://www.50states.com/bio/okla.htm
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
If he doesn't want users that block ads, that's his prerogative. It's also his right to be a whiny little bitch about it, and finally it's his right to wonder why his pageviews are so low so that he can't attract any decent advertisers in the first place.
I suppose it's also his right to insert google ads or some obscure advertiser that isn't usually blocked, troll slashdot, and rake in the hits. Oh snap.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
what do you expect from a godaddy (m$ owned) site?
.com and .net domains can now be registered
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/
for detailed information.
Domain Name: WHYFIREFOXISBLOCKED.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com/
Name Server: NS1.FAMILYNETHOME.COM
Name Server: NS2.FAMILYNETHOME.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 06-aug-2007
Creation Date: 06-aug-2007
Expiration Date: 06-aug-2008
this month, IE users were 58%, firefox was 35% and safari and opera barely registered.
a sp
How is 35% small? It seems pretty big to me.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Luckily, I use _Firefox_. If you're going to do something so sad, at least get the name of the product right.
User Agent Switcher will teach em'! Oh...there's a site that tells how to even browse with it as a Wii! Also, you can get a giant xml file of pre-made user agents... I think its here. I think that big XML file is there too, and you can find even more user agents through Google. Speaking of user agents, you can access some pay sites if you masquerade as the Googlebot or a few of the other spiders.
There are several proxy servers that will block ads for any browser, so you might want to shut down the site and start thinking of other mediums. I personally would never buy anything ever from anyone who discriminates against my choice of browser!
"I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere." - Anonymous
They breed more. It's inevitable (read demographics regarding education levels and birthrates, we're already damned).
Of course the truth is probably the converse. I spend more on the web because I know how to and I know how to do it safely (you know, make sure your CC company has a good policy regarding fraud/theft, read your statements, use different cards for more questionable purchases). I do as much shopping online as I possibly can. I can find much better prices and I spend less time doing it. I'm quite confident I spend more then Mr. 'baby-poop mustard' probably just slightly less on pornography.
Nothing to see. Not even smart trolling.
Quack, quack.
That is all I care about...lol Page seems to be down now...no matter the browser..
"Yeah, everyone go back to IE. You've escaped our full-page browser hijacks and URL hooks."
Would that be fair? Yeah, arguing to block an entire browser based upon a 3rd party plugin along with "demographics" makes this guy a tool, but would blocking those users who choose to block ads be a legitimate act? I can definitely see how sites who support themselves with ads either in part or in full would be a little upset about users blocking ads.
whyfirefoxisblocked.com because microsoftpaidustothis.com is already taken... Screw 'em, not like there is a web site shortage out there.
But you could wear special glasses that filtered the movie through a real-time AI such that you never saw that can, right?* As long as you don't redistribute, copyright law doesn't have any kind of "integrity" protection for the original piece.
*Assuming such technology existed.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
As far as I'm concerned, it's fair. You block my browser, I won't visit your webpage. Ever. And we will both live happily ever after. At least I know I am, not sure about your business though. But again, I couldn't care less about your business since I never had the chance to know what it was about.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
Adblockers and adblocking proxies exist for all other browers to start with. Secondly, user agent strings are trivial to change although I seriously doubt that asshats of this magnitude have any content that I'm interested. The only thing they've accomplished is to show why they should be blocked from the web.
so if an OS had a 4.33 percent market share, and someone didn't write software for it?
4 491 pay attention
that would be insane?
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=3
there are MANY software apps not available for the mac-- and those companies are doing just fine...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Anyone wanna drop him a line?
Intresting that he just registered the site this month.
Also interesting that if you look him up on Google, half of his site is ad-supported.
Posting A/C because, well, because.
Danny Carlton
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: WHYFIREFOXISBLOCKED.COM
Created on: 06-Aug-07
Expires on: 06-Aug-08
Last Updated on: 06-Aug-07
Administrative Contact:
Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
(918) 697-4039 Fax --
Technical Contact:
Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
(918) 697-4039 Fax --
If that is the case, then commercial websites should warn their visitors that they are entering a commercial site and that the trade-off for access is to disable the ad & pop-up blockers in their browser. Visitors should be able to make an informed decision before entering the website rather that be forced to "swallow" the ads. Then the choice of browser would not be an issue.
Doh! This article just reminded me to install adblock on my work copy of firefox!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
if you're not going to click on an ad, there's no reason to use ad block either... why block something that is not forced on you? it seems to be an issue for a fringe group of strange brittle characters
Actually, my reason for going beyond just using an ad-blocker and completely usurping the ad-server's domain in DNS is that just seeing the ad is the problem. Anymore, ads go beyond just an image on a page. They're nasty, distracting animations. They're pop-up windows that clutter the screen. They're those floating "windows" that lay on top of the content that you came to the page to see. And we won't even get into the amount of malware and crudware they try to install (I routinely get them trying to install ActiveX controls without cluing anybody in that they're installing them, and I do not tolerate random Web sites installing executables on my machines).
I could use a simple ad-blocker, I suppose, but it's a losing fight with advertisers getting nastier and nastier about things. So I decided that if it's just going to escalate anyway, I might as well go straight to 11: a Web server that returns 404 for any request, a local-network DNS server that declares itself authoritative for the entire domain of any advertiser I notice, and some IP redirection for advertisers sneaky enough to use IP addresses rather than DNS names (or to use names in the hosting site's domain pointing at their servers). Nasty to set up initially, but it's cut down the amount of crud I have to deal with on Windows boxes by an order of magnitude.
The web is not a static medium. It's not like a book or a newspaper where you control exactly how the user sees it. It's made to be flexible so as to accommodate different needs. Being able to resize text is not a bug. Disabling images in your browser is not a bug. Being able to block adds is not a bug. It is an interpretation of the webpage.
On a side note, I don't personally go the full nine yards with the ad blocking thing. However I do disallow the animation of gif images and prevent flash animations from appearing until clicked. They are about as bad as the damn blink tag I say!
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Wow! i wish every site that had ads would do this! Thank you for promoting adblock!
From my website's own access logs, Firefox's useage isn't too bad at all: look Look here
My web domain.
This smacks of astroturfing.
It also could be just the rantings of a zealot -- judging from his love-me page http://www.dannycarlton.net/ he does seem to be a zealot about a few different things. He also seems to be using this as a "magnet" to get traffic to his other sites. Like sites he charges to host for others.
Why don't we all drop him a line? Let him know how much we appreciate his pissing over our right to not be bombarded by advertising at every corner of the internet.
We can send him love letters at: godaddy@dannycarlton.net (which I doubt is real) or use the form at http://dannycarlton.com/contact.php
He's got the stones to call Firefox users a "Cult" -- when he's visibly a member of the biggest Cult of all time? What was that about glass houses and stones?
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
I absolutely love the way "FireFox users [are] a somewhat small percentage of the internet" and yet sites are led to expect "tremendous financial rewards" from blocking them.
Did this story come from Fox News?
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there's a big difference.
You'll forgive me if I find it intriguing that someone who posts things like these (one of many, many thousands) would even bring Microsoft (or "M$") into this.
AND their funding...
[microsoft bash]After all who stands to gain by the discouragement of Firefox..hmmm?[/microsoft bash]
I use firefox, and I don't block ads.
Two weeks of popularity courtesy our friends using Linux... another desktop minority (but the smarter group by far):
/dev/null;done
while [ `date +%s` -lt 1187543278 ]; do w3m http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com/ -dump >
First and foremost, it's simply fair. I pay my, rather high priced, monthly bill for broadband cable internet access. While this is just access to the Internet and not access to every website obviously, it still is me paying to view or connect to the web.
:( Sure OS's have gotten some more security since the golden era of pop ups but that still happens. It's not just pop ups either, how much you wanna bet there's some way to execute a file via a embeded flash file? While you load that site it seeminly looks ok, a cute little flash movie, in the background it's installing some variation of w32.arseraping.exe. Yea, you could "avoid" sites that do that, but how do you tell? Say you're browsing a forum, and someone posts a link to some content (the content itself is legit) but the site it's on has ad's or a banner or something that installs some shit? You had no way of knowing. Are we to pre screen all websites before ever visiting them?
By doing so, let's say I go to a local news affiliates web site, such as my local NBC station or ABC. While their site does contain news and such, they also always have ad's, banners, auto-streaming flash, sometimes even old school popups. I already paid to get the Internet, and since anyone with a tv and bunny ears can access local news stations for free, why should these people need me to view their ad's? So they can pay for the domain? Bandwidth costs? Webmaster(s) salary? They are a company, news yes but still a company, that cost should already be covered. Why force it onto the user? That just leads down the road of the classic "information should always be free".
Second comes non profit type sites, that fall into the same example above. People who are paying for their own personal site, space, bandwidth, maybe even a domain name or two. Ad's might offset some cost right? Yes. Does that mean they can push it on the user? Possibly, I mean you want to view their website, it's their site. But, it's simple capitalism in my opinion. Such as, if you really need a neon flashing banner, annoyingly wide Google Ad Sense banners, streaming flash etc to help off set the "cost" of your website, then you really need to consider not having a site. The burden, yes burden, of having a site online falls on the owner and webmaster (in a personal reference especially). The user should "pay out" by viewing these ad's, simply cause you can't chuck a few more bucks for bandwidth every month? I have a somewhat small personal website, hosted for free, with some banner ad's and Ad Sense. It's mainly a small forum. What do I tell my users of that forum? "If you dislike the intrusive ad's, I recommend Firefox and Adblock"
A somewhat third, if you even consider it, is simple screen space. A good portion of Internet using people are still those on older machines, or machines with small monitor's. (Or ones that can't do a decent resolution). So while most web sites are optimized for what, at least 1024x768 these days, a lot of web users are still using 800x600 or even 640x480. Have you seen some of these ad's in a small resolution? They can take up the whole screen, cause you to needlessly scroll over, stretch out tables etc It's really great when you're reading information on a site and that particular page has information in several categories, left centered and righted, yet to read the right margin text, you need to scroll over due to a very long banner ad stretch the page (where as if it wasn't there, the page wouldn't be stretched).
Oh and lets not forget, the good old family of PC Destroyers; virus, spyware and malware. This was a chief reason I block ad's and eventually switched to Firefox. It doesn't help IE isn't as secure but the mere fact you can simply load website and have a popup or some other code on the site come up and start installing random stuff without you asking it too, was great
Point is, the advertisement venture is on a decay. I don't mind seeing an ad for something new, that I've never heard of (say on
Aw Frell this
going by the same logic:
demographic studies have shown that blacks form small minority and are mostly poor people and don't spend too much money. so it is perfectly ok for us (the owner of Macy's) to put a board, "no blacks are allowed".
Let me get this straight:
Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.So, because there are so few Firefox users, it's okay to ban the browser? Wouldn't the argument for why one might ignore any 'problem' associated with Firefox users blocking ads be the same? Namely that there aren't enough users to worry about?
Which is it? Are there too few Firefox users to worry about blocking, or are there enough that it's impacting the bottom line? You can't have it both ways.
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
The unfortunate thing about going on general numbers like "firefox users have lower average online spending" is that even if they are true there will still be a fair number of customers that will be turned aside that will be 100% likely to be pissed off to have their browser of choice blocked.
Not to mention the fact that pop ups are annoying regardless of demographic spending habits.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Someone gets it.
I hope nobody clicks here, here, here or here.
All those pictures would totally run up someone's bandwidth bill..
Well, as a webmaster and owner of several high traffic sites, I can tell you that nothing erks me more than ad-blockers. Why should I give my bandwidth away for FREE, let you download my content, and then not even get the ad impression? I do feel that adblockers are unethical (for the reason that you are using my resources without allowing me to have the chance to recoup the costs).
Now with that said, these guys are NUTS. Would I EVER block a browser because it allows ad-blockers? HECK NO! That goes against everything that the internet is about. The point is, it's simple economics. If Ad-Blockers start eating up a significant amount of resources and revenue, then find another way of making money. Subscription sites almost (note almost) never make it, so what choice does that leave us "little" guys?
I get around adblockers by having a "Donate" button on every ad-supported site I run. Maybe I'll get 1 donation for every 100,000 or so visitors, but it's something...
That said, all of my ads are google ads. Which means no animations, no sounds, no popups, etc. 50% are text link ads, and the other 50%, simple banner ads... And they don't jump in the middle of conent (just one ad at the top, and one along the side). If that's too much for you, let me know...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
Google Ads pioneered advertising, sort of. The text-only display was so damn unintrusive that you'd actually look for it. "Hey, that area is not flashing, what is it about." sort of.
And what I love most about them is how I often have to wait anywhere from 10 to 60 seconds for some useless P.O.S. ad-server somewhere to spew up it's flashing, seizure-inducing gibberish before the actual site content is displayed.
This is especially prevalent on sites that have been displayed on Slashdot, Digg, Reddit and Fark. I'll click the link, a new window opens, and then I see the logo of the site and likely the left-hand menu.... then nothing while my browser waits for an ad server (sometimes several) to timeout due to the load. Finally, the content will appear, but I've usually moved on by then. This has nothing to do with my browser. All these things do is annoy me to the point that I don't want to bother with sites that use them anymore.
Greedy, dumbass bastards.
Dammit, I meant to post that anonymously!
Konqui gets blocked, also, but the site says that it's because I'm using Firefox. Way to go, site!
There is a quote from the website populartechnology.net on this "What is Firefox Blocked" site. I decided to see what this site was and how they could tout about ad blocking. Interestingly enough, the site is a parked domain. I smell a rat.
'Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.'
Firefox users represent a very small percentage of online spenders, therefore blocking them 'has tremendous financial rewards.' How, exactly, does that work? Ending resource theft may have tremendous financial rewards as a general statement, but linking that to blocking Firefox users is a non-sequitur. If anything, you're just taking away that very small percentage of profit, which means less money. Someone's purdy smert.
An informed person would have said something to the effect of this being a symbolic gesture about ending resource theft, although even that claim is specious IMO.
akad0nric0
This sentence no verb.
1) I recommend using user agent switcher. :)
2) Why block just firefox, Opera can filter ads too! IE can be ran through privoxy to filter ads.
3) Why bother? It's my computer, I choose what I do, I choose what my CPU executes, I choose what my hard disk stores. I choose what my web browser does and does not do! You can't stop someone who's in physical possession of the computer from doing whatever they like.
The internet captures a lot of eyes, but that doesn't mean it's required for a business to stay viable. I hate to break it to ad pushers, but if you go out of business because nobody sees your blinkenflashen, you may not have a strong enough product. If folks read all your information but block your ads, then perhaps your *core readership* is much smaller than you realize. The rest of them, the ad-blockers, couldn't care less if you lived or died. I believe people wouldn't mind if most sites died out from overcrowding, bad design, stale information or simply boredom.
If folks never opened to the page of the telephone book that had their ads, were these people stealing? If they did, disliked the ad, and ripped that page out, was it stealing? If mean, those businesses PAID to be in that book, funding it's creation and delivery.
TFA assumes that the content is the value, but as we all know - a business need to actually *do something* besides display ads to be a real player. Even if that "something" is information munging, akin to
There are many examples of this on the web. Wikipedia is funded from donations, not ads. If wikipedia either began to charge views outright, or began to throttle, the public will either prop it up or let it die. So far, it's not dead AFAIK.
The percentage of people who actually use firefox and ACTUALLY click on stupid banner adds is very small. It's only the idiot users are using IE who see the banner adds and think "woohoo, I won something at this casino site! I should go there right away!"
If you define the "study" to be money gained from "stupid people who click on ad banners" then yes, firefox users are a very small percentage of the market. If you define said market to be all the money that people spend on the web (typically finding their online retailer of choise using google!) then you'd have to be a moron to think that firefox users spend LESS than your average IE user.
Who shops online? Mostly geeks. What browser do geeks use? Firefox. If you're marketing to a different crowd, then fine, by all means block firefox. If you're selling anything electronic you'd be the dumbass of all dumbasses to think that blocking firefox will help your business.
d
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
...honest, hard-working website owners and developers.
Oh, I see, they are the ones without all the annoying Cialis ads!
I don't know what they are talking about with Firefox users not buying stuff online. I just bought 4 copies of AutoCAD for Linux through an ad on a site I visited. It was only about $20.00 US. That is great, because nobody else seems to carry it, and the Windows versions are like a really expensive. I ordered the download version by credit card about 3 weeks ago, I haven't recieved the confirmation email with the download link yet, but the site looked respectable.
PS - Anybody know what the difference is between http and https is?
Yeah that was what I was getting at. However, I was wrong. As it turns out, AdBlock Plus had actually censored the site ... that's why it wasn't rendering.
... there are lots of them around, usually relying on CSS), and I never stopped to think that ABP would actually censor a site for "slanderous" content.
I was giving the site way too much credit for being clever (taking advantage of rendering differences would be a more effective way to block a browser than using the USER_AGENT response, and it's not like it's hard to go out and find little bits of code that test to see which browser a user is running
I'm actually somewhat unhappy with ABP for doing that, as ridiculously sleazy as the Block Firefox people are.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Actually its not "their" claims, but "his" claims, the whole thing is just one crazy person. Bear in mind that the, um, individual, behind this is a complete loony toon of the extreme right wing religious nut variety. Seriously, check out his other stuff at jacklewis.net, unfortunately you can't read his insane ratings with Firefox, which is a shame because they're quite amusing.
Given his nuthood I'd assume that he *thinks* that Firefox users are less likely to buy things online, and that somehow in the broken fragments of his mind that becomes transmuted into "demographs show that...." Pleanty of other nutbags do the same thing, why shouldn't he?
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
As well as not showing the ads, adblock should "click" on them. That way the website gets their money, and the advertisers lose.
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp? domain=whyfirefoxisblocked.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=Danny+Carlton&ie=ut f-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&c lient=firefox-a
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp? domain=jacklewis.net
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp? domain=dannycarlton.com
Here's a quote from his "About Jack Lewis" page (which I viewed in FIREFOX through Google's cache):
"Jack Lewis" is a pseudonym. When I first began using the internet I found out that there were a lot of crazy people out there and wanted some anonymity. The name served it's purpose, but eventually people began to know me by that name alone. When I started setting up my own sites, I got JackLewis.net.While I abandoned any real effort at anonymity several years ago, I kept the pseudonym, because so many people knew me by that name.
So, if he's abandoned his effort at anonymity, why didn't he leave any contact info on whyfirefoxisblocked.com? Is it, by chance, because he doesn't want to get slammed back by Firefox users? Thanks, Danny. You're living proof that idiots *can* use the Internet.
US copyright law says nothing about redistributing. You're confusing it with the GPL.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Meh, I make a note of everything I see advertised and make sure I don't buy said things. Thus, it's in their interests for me to remain ignorant of their attempts at subjecting me to the exposure effect and their attempts to appeal to my emotion.
...
Though I suppose that's only in the interest of the propagandists and not the website operators themselves
Konqueror->Tools->Change Browser Identification->Internet Explorer->Version 6.0 on Windows XP
Don't forget to click Apply on Entire Site.
Of course, you have already configured your Konqueror AdBlocK filters, don't you?
There you are, staring at me again.
If they give priority to their sponsors instead of their viewers, it just means that the viewers aren't seen as CUSTOMERS, but as potential income. Excuse me, sir, but I have no dollar sign printed on my forehead.
Farewell. I'm going with your competition. (translation: Screw you!)
Then is not the same as "than!" Don't use "then" when you mean "than!"
I find it hilarious when someone comments on the less educated while proving they themselves were looking out the window in English class.
The CAPTCHA is "physics."
Irony really. But, I would suggest perhaps they're biggest gripe is the fact that you can get very comprehensive and useful list of ad sites for firefox (namely abp). Now, why you would blame mozilla for that is a tad mysterious, its like blaming microsoft for java on windows.
Highly intelligent folk obviously and i look forward to not bothering to try to read their site in the future!
Sorry Bozo-brains!
I do most of my shopping online and make a huge amount of pre-shop searching on many of the goods I purchase. None of them through "click-thru" ads placed on servers. You people as assuming an awful lot about the buying public out there, and therefore it begs this;... "When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me". I'm sorry, I'm not an ass so that leaves you... out in the cold. I will continue to use this filter called "Adblock" because I get tired of half a dozen pop-under windows laying in wait for me to have to force close some of them. Then theres the ones that pop up over an entire web site page. What happens next is that if that happens, and I can't close the ad, I close the browser window and go somewhere else. That means; "You Loose"! Why don't you try talking to your advertisers about NOT making garbage that is so "in-your-face" and let the visitor visit instead of being invaded when they come to the door.
Any site that winds up having so many ads on their site to pay for it, likely is offering almost nothing in content and therefore I have no need to go there. Simple philosophy.
Lastly;
Every one I know of or speak to, (and I'm in a position of substantial daily influence to many many people) I am able to convince them to switch off to Firefox because of Internet Exploder's well known ease of hack and breakage. Even Mac users are switching man! Go ahead and cut off Firefox users. Whatever man.
If you wish to filter visitors by browser type, knock yourself out. It's your traffic loss that will be an issue not any issue for the rest of us. We just go elsewhere.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
"Fired it up in IE"
User agent switcher works just fine, no need to dirty yourself.
All this seems like a giant ad for Firefox and Adblock Plus.
How ironic.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
Self blocking ads!
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
the ad-blocking browser using blocker blockers are blocked by you
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
"A website is aiming at blocking (Black) users. This because a fraction of the (Black) users (Can't Read) and are therefor 'stealing money' from website owners that use ads. They recommend using (White), (Asian) or (Indians). From the site: 'Demographics have shown that not only are (Black) users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking (Blacks) seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.'
Discuss.
I use Firefox+Adblock Plus for exactly the same reason I have a DVR (pause/fast-forward commercials); I'm tired of the constant flood of mind numbing ads everywhere you turn these days. If I can find a way to disable/bypass an ad or commercial I will use it, and if someone wants to block me for doing that I will not be coming back with different browser.
It is their choice to decide who can see their content. If they choose to block a not insignificant portion of internet users, it is their choice. Of course, since the page will not be of use to as large a portion of the internet user space as other sites that don't block firefox, perhaps search engines like google should lower the rankings of their site so that they aren't directing users to pages that won't load. In fact, this sounds a little bit like cloaking - they have one page that is returned for the search engine, and a different page for humans using certain web browsers.
I did look out the window, my mother was the English teach. But at least have balls enough to risk your own karma. THAT I find hilarious. Nitpicking silly grammar issues like some kind of academic fundamentalist I find amusing and slightly annoying. In that order.
Quack, quack.
There are plenty of proxies for Linux (and Windows) that'll present their own browser IDs. This has the advantage that if you're running a home network, all machines on the home network will appear the same way. If the proxy is caching, it will also reduce the bandwidth requirements. That can be important, when downloading free po^H^Hsoftware.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It may have a real name but is the effect that leads to the current ban on smoking and my installing an adblocker that blocks all ads.
I got a certain treshhold before a nuisance will drive me to action. A mosquito who is smart enough to NOT buzz around my ears will probably survive as the mild itching is NOT worth me getting up, even night after night. Buzz around my ears and the bug will die even if it takes me hours of night rest.
On a larger scale, smokers have for decades forced their addiction on everyone else. This was somehow tolerated but they went to far, and now the actions against smokers are increasingly harsh. Pushed too far the non-smokers are no longer willing to tolerate anything at all.
Same for me with ads on the web, I been pushed beyond my limit with slow page loads, horrible animations and plain nuisance to the point I now block ALL ads, end of story no matter how much I might like the site and how small the ad. I will spend hours on blocking new forms of ads when just ignoring them would be much easier because I no longer can tolerate them. Ages ago I just ignored the flashing gifs and the popups and popunders and then some limit was reached and now I fight them to the extreme.
The odd thing is really how the offending party can't seem to understand what all the fuzz is about. I can understand this with a bug, but how come so few smokers seem capable of understanding that smoking in the presence of a non-smoker is as rude as farting or airing your smelly feet? (and nobody ever died on B.O.)
How come no website owner seems capable of accepting that plastering ads all over the place, flashing ones by preference is going to upset the reader?
TV and radio stations seem similary incapable of understanding the reason behind DVR and MP3 players.
Here is the answer, too many ads on the net/tv/radio have made me and a lot of others allergic to them, what started as a mild dislike now gives us an openly hostile reaction to even the slightest exposure. This isn't your own fault, your page/tv/radio may have the barest minimal of ads you need to finance yourselve BUT others ruined it for you. Blame a total lack of self restriction by the media moguls who just didn't know when to stop.
Just as the asshole smokers ruined it completly for those smokers who knew not to light up in the presence of non-smokers, the out of control banner ad sites ruined it for the likes of slashdot.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
my user_agent string will be "I don't see your stinking ads!"
My time, my network, and my computer are not the property of the web host I visit, and I do not give a web site any rights to them by visiting their page. There are plenty of sites that require users to register, and in those cases, assuming there was some sort of terms for use, then fine - require me to at least display ads. But if your site is "free as in speech," is available on the web for all potential visitors without a disclaimer requiring the user to view the site purely as the publisher wishes, then the publisher has no right to make such requirements.
The best analogy I can think of would be if I had a secretary going on line to look up information for me. This secretary has no authority to purchase anything on my company's dime, so whatever ads she comes across are essentially ignored. The ads are filtered out before being able to have any effect because the person viewing them would have zero chance of being influenced by them. Would she be required to pass along the ads she saw when she compiles her report for me? Or wouldn't it be stealing if she didn't, under the argument put forward by web sites who think ads must be seen and cannot legally be filtered? Surely one cannot suggest that just because you offer free information and ads, and I chose to download them both from you, that I have to give equal treatment to both.
There is also absolutely nothing wrong with a web site doing this kind of blocking, either. I cannot tell the web host to stop sending me the ads when I request a page from them any more than they can require me to listen to both. Hosts are not required to meet my desires any more than I am to meet theirs, short of discriminating in their distribution of otherwise free services as described by law. And if I am frustrated by a site that makes my life difficult, I'm free to walk and they are powerless to require me to come back.
However, I do object to the idea of being called a thief for choosing to set my computer - or ask my secretary, at least in my dreams - to automatically ignore parts of a free broadcast. Until I agree to an EULA stating I cannot re-work the content for my own viewing, whatever is freely offered to me is free, both in terms of cost and restrictions.
I'm sure it won't take very long for the open source community to create plug-ins to overcome whatever hurdles they put up, assuming the sites stay in business long enough to keep the devlopement of such plug-ins necessary.
You went to the refrigerator to get a beer while the commercial was on. You are a thief.
I don't understand the big deal with ad blocking. Just block sites that abuse their right to advertise by running 'spaz-ads' or other intrusive campaigns, allow other people to provide the services you came there to use.
For me, it's somewhat a matter of principle, and somewhat a matter of personal "brain wiring."
The "brain wiring" part is that I seem to have a very hard time filtering out background noise or distractions of any sort. I have a bitch of a time trying to carry on a conversation in a noisy bar, for example. It isn't that my hearing is a problem - it's actually quite good - it's that my brain is easily distracted by other inputs. If I'm in a room full of people talking, my attention diverts to whoever just spoke loudest or otherwise caught my ear. I end up hearing about 3 words of every conversation within earshot. If I concentrate very hard I might be able to overcome it, but that takes a lot of mental effort for me and it's stressful. As far as web site advertising goes, the same thing happens to me visually. If there's some brightly-colored ad on the screen, it tends to pull my attention away from what I'm there to read. If it's blinking or moving or something, that's even worse.
The "principle" thing breaks down into a few sub-categories: I resent others trying to control or track me (especially for their own profit), I hate wasted bandwidth and slow page loads, and I resent the steady commercializaion of all visible space.
The "control and tracking" piece is the one that bothers me the most. Advertisers are in the business of mind control, pure and simple. And they're very, very good at it. I haven't watched TV commercials since I was a young kid (before DVR's I'd simply mute the audio), yet I know entirely too much about commercials for my taste. I "get" the references when people talk about them, and I hate it. I don't want my perceptions manipulated by commercial interests, but it's inescapable. Many of us would like to think we're too sophisticated to be subject to such things, but we're not. Advertisers know the human mind very well, and they use every trick possible to manipulate us at every turn. Well, this is me, opting out. They can fuck off. They are the enemy.
The privacy implications of widespread ad networks bothers me, too. If I don't stop them, they plant their cookies, track me from site to site, and eventually associate my bit-trail with my name, address, etc. I can't imagine why I, or anyone else, wouldn't have a problem with this, and it's almost shocking to me that most people don't care.
The "wasted bandwidth" and slow page loads are pretty much self-explanatory. The less work my browser has to do, the faster pages will render. Even a few tens of milliseconds can make the difference between a "snappy" and a "sluggish" feel to the whole web-browsing experience. And despite the fact that I have broadband and run FasterFox, there's still a limit to how many simultaneous connections a browser will make to a given site, and if they're all tied up loading ad-crap and "rounded-corner" graphics, things get god-awful slow.
My problem with the commercialization of all visible space is a purely personal one. Things like billboards are bad enough, but now they have giant LED image-changing billboards, and ads are cropping up in places like the space above urinals in men's rooms and on the lines in parking lots. I'm not trying to say advertisers don't have a right to be in business or to do their thing, but it does bother the hell out of me that ads are appearing in more and more public spaces. I can't stop that, but I sure as hell can do my best to keep them out of my private spaces. I spend a lot of time online, and I go to significant lengths to filter crap from my net connection as a result. I do the same with TV. I don't want to be one of those snobs who takes every opportunity to brag that they don't own a TV. But I don't want to be infected with advertising memes either. So I own a DVR and I skip commercials religiousl
I've used Hotmail for a very long time, and I just haven't bothered switching yet. In the past week or so, Hotmail (Live Mail, whatever) has let me read my email, but when I try to send, reply, forward, the page is all broken. When I use IE, it works just fine. I've tried on both Linux and Windows versions of FireFox, but they're both broken. Opera works too. I don't know if this is just a weird configuration issue between two of my computers, but I hope that MS isn't blocking FireFox users from using Hotmail. That'll give me the final incentive to switch email accounts...
Once I started blocking ads, my CPU wasn't being hogged by all the crap on some pages. I run on a fairly ancient system by today's standards (Duron 1.3) and on pages with a lot of ads, it would hit my CPU pretty hard.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
One of the comments on the "block Firefox" page was:
If Internet Explorer came with a feature such as Adblock, you would effectively wipe out thousands of websites, maybe more.
To which I'd reply:
* Ad blockers are widely available for IE and many proxy servers as well (which block ads to ALL browsers--our corporate proxy blocks all sorts of content, including nearly all adservers). Yet all these adservers and crappy ad-laden websites continue to exist...unfortunately.
* There are "Thousands of websites" (I'd say MILLIONS actually) that SHOULD be wiped out because their net contribution to the 'net is negative. If ad-blockers give consumers the ability to decide which sites those are then they perform an important public service.
I'd also offer this argument: pushing excessive ads to my computer is theft of my processor time and bandwidth. I pay for my computer and for the monthly internet access so I can use them for what I wish. I am a reasonable person and expect that a lot of content is ad-supported and would find a reasonable amount of advertising to be acceptable. I am used to commercials consuming about 30 percent of TV programming time, and TV has survived on that for a long time. However, in recent times I have found that many sites literally devote MORE THAN HALF of their real-estate to advertising.
The advertising is getting far too distracting as well: I regularly encounter pages with multiple flash and/or video-clip ads, and ads that play sound without asking or warning. Advertisers go out of their way to create workarounds to pop-up blockers and use AJAX, Java and Flash technology to make ads that dance all over your screen, obscure the real content and generally annoy the user as much as possible.
The rights of corporate advertisers must be balanced with the rights of individual consumers, and, sorry to say Mr. Ad Exec, individual rights trump those of corporations. If you wound back a bit and limited your ads to 1/3 screen real-estate or relied on more considerate techniques like interstitial ads that played their message and politely got out of the way so the real content can be enjoyed, then the popularity of ad-blocking would be reduced substantially.
By the way, would you like to know why your precious ad servers are blocked at our corporate proxy, listed right alongside things like myspace and horse porn? It is because they started generating so much traffic on our corporate WAN that the ads actually had a noticeable impact on overall intranet performance. That's right...big, responsible corporations are committing "mass theft" because they are tired of their bandwidth being stolen by aggressive advertisers!
Don't forget to post his phone number: (918) 697-4039
There is something of an arms race between website content providers and users. Providers want revenue via various ad mechanisms. Users don't want intrusive ads, and the knowledgeable ones install tech that blocks intrusive ads -- popup blockers, adblock, even noscript with flash blocking enabled. Content providers respond by developing new ways to be intrusive -- popups via flash, DHTML-based ads, and the like. Users develop new client-side tech to block known threats, and the cycle continues.
So this is just a new step in the arms race, where some content providers will try to block users with tech that blocks ads, or encourages ad blocking, instead of developing better ad tech.
Problem one for this approach: such tech gradually becomes more mainsteam. Popup blockers are the best example of ad blocking tech becoming mainstream. Popup blockers started as third-party software, but first FF and then IE included integrated popup blocking. The author's own website endorses popup blocking (I'm not going to provide a direct link 'cuz I don't want to provide pagecount to this jerk), which is pretty ironic, since popups are all about ads. Now, all of the biggest browsers including IE can block ads via extensions; the complaint here is that FF "endorsed" adblock, not that adblock is available. Content providers are welcome to block FF, but they have to realize that tech like adblock is going to become more popular as a direct result of the intrusiveness of ads.
Also, with FF estimated at 14% market share, blocking FF means blocking a whole lot of potential customers.
A more logical response to adblock is to make less-intrusive ads (i.e. text ads, simple image ads) that are harder to block, and/or less intrusive. There is a reason why popup blocking is standard in all major browsers, but adblock and similar tech is not -- popups are very intrusive, while regular ads are less so. If content providers want ad-related revenue, they have to provide ads that don't annoy their potential customers. This is why superbowl ads, and many TV ads, are funny and interesting instead of annoying.
On a personal note, I like to support websites, so I browse using FF but no longer use adblock as of about a year ago. That said, popups and flash exceed my tolerance threshold, so I use noscript with flash blocking enabled by default, and leave the popup blocker enabled.
- Morty
I didn't know about ad block until I read this article. It just made me go out and install it right away. Screw this pig porker! If his sites only survive because of add revenue it means he has a $h!tty site with nothing worthwhile on it. So that means I have no need to visit them. Way to go D!ckhe@d make your problem public and p!$$ off tons of people in the process. Now you'll really have to survive on ad revenue.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
We don't need people being stuck up on Firefox users. We care more about security than people seeing advertising. That's why we don't make IE the default browser.
:-) (whoops, sorry, that's my politician side leaking out)
I suggest more people think of security for themselves, their families and their companies than making sure advertisements are available. I mean, isn't someone thinking of the children?
Nice troll, but that's all it is. I'm under no obligation to support someone's business method. That's the beauty of true free market economics - businesses can try to sell to me, but I'm under no obligation to be sold to. If they don't make enough money to support their free content, it'll go away. I'm OK with that.
Or we can look at it another way: their "free" content is a business expense. They spend a certain amount of dollars (in real cash, or time/effort) in an effort to attract ad views, for which they get money. Marketing is a game of averages - not every person who views an ad will click on it, and not everyone who clicks will buy something. But if enough people do buy something, the system is sustainable. And even people who don't view ads can still contribute by increasing the popularity of the site. Ad-blockers are still a small minority, so chances are most people who start visiting a site because they heard about it via word-of-mouth will not be blocking ads, and ultimtely will contribute to the success of the site, and the system as a whole.
Here's another way to look at it: if you own an ad-supported web site and the time you can contribute to working on the site is limited, does it make you more money to bitch about ad-blocking users "stealing" your content and working to block them, or is the return on your time investment higher if you focus on acquiring/generating new content, or marketing?
... And I dunno about anyone else, but I prefer Privoxy anyway, I just configure it to not mangle my useragent.
I must be stealing tv programs with my DVR then too.
Okay, let's suppose my business is to sell ad-space on T-shirts, and give the T-shirt away free. Some proportion of people are going to take the shirts and wear then under a coat, use them to line the dog-bed, or whatever. Once I have given away the T-shirt, do I have the right to say, you must wear my shirt with the ad showing? No! That would be ridiculous.
I manage to fund a website without intrusive ads. A colo'd server is not really that expensive. If you want to pull in revenue you could try selling a useful product or service. For example if you run a free forum website, sell "premium" membership.
Ads that are poorly targeted to my demographic COSTS YOU MONEY. You waste bandwidth trying to send me information about things I won't buy. I would argue well targeted advertising is what is important to the well being of the internet, not all ads. Ad blockers stop the throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks sort of advertisements.
I'm sorry if it's so much work to get customers, but the key to having customers that spend money is establishing a relationship with customers and with potential customers. Just pasting fliers all around town or shoving 4 or 5 pop-unders under my browse window is not going to establish a relationship.
TV and Radio have advertisements and commercial skipping is protected mostly because running a broadcast station is quite expensive. Putting a server on the net is only as expensive as the number of hits you get (bandwidth/load), it scales very linearly. If you can't figure out how to turn hits into revenue, stopping ad blocker is only going to keep you from wasting bandwidth on those minority of users. It won't actually fix your broken business model.
The Internet is a very competitive free market, you must adapt to survive!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The subject line says it all.
As other people have pointed out, nothing stops you from cutting out or otherwise hiding/removing the ads. For instance, I could cut out an article from the newspaper and hang it up at work without showing any ads at all.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
That's why you get adblocked!
If I wanted my browser to burn up my limited bandwidth with movies, I'd click on your static ad.
Comprende?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Really?
Seriously... I mean, my credit card has been out of whack lately. Hmm, maybe it's that I don't buy crap based on flashy ads or stupid keywords. Perhaps Firefox users actually spend more time on the Internet and are less susceptible to ad influence anyway.
Simply put, though, if you have a site for which I find the content interesting, I will likely whitelist your site in AdBlock. If the ads get too intrusive or annoying, I'll take you off the whitelist.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
for the illustration of how a strange brittle character thinks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Generally the kind of people who are less likely to click and/or buy from ads in the first place? If people aren't seeing ads who wouldn't be susceptible to them in the first place, it's not a real loss. They should simply think of it as saving bandwidth.
What are they going to do next, block me from using Opera because I use the AdBlock.css file? Oh wait, they probably think that Opera is a form of musical expression, not a browser.
I guess it's a good thing I use a browser nobody seems to care about.
Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending
x t=ad%20blocker&bcatid=834&&order=A ). Maybe he should block IE as well.
Ok, let's assume for a second that this is true. I know, I know, it's likely very much false, but let's humor them on this point for a second. So there are relatively very few FireFox users. This means that they can't be using that much of the site's bandwidth. (Unless there's some Bandwidth Stealer extension I'm not aware of.) Since those of us with FireFox are few in number and using little bandwidth compared to those vast arrays of IE users, we represent a small cost to them. Right?
therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks
Ok, I'll accept this. This flows from the above assumptions. If you're not getting many orders from a source, then blocking that source won't result in much of a financial loss. Still, with the small number of FireFox users out there, FireFox user must equate to a small bandwidth cost.
whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers
Wait. So FireFox users both are small in number, yet large in bandwidth hit. Apparently, all we do all day is find sites like his and load them over and over to steal his bandwidth.
Someone should tell him that there are Ad Blocking tools that are available for IE also ( http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/results.aspx?te
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Right, now to create a plugin which just changes the user-agent that firefox announces itself as. It's doable in opera which is quite good. It's probably doable in firefox already.. I'd like to know how. At the end of the day, it wouldn't be too hard for me to put together a proxy program that swaps out the user agent string in the tcp stream hehe. i'm sure it won't come to that.
Anyway, i use ad blockers because of the intrusive and annoying crap that loads of 3rd rate sites plaster all over the place to try and make a quick buck. people should realise that actually having something worthwhile on your site is a much better way to make money than creating a medium for adverts and trying to draw as many hits as possible. i don't block ads on most sites really, but if i find an ad which actually annoys me, then i'll block it.
screw this guy, really.
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov
Seems to me blocking Firefox constitutes a secondary boycott, and as such is illegal in most parts of the world.
Squirrel!
His interpretation of copyright law as meaning that ad-blockers are "illegal" is very curious... This made me wonder about his own record with respect to copyright violations.
The first thing I noticed was his website bythefireplace.com (I'm not including a link since I don't want his pagerank to go up.) There he's reproduced some books and literature, and all of the stuff I saw there is public domain. I wonder, though. Can anyone find anything there that isn't public domain?
Second... Under his "freelance" work is Instituto NPL. I went there to see how badly he butchered Spanish. But if you click on "cocina", and scroll down to "comidas con sabor mexicano", you can see an image of the Pillsbury doughboy. This to me seems like a clear violation of copyright.
On the one hand, Firefox users are insignificant and so won't negatively affect a website's hit. On the other hand, they do not click on ads thus "stealing" revenue. So if they are insignificant enough to not worry about, then why go out of your way to ban them?
- "Blocking ads is stealing" [hmm, sound familiar?]
- Savvy Firefox users have installed Adblock Plus plug-in
- We can't tell whether a Firefox visitor is running this evil plug-in [probably not]
- So we'll block all Firefox users [smart move, because...]
- Then our plot and our ill-thought-out manifesto gets Slashdotted
- Now millions more people know about Adblock Plus
- More Firefox users start blocking ads causing problems for the entire web ad industry
- [Speculation] Firefox becomes the dominant browser [we can only hope]
- [Consequence] Fewer and fewer customers visit blocked web sites
- Blocking customers is good for business, the competition thanks you
Brilliant thinking, have you thought of a career in another field?Instead of AdBlock Plus and it's built-in subscription service, you can use (regular, non-Plus) AdBlock with the "Filterset.g Updater" extension, which pulls down copies of filterset.g and loads them.
= 64&t=1142
I think it's a horrible kludge, and I really don't understand why ABP and filterset.g can't work together (apparently there is some sort of a personality conflict between the ABP maintainer and the filterset.g one), but it might be something to look into if you want to get rid of EasyList, which is the preferred subscription service for ABP in the US.
Personally I'm sticking with ABP and EasyList for the time being, but I'm not entirely pleased about this.
If anyone is interested, here is the thread on the AdBlock EasyList Forum (the maintainer site for EasyList) discussing whyfirefoxisblocked:
http://www.richsterling.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Opera??? Oh please...there's right click --> block content, out of the box.
His exploit "just works". Apple fanbois everywhere implode in a self-collapsing vortex of cognitive dissonance. by jjack
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
By NOT taking anything, these people are accusing me of theft! Great!
-DrkShadow
You could do that, but you would have to have looked at the ads while you were going through that ordeal to cut them all out. Which is probably more face time with a newpaper advert than the ad agency could have hoped for.
When you buy your paper you are under no obligation to read any of the adds, but there is the impression that they will be in your peripheral view while you read the paper. If you don't like the ads, don't go to the site. The ads support the site. If its a site you like, then you should want to support them by letting the ads go through, if its not a site you like why the hell are you going there in the first place?
If you will forgive the use of a stereotype for a moment. With this thinking in mind, why don't we just block Jews from the sites as well, since they tend to be more frugal with their money and won't generate a lot of ad revenue either.
In the same way that the above is offensive, you will always run into problems when lumping whole classes of people into one pool. I would guess that they will do a lot more damage to their business than what they have calculated from their statistics. A great many websites are recommended by the Firefox using, tech savvy, friends of people. Just what do they think will happen when their friends start recommending other websites.
I for instance use firefox, and I have 10,000 people at work that tend to use IE, and listen to my recommendations for websites to use.
Not only is he blocking Firefox, but apparently blocking Safari as well LOL. I recommend anyone who is upset about his silly idea, create a simple wget script to pull his site a few 1000 times a day without pulling any ads. That will learn him.
That just deserves an explanation for the uninitiated, since I find it way smarter than add block. The hosts file is where your operating system first looks up a translation from host name to IP addy. Now, if you knew some add server is called e.g. adds.yahoo.com then you just add to your hosts file, that adds.yahoo.com has the IP addy 127.0.0.1 or whatever your local host is. In other words, the add is never shown in your browser, and it works sooo sweet! And even better, it works for all your browsers, any applications with banner adds in them, popup-programs or whatever you may have -- it is all directed to nowhere. You can download lists of hundreds of add servers from sites like the one farmer11 mentions, and there is a really good introduction in everyone's favorite podcast, Security Now #45.
This won't do much good if you use a proxy such as junkbuster that identifies itself as IE. Now that I think of it, can't firefox change its user agent?
I've never blocked *anything* for being an ad. I have,however, blocked for cookies, and most particularly for blinking/animation. And for slowing down page loads, now that I think of it. And for creating popups, like intellitxt (or whatever that is).
hawk
Political solutions to technical problems... as pathetic and ineffectual as ever :-) What a complete non-starter.
If this "grassroots" Firefox-blocking effort takes off, we'll soon have a Firefox extension to spoof the IE UserAgent on any of the sites that blocks Firefox. Oh wait!!! It already exists, and I'll bet with a little work it could be automated to spoof based on a database of anti-Firefox sites. Of course, all the savvy Firefox users will use this to avoid the block, and only our hapless grandmothers--who don't use Adblock anyway--will be stuck wondering why the Internet doesn't work. And absolutely NOTHING will have been accomplished.
Our interconnected world is increasingly resistant to petty, arbitrary restrictions. Just witness the rise of region-free DVD players, modchips, and third-party ink cartridges... and the ridiculous, heavy-handed responses of the **AA, the game companies, and the printer manufacturers.
My bicyles
Why would I want to block perfectly good paying customers who don't have ad block installed, just because they're using the same browser as some who do?
I don't know what you're selling, but you must not be selling much of it if the bandwidth costs for not serving blocked ads (er... yeah, how's that work, exactly?) outweighs your sales revenue, or those of your ad customers.
Never mind the ludicrousness of this from the user perspective; this doesn't even make sense from a business perspective.
Are there any ad blockers for MSIE? Maybe he can block that too - on this site. We won't miss you, and yes, we'll keep making money, unlike you.
Sheesh, learn to do business.
Is it theft when I just look at the free samples on porn sites?
What about when I am in a gas station and there is a Coke banner, and I dont buy a coke?
This shit is re-re. (as in retarded)
crap.
So you don't want people reading your website content for 'free'? Then slap it behind a paid login, or hell, don't put it on the freakin Internet at all.
While they're at it, they need to block text only browsers, audio browsers for the hearing impaired, many mobile/PDA browsers, oh, and all the people who don't read or click on advertising. Idiots.
RSH: Rampant Slashdot Hypocrisy.
You know, like, for example a bunch of Slashdotters ranting how if a site should allow people to block its ads, but the site owners shouldn't be allowed to block Firefox users.
You could argue if it makes sense to just block Firefox users. Nope, it makes no (much) sense, but then site owners have the right to do whatever the hell they want. If they block Firefox, they lose the Firefox users.
Firefox users aren't any more entitled to see a site than the site owners are entitled to force ads our throats.
'Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.' So those who use Firefox will need to find a different way to access the page (and if they are determined to they will). How will this encourage anyone who is inconvenienced by this to actually view an ad or buy a product advertised in the ad? Not only will this inconvenience the user in the future it will also mess up any statistics gathered from web browsers (either from faked browser identification or from users switching to another browser to simply view the page). In the end this will do nothing more than hurt the owner of the web page and further annoy those who surf the net.
I have a site, that is reliant on revenue generated from visitors. Thing is, done right, they will return, and embrace the ads. How ? Well you have to give them a good reason to do it. IE if you tell them they can save £10 on the latest gadget X (and the audience is already highly targetted) and that is why we get a good click through over over 3% with a plain text link! Obviously they must be able to save the £10, but I thought that was kinda obvious already.
http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
If you feel like I'm stealing from you by not "viewing" your ads (which, as so many others have pointed out, I wasn't going to click on anyway), then explain this to me when I visit your site. Have one of those "click-through" pages that comes up before any of your actual pages, saying something to the effect of:
"We wish to advise you that our website is only accessible as a result of our payment of bandwidth costs to a hosting service. In order to make money, we display advertisements on our web pages. If you have no objections to viewing our advertisements, please click on the "OK - I Agree to View Your Ads" button below, and you will be redirected to our main page; if you do not agree, please click the "No - I Will Not View Your Ads" button, also below, and you will be redirected to (random porn site here). Please be aware that if you click on OK, but refuse to view our advertisements, we will consider you to be stealing from us as per our explanation above."
If it means that much to you, then I'll sadly but honestly navigate away from your page. As completely ridiculous as your position may be.
and in there I can redirect every ad server to nothing
maybe they will start a campaign against the hosts file
I can't access their website with Firefox at all. The little spinny thing just keeps spinning and then it says "Problem loading page." Wow, that's amazing, these guys are *GOOD*.
I guess I better reinstall Windows and switch back to Internet Explorer.
My bicyles
Slashdot found you!
website owners have a right to place whatever they want on their pages.
I have a right to display what I choose, of that website, on *my* computer. The computer is mine, belongs to me and my rights over it can't be alienated just because.
The website owner, of course, has a right to say "if you won't see my ads, then you can't visit my website".
This much is clear.
What they absolutely cannot do is call us who exercise the right to choose what we read, "thieves".
They are free to express themselves; and they are free to *not* direct their communications to me. They are *not* free, however, to force me to receive any kind of information. That's where freedom of speech finishes. You have a right to say whatever you want; I have a right to *not* listen to what you're saying.
Suddenly, I've realized how much money I've stolen from all those television stations when I decided to go to the bathroom during a commercial break.
I don't even use a dedicated adblocker in firefox, I just let noscript do its thing. If a site is useful and trustworthy enough for me to let javascript through (such as slashdot, ars technica, photo.net, etc etc), then I'll let the ads for that site through as well.
As for changing firefox's user agent, I'm not interested. I don't want to artificially prop up IE's marketshare numbers, even by 0.000000001%. If a siteowner is so small-minded that they'll try to block any browser, I'm not interested in what they have to say.
... Ad Block Plus, a plug-in that blocks advertisement on web sites and also prevents site owners from blocking people using it. ... site owners install scripts that prevent people using ad blocking software from accessing their site. ... Ad Block Plus [does not let] individual site owners ... block people using their plug-in.
Hot DAMN! That's the best ad I've seen in years.
Gotta make this short so I can grab a copy of Ad Block Plus. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I guess the guy hasn't tried blocking lynx, links, elinks, w3m...
It is always better to be a first grade version of yourself than a second grade version of someone else.
Okay, just to clarify what was going on: I was wrong in my original post (the parent to this). There is no CSS/IE-quirks/rendering trickery going on.
f =64&t=1142), there's been a certain amount of back-and-forth between them. I don't know if WFFIB is some sort of vendetta against the people behind ABP and EasyList, or whether it's actually an ideological dispute, but WFFIB got blocked by EasyList as "slanderous." (Which it may be, but that's not really the point.)
x t.)
What was happening is that, for a period of time, the filtering list used by AdBlock Plus in the US was actually blocking the whole site. It didn't prevent the HTML from downloading, so it was possible to view the source, but it was stopping the page from rendering, producing a white screen.
Apparently the person behind the whyfirefoxisblocked site is known to the guy who runs the EasyList blocklist. I don't know exactly what's up, but based on the forums over there (http://www.richsterling.com/forum/viewtopic.php?
However, earlier today that decision was reversed, and WFFIB has been removed from the latest version of the EastList block list. (You can check for yourself, the URL that it downloads is http://easylist.adblockplus.org/adblock_rick752.t
So if you're a FF+ABP+EasyList user and you're seeing a white screen when going to WFFIB, you just need to wait until ABP reloads the EasyList blocklist, or go into the ABP preferences and disable the "whyfirefoxisblocked.com#body" line towards the bottom.
I gave the WFFIB people far too much credit.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Or don't but it is interesting to learn about this guy who is attacking the Firefox community is such a bizarre manner.
I use a combo of ImgLikeOpera (set to load only images from originating site) and NoScript. The former handles images from off the main site, and the latter handles flash-based stuff. After the page loads, I can click on either extension's icon if I want to see the unloaded stuff.
Personally I like this combo because I am not against ads per-se, just against pervasive imbedded ad schemes like Doubleclick that track and profile private browsing. So if the site I'm reading hosts image ads at their site, they'll load in my browser automatically.
OTOH, Flash is just obnoxious no matter what.
Oh crap, is that in the PATRIOT (sic) Act?
A little off-topic...but we could develop ads for the NSA and Secret Service. BOMB BOMB BOMB COUNTRYWIDE 250,000 FOR JUST $750 A MONTH PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT SHOW YOUR NSA BADGE AND GET 20% OFF BARNES AND NOBLE THIS WEEKEND!
Intelligence spam. What a concept.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
but your point of view is not valid to the issue of web advertising, as your point of view is only shared by a marginal fringe
or, let's put it another way: if your point of view was valid, it would be shared by more people. if more people had your point of view, then that would hit the bottom line of websites. and so what you would see is one of two things: 1. the shutting down of websites. 2. an escalation of war, where ads got pass your filters, causing the filters to upgrade, etc., ad nauseum
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://whyfirefoxisblockedisslashdotted.com/
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Since I got branded "flamebait", I want to make it clear that I wasn't painting all IE users with that brush — I was merely pointing out that they're typically less sophisticated. I'll put it another way, the less sophisticated user is much more likely to use IE, as it is the default browser on the operating system that most people use.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
But then _they_ can't use apache. Or mysql. Or postgres. Or php. Or perl. Or tomcat. Or BerkeleyDB. Because if you don't believe in free, then you shouldn't accept it either; this world is already too full of people who want to charge other people for what they basically got for free. So pay through your teeth for Oracle and WebSphere and/or IIS or Netscape. And see if you can keep your website alive that way.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
So where is the plugin to easily select the Agent again? ;-)
Ten to one says he fast forwards his Tivo through commercial.
I don't know much about Javascript, so maybe this can't be done for some reason. But couldn't a script be embedded in the page that uses the DOM to detect whether the images were successfully loaded, and if not, blank out the page or put up some kind of message telling you that the content is only available if you're willing to look at the ads? Seems like this would at least make it more difficult for plug-ins like AdBlock Plus to block.
Now your browser will appear to be IE 7. This will throw off browser counters on the web though so it may artificially inflate IE numbers at the expense of Firefox numbers. You can try an opera user-agent string if you know it. Actually, anything else probably won't be blocked, it probably looks for the Firefox one in particular. Here's one for Safari on a MAC: "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/85.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) safari/85.5"
Norton Internet Security ships on many/most new PC's and can block ads.
Oops, I just popped the authors bubble.
Mozilla and SeaMonkey suites can use Adblockers. Don't other Web browsers like Opera, Safari, etc. have ad blocker addons too?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
We're going to block Firefox users because a small handful of them know how to install ad blocker and thereby drive them to our competitors sites and drum up traffic for them instead. That makes no freakin' sense at all! Even before I used ad blocker I was using other forms of blacklisting to kill ads (and so is everyone I know, mostly because I'm happy to show them how to do it). And even before the blacklisting I NEVER CLICKED A SINGLE AD! Ads are annoying, never advertising anything I'm remotely interested in and consume bandwidth needlessly. If I want to buy something, I'll google it and go right to the source. I don't need to be fed your annoying Flash video about winning the "free iPod". I don't care!
By having a public site on the internet, complete with incoming links, that is likely to be derived from (viewed) quite possibly using tools that are unable to copy the original in a manner satisfactory to the copyright holder, surely you are creating a trap.
Would this be fraudulent, deceptive or some other illegal practice?
Why not just put up a page with a clear copyright notice stating that it is illegal to make any copies of this page including the one you are presently viewing, please fill in your details so our lawyers can start proceedings.
I think the derivative work argument is nonsense. Their copyright has given me permission to download their page. The copy I have created by downloading it is then subject to fair use (in countries that have it), which means I can view it in anyway I like, as little or as much of it as I like, and even create a backup I believe.
If I buy an album is it illegal to play it in a rubbish stereo system? Even when it might reduce the copyright owner's income because I think it sounds so bad I don't buy any more of their albums and otherwise would have done? No, of course not, I've got my legal copy and now it is subject to fair use, I can listen to it or any portion of it as I choose as long as not too many other people can hear it too.
No one is looking over my should at the web pages I visit, so I retain the legal right to display them as I please.
if what you say is true, that a large enough group of people to make an impact share your sentiment (which i doubt), then
1. some websites are going to shut down
2. advertisers are going to defeat your filters. then the filters will be built better, then the ads will sneak around them better, etc.: arms race
since i don't see these things happening, i am happy, for the majority of us who aren't threatened by what is essentially nonthreatening, to report that you don't matter
what do you suffer from? some sort of visual autism?
advertising, by it's very definition, must seduce, not force. otherwise, any ad, anywhere, that threatens the viewer will not work at it's main job: drawing customers. therefore, the very thing you complain about: intrusive ads, is something that every advertiser does not want to be a psychological effect of their ad
in other words, you can say that light is dark and wet is dry, but that does not make it so. maybe for you it is, but you are obviously speaking for a malformed fringe group
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Substitute the word Firefox for Black people or Hispanic people and this is how this company should be treated.
I suspect this company won't be around long and that is a good thing OR... their incompetent management will "move on to bigger and better" things.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Hmm, site doesn't work... moving on to next link.
*rinse and repeat for all sites that block Firefox*
-- The unsig...
If they want to relegate themselves into obscurity by blocking Firefox users, we will route around them like the non-functional damage that they are.
I call shenanigans on this buffoon. Anyone can just as easily block ads on the HOSTS level, not to mention the selective ad-block lists that come with Spybot and Spyware Blaster. This works in other browsers, too. So, by all means, block all browsers NOW and save yourself the heartache!
-Kinsey
1) "stealing" because you are blocking ads? Give me a break! Is there a EULA on the page saying that unless you view the adds, you are prohibited from viewing content on the page? Is there some other type of explicit contract stating this? Then in my non-expert IANAL opinion, if it's publicly accessible, it's free for use, and if I *happen* to view an add that brings some revenue to the webmaster/owner/whatever then that's cool, and if I don't then oh well.
2) Even IE users can edit their hosts file to redirect ads.doubleclick.net and the like to 127.0.0.1. It's a pretty simple way to block undesired content.
Solution: What if everyone decides this webmaster is a schmuck and boycotts his website? What would his ad revenue be, then?
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
"the advertiser wants you to like their products. so their game is about seduction, not force"
- blocking-actual-content ads. Ad Block and others can be set/customized so that not all ad content is blocked, only the really annoying stuff (to be determined, of course, by the user). I recommend doing this, personally, as hopefully this will register with the people who make marketing decision.
Only, apparently, if I like being seduced with a baseball bat. As the multitudes before me have shouted, it isn't discrete, targetted text-based ads that are causing many of us conniptions, it is pop-up/pop-under/flash/animated gif/noisy/hit-the-monkey/moving-around-the-screen
Until something registers with those people, however, I decline the baseball bat "seduction" and block bandwidth-chewing ads that make my eyes water and my head spin.
Their website does not seem to work with Firefox... But it works with Lynx!!!
"A TV station is aiming at blocking modern TV users. This because a majority of the TV users installed a remote control and are therefor 'stealing money' from TV station owners that use ads by changing the channel. They recommend using black&white TVs with turning knobs instead."
Personally I think they can burn in a warm place, like my fireplace, a blast furnace or, if you are religious, hell. Blocking a web browser with 25% of the market is just playing stupid. A little advertising income is better than none. I would think that firefox users would rather not visit their site than change browser.
Is it because I'm using Firefox?
Zanthor
I am downloading AdBlocker right now. I have been using Firefox for years but never tried that out, until I heard all this publicity. Got me interested in it enough to go through the installation, and once that is done I'm probably going to leave it on all the time (provided it works as well as his rant makes it sound).
If you are using Adblock, get the Adblock Filterset.G Updater (1). The other option is to get Adblock Plus (2) which lets you subscribe to filter lists (3).
3 6/
6 5/
Strange. I can't turn the text into links, so here they are:
1. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/11
2. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/18
3. http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions/
And in other news... The UMAA (United Mall Association of America) have started posting security gates at the entrances to member Malls. Old people are being turned away in droves, as Mall owners are tired of old people "stealing our resources". Since many of the old people walk around the mall without purchasing products, they are clearly "stealing resources". This must stop! Won't someone think of the mall owners?!?!?
they have a right to do whatever they want within the law on their own website, I have the right to not view any adds I want.
honestly, next they'll be telling me i have to read every email/postal ad i get before binning it...
Anyone ever use 'user agent switcher'?
What software will read the page, load the URLs for the Ad, request the ad pages, then re-load his page (again)?
He needs the ad-click thrus. I wanna help, using open source to click the ads!
Safari is also blocked by it, although I can't see why it would be, there aren't any adblocking extensions for it at all.
Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
Where do I sign up? I'm such a sucker for paying more money for the smaller mortgage I have.
Oh wait a minute, is that an Option ARM or some other sort of evil sucker loan I'd be getting? I don't feel so bad. I'll just punch the monkey (or George Bush or Hillary Clinton) and get my PS4.
Of course, we could always lie about our user agent, but that has it's downsides (unrealistically low browser stats, sites with different layouts for different browsers). We could use refresh blocker to defeat the redirect they're using.
Those are the easy ways.
However, maybe the more clever way is to make an "unblock firefox" extension that could grab the referrer any time the browser goes to that site and lies about user agent to that particular referring site.
If firefox users make up x% of users, and all firefox users use addblock, then content providers stand to lose approximately x% of their revenue as a result (assuming all users are equally receptive to adds, that is). Now I see two possibilities:
- the contention that "FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet" (where presumably "the internet" means people viewing websites from a browser) is true. It would then follow that the loss of revenue would be likewise small, so businesses really have no real (financial) reason to bother blocking firefox users.
- the contention that "whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers" is correct (I assume the theives in question are firefox+addblock users). This would imply that the fraction of firefox users was in fact *large* - otherwise where would the "tremendous financial rewards" be coming from?
Either of these could be true, but I can't for the life of me see how both can be true (how can x be both small and large). So, which is it?
Saying that everyone who uses Firefox installs AdBlock is like saying that all Canadians play hockey. While it may be mostly true, it is prejudice to block all Canadians just because you don't like hockey. Webmasters could be losing dozens of potential customers based purely on browser profiling!
Danny also offers a perfectly good, and much better solution, "Adblock Fence" (which can be blocked with noscript). I have no problem with this. If you want me to view your ads, fine. I have no problem disabling my AdBlocker to see the real content of the page, as long as you aren't forcing me to buy/promote anything or putting spyware on my computer. But if you want me to switch to an inferior browser, I am simply going to leave your website and you will not make any profit from me whatsoever. It is in your best interest to allow my browser.
If you aren't able to code your website properly to display in Firefox then you have a serious problem and don't even deserve to have your own blog, nevermind a whole website! Firefox is by far the easiest browser to code for. If you can't code for Firefox then you need to go back to school.It occurred to me that instead of discriminating against Firefox users, webpage developers should work on incorporating product placements into their content. It's an old tactic but it still works. In fact that thought occurred to me just as I was about to light up and enjoy the smooth, mellow taste, of a Chesterfield cigarette. As I watched the smoke curl about I realized that relaxing with a Chesterfield is just the sort of break that a webpage developer needs to manage the day-to-day challenge of coming up with the content that sells those adds.
Read the F'ing Legal Opinion...
IANAL, but the lead opinion by Judge Posner on WGN v. United Video can be found here: http://www.projectposner.org/case/1982/693F2d622
In a nutshell, it was ruled a copyright violation for United Video, a satellite carrier, to replace WGN's content embedded in teletext (or the use of the vertical blanking interval to transmit content to tv watchers) with its own content when relaying WGN's broadcasts to cable television.
Why? Because WGN owned the programming and paid United Video to transmit the programming in total; this included news stories and station guides embedded in the vblank.
Specifically, Judge Posner states: "The cable system selects the signals it wants to retransmit, pays the copyright owners for the right to retransmit their programs, and pays the intermediate carrier a fee for getting the signal from the broadcast station to the cable system. The intermediate carrier pays the copyright owners nothing, provided it really is passive in relation to what it transmits, like a telephone company..."
He continues, and mentions viewers/users: "The cable system planned to run the teletext on a different channel (which the viewer would select, if we understand correctly, by pushing a button on the decoder) from the one on which it runs the nine o'clock news. But the cable system never received the teletext. United Video did not retransmit it along with the nine o'clock news but instead substituted teletext supplied by Dow Jones, containing business news. WGN and its affiliate brought this suit to enjoin, as a copyright infringement, United Video's failure to retransmit WGN's teletext along with the nine o'clock news."
The issue in question (in 1982, mind you) was never that of users circumventing embedded commercials, which they could easily do by simply a) not pressing the decoder button, b) not switching the channel to view the commercial, or c) not buying the decoder in the first place. The issue was that United Video was specifically paid a fee by the cable system to retransmit programming. It interfered instead; users/viewers were not part of the contractual loop. I.e., there is no implied consent to third parties in any contractual agreement - you pay me $.02 each time someone loads an ad. If no one loads them, that is your problem, not mine.
However, the actions of Danny Carlton, registrant of Whyfirefoxisblocked.com, aka Jack Lewis of JackLewis.net, aka Danny Carlton of Dannycarlton.com, may very well fall into the category of a Denial of Service attack, with all the liabilities that entails. In the UK, these are legal.
According to the UK Computer Misuse Act of 1990, Section 3.(2), and as amended in the Police and Justice Bill of 2006, Part 5, Section 34 & 35:
"For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to do the act in question and by so doing--
(a) to impair the operation of any computer,
(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer, or
(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data, whether permanently or temporarily."
Blocking a specified browser is nothing more than a Denial of Service attack in another form.
Why? Because the access holder/user (i.e. cable or Internet subscriber) pays the service provider for access to the Internet, which the service provider then, well, provides. Service providers then connect to other service providers to access data on other servers and other computers, which is transmitted over cables, phone lines, etc. Advertisers pay domain holders or website owners to display ads on their sites, or to pay by the click.
The doma
i am the opposite of tom_good, i am the XOR of ]=9fÆ"ÝÕ and ÖÆ\KF, i am 746F6D5F6576696C00.
Oooohhh, look everybody, this Firefox web browser is eeeevil!
It lets you block this terribly annoying ads so it must be banned!
Did you hear me? FIREFOX CAN BLOCK THOSE TERRIBLY ANNOYING ADS!
And it's really easy to do!
So I'm saying that the Firefox web browser, which can easily block terribly annoying ads, is eeeeeevil and must be banned!
Now won't you join me in spreading the word far and wide that FIREFOX WEB BROWSER CAN EASILY BLOCK ALL THOSE TERRIBLY ANNOYING ADVERTISEMENTS!
It should also be banned for being the first browser to have page tabs which are also eeeevi-[AC is beaten to death by Opera web browser fans tired of hearing that bullshit claim...]
The One True Path to enlightenment (and tabbed browsing) can be found here...http://www.opera.com/
Yo! Here in Germany it's just around 40%. 30% all over Europe.
A taste of your own medicine. I've seen asshats who block IE and put up some ridiculous "Use Firefox!" banner for IE users. In reply, I promptly leave the site but it is annoying.
It's not just funny! Mod insightful!
A website which wants to block firefox users, especially because of adblock, is most likely a website i wouldn't want to see anyway. ;)
So they spare me precious time
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
But i have already installed adblock on every computer nearby :)
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Isn't there a plugin which could change the user agent string automatically for blocker sites?
Or semi-automatically for a list of sites.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Make sure you go to this guy's forum at http://dannycarlton.net/feedback/index.php?forum=g eneral and let him know what you think about this 'campaign' eh? Go go!
The point of web advertising isn't to get you to buy something. Because maybe one in a thousand people that sees the ad will actually buy it. The point is to make you aware that said product exists, so that in the future, if you need $WIDGET, you already know that $COMPANY makes one.
In before someone exploits his website through their user agent string because he most assuredly does not realize that it can be spoofed. Can you say XSS?
"We have another of the RIAA-class advertising madman here. There is nowhere that I signed any contract to watch adds on TV, listen to adds on radio, or pay attention to adds on my browser."
Here we go again folks. Same thing said over and over and over and over...etc, etc, etc. Slashdot has already covered implicit contracts till we're blue in the face and yet the above gets modded up, over and over and over and over, etc, etc, etc.
It just proves that slashdot isn't about education but winning a damn popularity (karma) contest. And yes Taco has gone on record about his feelings towards that.
Thanks to a modified hosts file, I rarely see ads in Firefox (and on the off chance I'm forced to use IE.)
They should just try banning people with computers from viewing their site. It's a win-win for both sides: They will no longer have "valuable resources" stolen from them, and we'll have one less source of bogus statistics!
Move all sig!
Gambler's Logic is not a valid defense here.
"But your honor, I came into the casino with $10.00, won $8,500, and then lost it all!
The point is, stealing is very strictly defined. You deprive one person of some sort of physical property. You take it, and they no longer have it.
Depriving someone of a sale which has not happened yet, is not stealing. You don't have the money, therefore preventing you from having it, is also not stealing.
Please, let the teenager-with-his-blog have his rant. Maybe it makes him feel powerful that Slashdot picked up on it, but it's a blip on the radar, just as he is a blip on the genetic radar.
1. If the proportion of FF users is so tiny, the effect upon the bottom line is rapidly approaching zero--especially if you only consider the proportion of those users who use AdBlock.
2. Why do you think users are blocking your ads? Could it be because they are, in fact, shit?
3. Good ads spread. People like good ads. 99.9% of ads aren't, though.
4. If your target audience is blocking ads, you need to ask your ad-serving network why they're serving ads not suited to your demographic.
It's all a troll, though, really.
Gets pretty bitchy about the subject.
...has ad blocking software available for it as well.
As far as I'm concerned, this is like banning a TV show from playing on one brand of TV because it has a "Channel Up" button on the remote, even though all the other brands do as well.
Hell, while I'm at it... good luck rendering your flashy ads when I "steal your precious resources" in Lynx... or my own home brewed browser.
Deny your customers or find a new business model.
Step 1: Buy tissues.
Step 2: Cry
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit! (or, blame Firefox and return to Step 1.)
Move all sig!
Count me out of that one.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A//why firefoxisblocked.com/&sourceid=mozilla2&ie=utf-8&o e=utf-8
Why not just block everyone EXCEPT Firefox users?
What about everyone using IceWeasel on Debian? Is he blocking them too?
What about those using Mozilla, or Epiphany (both using the same XUL and underlying Gecko HTML engine)?
How is he blocking them? By UserAgent? That's assinine, because you can just change it, and be done with it (or remove it altogether).
Why not block MSIE also? Their HTTP request objects are malformed, and they do not follow the specifications. Not to mention, they don't properly support standards, CSS, or HTML properly.
Blocking browsers is futile, and all we ended up doing by posting this to Slashdot, was bring attention to his ad-ridden blog, generating him a ton of cash, negating the whole point in the first place.
Sigh, kids. What they should do, is learn proper SEO, and how to write and market a website properly, to generate actual revenue from people who WANT to click on the ads you present to them. Plenty of my pages are precisely that.
I know this is Slashdot, and everyone loves the sense of entitlement they get from being decently skilled computer users....
Don't like MS, so it's okay to copy Windows....
Don't like RIAA, so it's okay to download MP3s....
etc...etc...
When someone else creates something, it ISN'T YOURS. No! Bad Nerd! They own the rights to it. Not you.
If a site admin wants to say 'Hey, you need be a member to see my site's content and that costs $19.99 dollars a month' that's his choice. A perfectly valid one. There are sites that require paid membership. You have choices, pay the man, or don't view his content. It's simple.
All this is, is an extension of that concept. Some sites allow anyone to view it, but are funded through ad-revenue. The site admin is saying, 'In exchange for viewing my content, you have to look at my ads.' Not all admins who use ads are saying that; but some are.
If an admin doesn't want people who aren't going to look at his ads going to his site; that's his choice. If you don't like it, don't go to his site.
Just because you like something being free, doesn't mean it *is* free. Just because you can point out other, 'better' business models that would still let you get stuff for free, doesn't mean people have to follow it. Just because it's a trivial technical task to get around protection measures - whether it be cracking paid-accounts on an adult site or setting a HTTP header value...doesn't make it right.
But yeah, what am I saying, this is slashdot. If you can get it for free online, it's perfectly acceptable to do so. Besides, other sites give stuff away for free, so all of them should. Right? Right.
When a user loads an ad-driven copyrighted website, he produces a copy of the work due to the inherent architecture of the Internet. If this user is using Adblock to screen out annoying advertisements, he is creating an unauthorized derivative work analogous to skipping television commercials. By the letter of copyright law, this practice would most likely be seen as an infringing use.
:D
so if I don't read the ads and just read the article am I also in violation of copyright law?
"[Commercial-skipping] amounted to creating an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner's income from his original program, since "free" television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers."
If I go to the bathroom during a commercial would I also be in violation of copyright law?
We've become way too crazy during this copyright craze. If this crap keeps up then nobody will want to watch their junk anymore and just watch DVD's or something
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
I use "Mike's Mike's Ad Blocking Hosts file." With a modified hosts file, the advertising related URLs are blocked for both Internet Explorer and for Firefox. I use the modified hosts file on both my Windows computer and my Linux computer. It blocks known advertising related URLs by diverting them to the computers local loop back address at 127.0.0.1. I also download updated versions of his modified hosts file when they become available.
A few days ago, I was using Firefox on the Linux box while I was shopping for some amateur radio equipment. I went to a webpage and almost immediately, a rather agressive large advertisement appeared claiming that they had detected hundreds of links related to porn or spyware related links or something like that in my browser (I can't remember exactly what it said). The advertisement offered to clean my computer for free. I looked down at the bottom of the screen and saw a URL with drivecleaner in the name. I tried to close the advertisement from the upper right corner of the box, but it refused close. I then clicked the "No", but another box appeared saying something about possibly running or downloading a Windows program that ended with a .EXE extension. A box then appeared asking if I wanted to download and try to run the Windows program under Wine. I said no!
After that, I add them to the computer's hosts file with 127.0.0.1 in front of their name so that their attempts to connect to their URL will be diverted to my computer's loop back address. I then went back to the same web page, as a test, and their advertisement did not appear this time. I then went over to my Windows computer and also added that line to its hosts file too. On some routers that could also be blocked there too. Whoever they are, I don't want their ads or their attempted drive by downloads.
By the way, I also have the Konqueror browser on my Linux computer and it offers the option of having it tell other websites that I am using whatever version of Internet Explorer and Windows I want it to say. That will, more often than not, allow access to websites which try to block everyone that is not using Internet Explorer.
The User Agent extension is perfect for this. 'nuff said.
I had been using it a while back, the last time somebody tried this unintelligent stunt.
I did a quick whois on whyfirefoxisblocked.com at http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIsVerify.aspx?domain=why firefoxisblocked.com&prog_id=godaddy
The administrative contact is listed as "Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net"
And for you spam bots:
godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
:p
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
You are all freeloaders who are ruining the internet for everybody.
Blocking ads is theft? Yesterday I browsed through a porn site without downloading the trojans. That must be armed robbery in their book.
Can it be so hard to code a localhost web proxy based on AdblockPlus? That would be cross-browser and completely defeat their goal. In addition it would also work in any Windows app that uses the IE engine for rendering cont... uh, ads. I know that other adblocker proxies exist, but AdblockPlus and the Adblock filters are open-source, effective, widespread, in active development, and most importantly, it's under attack just because it works.
For Firefox users who don't want to permanently change their user agent string, I suggest an extension/Greasemonkey script that detects when a page redirects you to whyfirefoxisblocked, and reacts to that by loading the original page with a user agent string where the word Firefox is replaced by a random pick from your favorite potty-word list.
That when he gets hits from googlebot it is the same way -- they aren't downloading/viewing/clicking his ads. Maybe he should ban googlebot too... (we can only hope)
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
That's ok, we'll just develop another addon to circumvent the blocking... Oh wait...
Screw your site. I'll go build my own website! With Blackjack and hookers!
Just for the sake of argument, suppose you assume that I've not yet heard your argument on implicit contracts and explain it one more time. I'm interested to know why I can't pick and choose the content I'm interested in out of all that's available.
I have this "mute" button on my remote. Is it wrong to use it? Perhaps a broadcaster should send an letter to RCA/Sony/Toshiba/Hitachi/... to bitch about it.
Either mine's not working, or he's found a way around the user agent switcher. I'm running the latest version, I set it to IE, and jacklewis.net still kicks me to the "Why you are an evil commiefaggot for using Firefox" page.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
1) A good laugh
... w00t!
2) For pointing out this ad-block for me
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
I looked for an opportunity to reply (and tell the site operators to go fuck themselves), but there was none.
Who the hell is behinf this web page and what is their motivation?
Reality check: I (and most other people) either "channel surf" or mute TV commercials (unless they are entertaining, e.g., the Geico "Caveman" spots). We also block intrusive ads, popup pages, and other annoying web content. Guess why? Because said ads either overwhelm the reason we visited the web page or watched the TV program, or were so booo-oooring! that it caused a brain tumor to watch/view them.
If you want your ad viewed, come up with something worth viewing. Otherwise, "go fuck yourself."
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
.. online advertising was not thought of as a viable business model.. maybe they should try creating a real product that does deserve people to pay or try using less invasive adds.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
I really dont see whats all this fuss about advertisements .... oh wait i REALLY DONT SEE :o)
How many of you use your hosts file to redirect/block ad sites by using 127.0.0.1 as their address?
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
http://whyinternetexplorerisblocked.com/
Could it be that Firefox users are simply more internet-savvy, and thus realize the futility in clicking on banner ads...?
The ClearPlay DVD player automagically censors movies for families. There is some kind of subscription service that tells your player what scenes to skip. Hidely-ho, neighborino! ClearPlay got their asses sued by Hollywood, but they seem to have prevailed, and they are still in business.
http://www.clearplay.com/Press.aspx?pid=19
At the core, the ClearPlay case seems an awful lot like blocking web ads. Media is provided to you, and you decline to view part of it by using an automated third-party service.
(I wonder if ReplayTV would have won their auto-ad-skipping lawsuit if they hadn't settled?)
He's specifically asking Firefox users to switch to IE in some form, so that they stop blocking his ads.
Well, fine. So they switch to IE and install AdMuncher.
Or, hell, switch the user agent! I'm still waiting for his "how to block Firefox" page to load, but I bet that's all he does.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Which means he's flatly retarded.
He's not testing for Adblock, he's testing for Firefox, because Firefox has extensions that allow this. So he's now screwed himself over -- I have Konqueror, and I have a large number of user-agent strings I can switch to easily, for a single site. I'll visit him on Konqueror, make it look like IE, and still block his ads -- not to mention Slashdot him to hell.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I see enough ads on TV if I choose not to be fed a bunch of mindless BS thats what I choose.I spent about $20,000.00 over the internet last year and not one dollar was infuenced by an pop-up or an on line ad.Thank you firefox for freeing up the internet and just like the tab browsing that firefox made standred IE will soon offer your option to block ads.Because it's what the majority wants.
If someone has epilepsy, then they're far worse, they're an actual health hazard!
AdBlock is a necessity for some.
You can't take the sky from me...
What a concept! Obviously dreamed up by an ad executive. Well it won't make any difference because even though these people drown websites and search engines with drivel I won't be buying or clicking or even looking if it gets past adblock. Come to think of it despite the fact that I watch television, go to the cinema and read magazines and newspapers there are few products advertised that I want. I mean I never want anything promoted by Carol Vodermann but she is never off the screens. Ocean Finance apparently offers the answer to life, the universe and everything in addition to a big house where men fall over scooters - but surprise surprise I'm not buying so I guess that means all those Ocean Finance customers are paying for me to watch Fox News! There's a moral there somewhere.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
It blocks konquerer too. (you are using firefox...)
Hum... that didnt work so well...
I don't think they realize that not only is Opera indeed capable of blocking ads, but can also block content on a per-webpage basis. Maybe they should have checked out http://www.opera.com/products/desktop/ before making that recommendation.
This space for rent!
People who setup botnets of zombie machines waiting to do their bidding probably make good money and the way they show legitimate income is through ads. But making it harder and harder to controll machines might be putting a real squeeze on their malefeasance.
I, for one, believe that every human should have an inalienable right to be NOT bombarded by advertising, but the sad truth is it just isn't possible.
No matter where you go, some schmuck is trying to sell you something.. Whether it's a simple sign stuck on the side of the road for XYZ diet pills, or an empty soda can someone littered on the ground in the middle of a pristine forest meadow.. You see and recognize the branding, and it's completely pervasive.
If you want to block ads in IE, you can use the built-in "Restricted Sites" features in the Security tab of the Internet Options. It's so handy, you can even use wildcards. For instance, with a simple addition of "*.intellitxt.com", you can render quite a few websites instantly less annoying.
I wish this guy's site wasn't under DoS/SlashdotEffect/whatever, because I'd absolutely LOVE to get his personal, unique AdSense URL and post it for all to explicitly add to their adblockers/Restricted Sites/etc!!
Screw you, Danny Carlton. People with stupid agendas are one thing, but those who try and make their agenda your agenda, should be minding their own damn business.
Maybe some miscreants could click his ads with unnatural frequency, causing a click-fraud investigation/forfeiture to occu--- *cough* er, did I say that out loud?
$0.02
-W5i2-
[BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY]: X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVI
If only I had some sort of User Agent Switcher. Oh, wait...
Instead of whining about the fact that people are blocking ads, the industry should be asking themselves _why_ people are doing it in the first place. The fact is, a lot of these ads are annoying as hell (especially those bandwidth-stealing, "Hey Look at me, Damn it!!!" Flash-based pop-ups and scrolling sidebars), and they just plain get in the way of the web experience. If there were a way to incorporate their advertisements into websites without being so grating and annoying then maybe users wouldn't mind seeing the ads anyway. That seems to be a fatal flaw with most marketing types: they feel they must always "shout" loud enough to drown out the competition. The problem is that, on web pages, they often end drowning out the content as well, and sometimes seem either too arrogant or too dense to realize they're doing it.
This space for rent!
Yesterday I tried to spend $680 at a website, and the checkout page got into a poorly-coded JavaScript field-confirmation loop that I couldn't get out of without killing Firefox. (Which itself is a Firefox bug; I should be able to get away from a site regardless of the JavaScript dialogs it's throwing in my face. If someone knows of something else to try, let me know.)
They lost my business, but if I were determined I would have booted into Windows and shopped with IE, which is probably all they tested with. Voila, IE users spend more than Firefox users.
In other news, I'm much more likely to answer a question correctly if it's asked to me in English rather than in Portuguese. I'm "broken" when it comes to Portuguese, so my Brazilian friends give up and ask me questions in English instead. So I should conclude that there are no Portuguese questions...?
I generally use IE. Just don't bother installing Firefox. I do use Firefox on my notebook running Ubuntu. I see more sites blocking IE everyday. So there is a site that blocks IE? Whoopee. I don't see a whole lot of bitching about the sites that Firefox nazis block from IE.
If you try to go to the site using IE , you get :
Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer
LMAO
Contracts are about reciprocals. Watching a TV program means the reciprocal part is that you watch the ads* The same for the other items on your list. Don't like the contract? Simple. Don't watch the TV program, listen to the radio program, or surf that site. Your ability to "choose" is still intact. The problems start when people don't want to honor their part of the contract but do want the benefits.
*Note that there's nothing "making you", but that is the agreement it's released under.
Uhh, intriguing? How could you possibly find it intriguing? It's simply twitter's nature to post things like that.
Would you trip a retard?
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
Morals and Valor belong in WoW, not in RL. In this gray world, everyone is doing whatever they have to do to survive and keep their allegiances going long enough to get what they need. Law is as good as its enforcement. Lawyers are ethical as long as it pays. And so is everyone else. Even 'love' is a trade-off and you'd better be prepared to face the mishaps it brings if you want to push your genes through. My point is, we'd better not discuss this too much. Everyone will do what they have to do.
"There are "Thousands of websites" (I'd say MILLIONS actually) that SHOULD be wiped out because their net contribution to the 'net is negative."
Why are you so hard on slashdot? Oh wait.
"If ad-blockers give consumers the ability to decide which sites those are then they perform an important public service."
And yet they put their browsers were their words are by continuing to surf those "unworthy" sites.
"I'd also offer this argument: pushing excessive ads to my computer is theft of my processor time and bandwidth. "
Does the RIAA/MPAA know you're using that kind of logic?
"However, in recent times I have found that many sites literally devote MORE THAN HALF of their real-estate to advertising."
Good thing no one's "stealing" their CPU time or bandwith.
"The rights of corporate advertisers must be balanced with the rights of individual consumers, and, sorry to say Mr. Ad Exec, individual rights trump those of corporations."
So do consequences.
"If you wound back a bit and limited your ads to 1/3 screen real-estate or relied on more considerate techniques like interstitial ads that played their message and politely got out of the way so the real content can be enjoyed, then the popularity of ad-blocking would be reduced substantially."
Which came first? The ad or the ad-blocker?
if this "rocket scientist" is getting all upset about ABP (which I use!)
then what about proxy servers that do the same thing.
take the new content filtering proxy I am commissioning for a mid sized
corporate, where management and the userbase all wanted to see the back
of adds, and various other annoying content
and yes the userbase is mainly running firefox (with many running local ABP)
whats next whyproxyserversarebanned.com
this person should get a reality check and understand that "people who choose
to block adds, are those who are not going to click on them/buy anything anyway"
Here's my plan. I'll make a web site then I'll block _everyone_ except AOL users. There has to be a way to make money off people dumb enough to stick with AOL.
Administrative Contact:
Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
(918) 697-4039 Fax --
Have fun, internet trolls
Many people on Slashdot know that Opera used to be ad-supported until about 2 years ago. (In fact there's probably a few people here who think it still is, but that's beside the point.)
Way back when, there were a couple of sites that decided to block Opera users because they were afraid that their visitors would click on the ads in Opera's toolbar instead of the ads on their own site. They put up a similar page talking about how horrible it was that Opera was stealing their revenue. Keep in mind that Opera wasn't even blocking the site's own ads.
Later, after Opera went 100% free (as in beer), they eventually stopped blocking it.
I doubt they got any Opera users to visit with another browser. I suspect most of them just stopped visiting their site entirely. That is, of course, the lesson: if you actively block a browser, people will just leave. Some of them will complain, but unless your content is extremely compelling, most of them will just wander off to some other site that will let them in.
Obviously, a far greater percentage of Firefox users use Ad Block, however. I have installed, but use it sparingly for the reasons you mention. I only disable advertisement sites that are particularly egregious in one way or the other (e.g., hovering over what I'm trying to read or making sounds). I'll allow you to try to subliminally influence me as long as you keep it subliminal.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I think I've clicked on maybe 5 ads in the last several years. But I rarely block them. I just tune them out.
It's only when an ad is extremely obnoxious, or interferes with the ability to actually see/use the page, that I block it. Unsolicited sound is a good way to either get your ad blocked or get me to close your page. I tend to open links in background tabs as I read, then move over to the next tab when I'm done. I don't want ads on 5 different tabs all providing their own soundtrack for pages I haven't started looking at yet.
You can do so here:
http://dannycarlton.com/contact.php (it's the same person as verified by whois and google)
He neglected to block Firefox on that site.
Spam the fuck out of him, k?
And you can be an anonymous coward too, as it doesn't actually require the email address. (but if you have a static IP, check your *own* whois before sending anything really nasty!)
"not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending,therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers" It would seem to me that the number of people 'stealing' content by using firefox with an ad-blocker is necessarily less than the number of people using firefox, since the ad-blocker is a plugin, and most folks don't care vary much. Therefore, blocking all firefox users will definitely block at some 'paying' customers. However, even if *all* firefox users used the ad-blocking plugin, you would at most have a zero sum game, getting rid of a small percentage of ad-scoffers, and so the verbiage "tremendous financial rewards" seems excessive at best.
"If you are offended by the Mozilla Corporation's endorsement of dishonesty please contact the Mozilla Foundation and ask them to stop empowering internet theft."
How nice of them to add that little finishing line in their propaganda allowing ease of access for people wanting to complain to the Mozilla Foundation, unfortunately I wanted to complain to them about their extortive methods and complete disregard for an entire user group solely to benefit their greedy nature; I guess I'm out of luck there because there is no way presented to contact them. I think the most comical part is where they allude that supporting corporately developed web browsers is better for the "free internet".
The extent of his code is one line of javascript:
If greasemonkey loads code before the page is loaded then all you have to do is define document.all = true;
Sig is on vacation
The maintainer already got the clue, said it was a mistake and removed the rule again:= 64&t=1142&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p5464
http://www.richsterling.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f
I'd like to propose some alternate solution: A plugin that measures the real-estate of a given web site and if the amount of space (X)/bandwidth(Y)/audio(Z)/Browser incompatiblity(Z1) exceeds my personal preferences for X, Y, Z, and/or Z1, adds the site to a block-list. Ideally, the block-list would be distributed (along with the ratings). This would prevent folks from visiting offending sites like the author's in the first place. Bonus if the plugin stores a database of group-moderated alternate sites and pre-fills the address bar for me when I try to visit an Evil Place. This way, I never have to visit the "revenue is more important than content" sites in the first place.
they intend to block users who will most likely not click on the ads they're showing
they instead would rather these people download ads to increase impressions and bandwidth usage, and reduce click-through rates
i'm all for it
any ad company that pays for simply showing an ad deserves to get ripped off by these kinds of sites
any business using these ad companies deserve to lose the money they're putting in
if you want results, go with a system where you pay the ad company for traffic that's brought to you
Firefox will have an "IE Mode" plugin in the next two days.
Further, the sites maintained with ads taint the 'net.
As an Opera user, I'm used to that. Prior to Opera 8.5, Opera was ad-supported. There were people who figured that Opera's ads were detracting from their own ad revenues. Especially people who were themselves using Google's content-related text ads, which were also in Opera.
... some site owners seem to iike "cutting off their nose to spite their face". There are ad-blockers for use with IE, or those that will work on any browser you have running. Can they tell if you have one of those installed? The only sensible action is to avoid such sites, maybe even have a site that lists sites to avoid ... even though I don't use Firefox, sites like that don't need my visits.
What can I say
Now, the text of the message on that site equates ad-blocking with theft. Assume this is true, what about other similar situations? Look at Microsoft Window preinstalls on computers. We are being told that the cost of the system is being offset by 3rd party apps affectionately called "crapplets" here and that is why bare metal or Linux installs cost more than equivalent Microsoft Windows-based systems. The crapplet guys are paying for the privilege of being on your desktop. Does that not then make it theft to wipe the machine and do a clean install? Also, shouldn't you feel compelled to actually use them, after all someone paid money for them to be there. They have to recoup their investment, don't they?
I don't see any fundamental difference in the two cases. If it is theft to block ads, it must also be theft to remove programs from your computer that a vendor has paid to have put there.
With that in mind, let me fix the wording of your statement: Does it kill you *that* much to have to use the stuff that came preinstalled on your computer? Like it or not, the retail computer market is largely driven by 3rd party app support, and a lot of retail computer vendors would either disappear or be less comprehensive if they didn't have the incentive in place to keep providing low-cost computers. Be careful what you are asking for, you might get it.
Mimic IE user agent.
Quite ironically they support Opera, when with Opera you can take the literal Adblock Filter list to copy and paste it into the uifilter.ini file under [Include]. In-fact someone could develop an Opera plugin (or a standalone program) to automatically update the file with the latest Adblock Filter lists.
I have image animation turned off and use Flashblock, and haven't bothered to install Java[*]. To me, the WWW is a calm, quiet, peaceful place, full of ads, yes, but ads that are easy to ignore. Flashblock allows me to whitelist sites (like Homestarrunner, and I certainly don't mind the extra click for sites like Youtube. I'm with GP poster. I don't mind ads and find them easy to ignore. :)
[*] To be precise, I haven't informed by browser where the JRE is located. As a developer, I've got nothing against Java, but I have no interest in making it part of my browsing experience.
Reasoning along the same lines you must come to the conclusion that you infringe on copyright if you walk away from the ads during a movie on tv.....
Are these people seriously bonkers?
Relax guys, they aren't blocking lynx.
That's always been my reason for blocking. I'm not at all opposed to ads on principle, but I am extremely easily distracted by movement and flashing. A web page with a moving or flashing ad is pretty much unreadable for me, so I block 'em. I've never bothered blocking static ads.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Are you serious? Honestly, it seems like more and more paid trolls are invading Slashdot every day. That's the price of popularity, I suppose.
... end of statement. What we do with those signals after that is none of their business. If I choose not to watch their goddamn advertising by looking elsewhere, reading a book, getting laid, taking a leak, or just pressing the fast-forward button, that's just too bad. There's no agreement on my part, implicit or otherwise, that says I have to watch any of it! They are just hoping we will, and hope that it will influence our purchasing decisions. But that's all they get when they plunk down those big advertising dollars: a hope. No guarantee, no agreement, no "reciprocity." I understand that these guys feel threatened by the ability of viewers to technologically avoid viewing commercial advertising, but again, that's just too bad. Not my problem. They don't have a right to force me to watch it, and I don't have any agreement with any broadcaster or network that says they do.
What on Earth are you talking about? Reciprocity? Contract? When did ABC, NBC and the rest start making viewers sign contracts? Contracts are about mutually-agreed upon conditions, usually with some kind of formal recording of said agreement. I think you're confusing the agreement between the content producers, advertisers, and their distributors (the networks and cable companies.) Any agreement between those parties is, well, between them. I am under no obligation to watch anything they spew at me, ad-related or otherwise. Any obligations are between them and don't involve me or any other viewer.
Broadcasters beam signals into the air and we pick them up
Why do people continue to buy into this idea that content providers (whether they be TV broadcasters, satellite/cable TV providers, game console makers, music studios, software houses or anyone else) have some intrinsic right to control the use of their products after they've left the distribution channel? They don't, dude, they never have. The mere fact that you are promoting this bizarreness indicates that you've bought into it (or are a part of it.) Really, it's weird and not in the consumers' best interest.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
What's next? RIAA suing me for not wanting to listen to its clients music?
This is the fatguy-doublecross-fallacy : "WHAT?! You are a baaad person for not wanting to sleep with a fat guy Ms. Anderson, in fact you should just to prove you're not shallow"
Eliminate advertising as a source of revenue, and you'd probably eliminate a lot of valuable sites. Not every site that uses ads deserves to be targeted as "bad", and blocking all advertising simply because it imposes a minor inconvenience is one way to drive small sites out of business or raise the barrier of entry even higher for startups.
> Be interesting to see where they are getting their numbers from.
No thanks. It's clear that they're pulling them out of their ass, and I'm not at all interested in another link to goatze.
As the operator of a site that 100% depends on advertising revenue for its continued existence, I find this topic extremely interesting, even though on Slashdot you can predict pretty accurately what the responses are going to be. 80% saying that they should have the right to block ads, maybe 10% website operators explaining why we don't want you to, and 10% of people looking at both sides.
The obvious next step here, and one I've been warning our user base (some of whom are up front about their ad blocking policies, despite the fact they're more than happy to accept our free services) about for quite some time is a new generation of ad code from advertisers that runs directly from the host webserver - making it more difficult to block.
Obviously then the next step will be for ad blockers to need to more accurately identify parts of the page to block, and then strategies will change again, and so forth. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
We'll also see more sites becoming registration only, more interstitial ads, etc.
I agree with the people that say over-the-top advertising is horrible. But rather than block the ads and keep "taking" their content, why not just avoid that site altogether?
cant you fake the thing that tells the site what browser you are using, and make it appear that you are using IE while you are really using firefox?
stuff
If I see a non-intrusive banner ad for something I'm curious about, I click it.
If your shitty website blasts me with a million pop-ups, the last thing I'm going to do is click on any of them or buy from the company involved.
If you decide to block firefox users from your site, it's your loss. Google has the right idea.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Text-based browsers will also grab your content without downloading the bouncing, flashing ad fiesta - and will also wipe out your clueless formatting that makes the text unreadable, the hideous web design that looks like it was done by a colorblind monkey, and all the scripts - plus alert me to every cookie and can be configured through user-agent string to say they're IE7 running on Vista. Now what?
What about blind people - are they "stealing" too?
What about search engines caching your page? Where's your rant about blocking them?
Face it, the Internet is about freedom - if you don't want people seeing it for free, don't publish it on a publicly accessible web page. Duh-hurrrr!
Funny they want us to contact Mozilla and bitch about firefox "Stealing ad dollars" but there is no way to contact these cowards and say how offended I am that they want my money but not my net savvy.
UNIX is truth, the Console is life. Use Evolution to send e-mail and not virii.
I purposely whitelist Google Adsense in adblock. I only want to see Google's Adsense ads. Rest of the ads are blocked so I get ads that apply to the website I am visiting and not some spam ads I'm not interested in.
\
If I'm going to the trouble of blocking your stupid ads, what makes you think I'd buy anything from them in the first place?
So, they think that because they made themselves free, that has to obligate everyone to stare at their ads?
Have they ever heard of a "pay site"? The reason they make their sites and content freely available is because their competitors do it too. They make their sites free to compete with other websites, but then they automatically expect people to be obligated to stare at their ads.
That's rich.
Ah, would that that were true! Our corporate-mandated travel web site is travelport.net.
So, this and a few dozen other nasty things your company has done forces you to have Windoze somewhere. If you are lucky enough to be able to use gnu/linux at all, you can use Xandros and Crossover Office or Parallels to deal with that. I don't know how I'd get anything done without a decent window manager and all the tools I'm used to. In that case, right click open that nasty site in IE. If you are forced to use Windoze it's probably easier to find another job than it is to fight.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
About halfway down the page is a link to this site.
For a moment, I thought it was about something else entirely...
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
I just thought that I would look around one of his website. Just to seeing that he had and then just happen to notice that the website categorized "The Origin of the Species" in the fiction section.
n ce-Fiction/107-The-Origin-of-Species/1/
http://bythefireplace.com/read/11-Fiction----Scie
Sidenote: Why is Firefox not blocked at all his websites?
"No, they are using my bandwidth to display their unwanted junk on my computer screen. I pay for my internet connection, not the advertiser."
So? Your fee doesn't pay for the content, but the content is why you have a connection in the first place.
"If they want to display their content on my screen then they may do so for a price. Please let me know where to send the bill, I'm looking forward to seeing the money roll in."
YOU came to THEIR site. NOT the other way around.
"When I visit a website, it is usually to view whatever they are offering, but not necessarily to view whatever their advertisers are offering. If they cannot afford to run the website without support from my funding for their advertisments then they can go bust."
You know I read commentary like the above and I know the poster hasn't though things through. So I'll ask you. How does anyone who's site I might add you found important enough to visit benefit from websites going bust? Are you really under the impression that through the magic of hand waving that somehow free content will continue down YOUR pipeline in perpetuity? Sites can't even get you to register (NYT) without someone complaining so getting them to pay or financing it through advertising is even harder.
How about this? Why don't you create your "ideal" site and we'll keep tabs on all the complaints on this end?
"But by visiting their site I have not agreed to be subjected to all of the extraneous crap that adorns their site."
And yet you're here being subject to moderation that I'm certain you didn't put any signature to. Good thing you're not getting anything out of it.
If firefox users are hampered in using firefox on certain websites, because of add blocking, this attack is pointless since you can block adds with other means in IE and the mozilla foundation could write an add blocker for IE. Personally the adds I'm blocking are the ones I find offencive to myself and others. Allot of other adds I leave alone, and enjoy, doesn't mean that I have to be a millionaire and buy everything I see. For a site manager resorting to restrictions like these should consider the Parents requiring this option as a right. With firefox you can be selective like said above while if your forced to used IE you would have to block everything with an external blocker. Like a capitalist dictator shooting itself in the foot. Another point, adds on TV push the envelope by making the adds with an offencive rude twist, the only thing I can gather the use of this, is to drum up notice trough complaints on the adds. When there is enough complaints and the adds notice tabulations are satisfactory they are modified "To give the people what they want". I know this as fact! I notice rude adds change with the rude brief parts omitted and there is some drummed extra publicity on the news when it's really overboard. If the adds are blocked shouldn't that be classed as a welcomed option on the internet considering what TV is doing? The more adds blocked means you achieved the notice required, extra exposure to the same add will not help your cause of getting richer unless a change is done just like on TV.
Hopefully I'm not the only one who knows this, but... have you noticed how much faster Firefox is with Adblock (Plus) than without it? The reason is simple: Firefox dpoesn't even download blocked media. Doesn't even request it from the server. It hits the primary server, gets a page of HTML, including links to things like flash adverts, advertising-related scripts, and image files with "advert" in the filename... and it just skils them when rendering the page. By default, it doesn't even allocate space on the rendered page for them ads (this breaks some poorly written pages so you can turn this feature off, but it still won't actually go download the pictures/scripts/flash/cookies/whatever).
On broadband it matters less, but on dial-up it makes one hell of a difference. In any case, it reduces bandwidth needs, improves privacy (advertisers don't even know you visited the page; they never even get a ping from you on their server), and improves security a bit (some exploits lately have been delivered through third-party advertising on pages like MySpace).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
You have the right to put your content on the web for all to see.
I have the right to look at only those parts which I care about.
if the site lacks useful content it will end up in my adblock filters too, just for being an annoyance.
If the site has enough useful content i'll change useragent.extra setting to whatever the server requires.However this site will never be in my bookmarks.
"(Alternately, there are pay-to-register schemes like MetaFilter's that only charge new users, rather than requiring a continuing membership; this works as long as you have a certain number of new people joining all the time.)"
Sounds like a pyramid scheme.
"It's easy to look at the advertising business model and assume that's the only way things could work. It's not. "
It works because it hides the ugly truth. Things that we desire cost. Sometimes a lot. That applies to cell phones, printers, and web sites. It also works because the participants are voluntary purchasers. The same couldn't be said for anything funded by tax dollars, and charity based fail to hide the "ugly truth" aka "the fund drive".
"But if it stops working, people will do something else; if there is a demand for content then it will still exist, for those who want to pay for it."
The crux of the issue isn't "Is there demand?". It's "Is there enough people willing to pay for that demand?".
"Also, to speak of advertising as the only way to operate the Internet (not that you were saying that, specifically, but it's an attitude that I've encountered a lot) ignores the very long time during which the Internet existed without any advertising on it."
And I'll give you the same answer when this example of your argument appears during copyright discussions. The internet of NOW isn't the same as the internet of the past. There is more content out there now than there was in the past. Bringing up the past like it has any role in the present does no good.
"There was a lot of content that was developed and put up by people, for free, just because they wanted to do that. Even now, there's probably more ad-free content -- in absolute terms -- than there ever was before (just look at Wikipedia, for instance)."
1:Quantity doesn't equal quality. 2:Ad-free doesn't equal free (see above about "ugly truth" and the need to maintain it)
"Certain parts of the internet probably wouldn't survive, and I suspect a lot of "premium content" (news, stocks, etc.) that take money to publish would retreat into pay-to-access zones, but it wouldn't be the end of the 'net."
Depends on what kind of internet you want, and whether you get it
"Necessity is the mother of invention; as long as people put up with ads, that will be the dominant business model. When people get sick of them and decide to block them in large numbers, a new model will develop for the content that people care about enough to pay for."
New model or old model, the problem that needs to be addressed still remains the same. No amount of dancing around the issue will change that.
"The only content that will ever disappear is the stuff that nobody wanted anyway (as evidenced by the fact that they're not willing to pay for it)."
You're assuming a rational world, and that doesn't make you rational either. You may yet find that at the least quality has disappeared, and at the most what has disappeared has more value than people were ever willing to pay and everyone's poorer for it's loss.
...with Firefox, but I can't because I've been blocked! Now I'll never know "Why Firefox is Blocked"!
If you have to resort to ads to make money, then your web-page content isn't that good.
;-)
The sad thing is that some people will actually believe the nonsense on that web page. The main advantage of Firefox is AdBlock. It used to be tabbed browsing, but MS finally upped their game. Microsoft isn't going to support anything like AdBlock because it goes against everything MS stands for. $$$$$
To understand the person who made this web-page, you have to understand what they believe deep down inside. I believe this person is an American, and here is why:
Americans believe that the only real motivation in life is money. America has become so material driven that Americans have a hard understanding why anyone would do anything out of kindness or any similar motive. They understand the concept of kindness, but they don't believe it happens . . . very often.
Another American belief is that America is the best Nation in the world and that all other countries would be better off with a government just like theirs. The rest of the world knows this isn't true, but Americans are willing to kill people to force their type of government on those people.
I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, I'll leave that to you, I'm just trying to shed some light on why people actually believe the nonsense this web-page preaches. An add is an indirect way of getting someone to spend money. If you want to make money off of your web-page, then charge to see it. It's that simple. If you have good content, then people will pay. If you have to resort to ads to make money, then your content isn't that good.
Personally I think billboards should be outlawed!
"So is this the point where we starting hearing that blocking ads is just like running out of the store with a pair of blue jeans?"
Those with a poor understanding of the issue might.
"At what point do businesses start realize they they are providers of information and not the gate keepers for information..."
Depends. Do you think you're entitled to the information? If you are then I can see why you'd see them as "gatekeepers". Otherwise you'd be willing to see them as "providers" and agree to their terms, or leave them alone as befits anyone who understands reciprocal agreements.
What a complete crock of BS. You are so confident ads are important that you logged on and posted as AC.
I am entitled to watch a TV program AND change channel when commercials come up. When I paid for cable and my TV, I did not ask for ads.
It's funny. Nobody using an ad blocker was going to click the ads anyway. It seems like it just saves everyone some time and effort.
On the other hand, if it's true that "Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending", why turn this into a big battle? This reminds me of O'Reilly and his war against the fictional "war against Christmas" supposedly being waged by secular forces. Move along, nothing to see here except a whiny loser with sand in his or her vagina.
It's been a long time.
Such contracts are formed when one party accepts something of value knowing that the other party expects compensation. I pay my cable bill like a happy little capitalist. The fact that television or internet advertisers don't get to have their way with my brain is of little consequence.
It's been a long time.
lets see, My internet = My bandwidth. I don't click ANY ad's and I don't even buy stuff I see on ad's on TV. If I want something I look for it and rely upon precise spec and specific detail, not marketing department's lies. I find several useful sites are quite safe to view without the ad's at work, but once the ad's are displayed the page becomes NSFW. I also often (using sky+) miss the first 20 minutes of a film or documentary then when the ad's come on I either walk out of the room and make tea or check my e-mail or I fast forwards till the end of the ad break, AM I STEALING THEN?
I as a rule quite deliberately 'switch off' when some ad comes on, as I don't buy on impulse I usually check the details first, and see what the alternative options are, So if someone wants to sell me something they need to look at what they are selling and ask themselves if there's really is better than there rivals?
I see this as a form of narrow-mindedness by someone who has fallen for the tactics of m$ who's campaign will see them hugely embarrassed if not already. It has the opposite effect already as I know of so many people who have downloaded Firefox because until now never new such a product exists.
I bet the guy who set up the site, (Do a WHOIS search on him) has several other sites and has found he has lost a few pennies from his porn links lately.
seems like they fail to realize that anyone on any computer can download a host file that points common ad servers back to the localhost making them not load. In addition, there is software out there kinda like ad block that automatically downloads and updates your systems host file to makes ads not load. ON ANY BROWSER... blocking firefox seems like a waste of time
----------
Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
How can skipping tv ads be an "unauthorized derivative work"? If the ads are part of the art, why are there different ads every time a show is rerun?
``The blocking that they seem to be advocating that others use is pretty standard "HTTP_USER_AGENT" querying using a PHP script, so it's not like it would be hard to get around. (Incidentally, I've always felt that the USER_AGENT header was something of a bad idea; maybe it's time to kill it, or at least disable replying to it by default?)''
Ok, first of all, I feel compelled to point out that USER_AGENT is not something that the site queries for and that the browser then replies to. It's something that the browser sends along with the request, in the User-Agent header.
With that out of the way, we can get on to my actual question, which is why you think the User-Agent is a bad idea. Could you elaborate?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
>Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers.
Freedom of Speech is a right, but so is Freedom to Ignore, even if via automated processes.
You might as well start a campaign to ban Google for providing spam filtering in Gmail (even if it doesn't always work).
I'm absolutely certain all browsers have some kind of plugin somewhere that will block your adds... you have only one option left, you must block ALL THE BROWSERS! Do it immediately, show those stingy "I won't watch your freaking commercial, bastards, that you won't put up with this crap another second!" Act now... quickly, scoot... block all the browers and stop them from hurting your business.
You moron...
It also blocks Konquerer.
Just use hosts file that black most ad sites. Google "hosts.zip" and the very first one works great. It has a lists of most ad sites and directs your computer to look for the ad at 127.0.0.1 (your own computer) so the ad box comes up with an "unable to find server" message with no ad.
I hope those people who are providing adverts realise they are not part of the content I was looking for and therefore were univited trespassers onto my screen and if they persist in doing so without perhaps warning me before hand that if I go to the screen I will get unsolicited adverts thrust at me I will have to start charing for my screen space and time.
I actually find it tricky because some sites I like the adverts and others just are a total intrusion. I happily click through ads on some sites to support them.
A lot of slashdotters are assuming that all ads are created for you to click on them and buy something on a website. If you look around you, a lot of advertising is used to create brand name recognition, and a favorable impression of a brand or item. I personally don't mind ads as long as they don't become TOO intrusive. If ads were reasonable, attractive and non-intrusive, more people wouldn't block them. That being said, blocking people who block ads seems like it won't do anything but drive away traffic from a website. I would think a better tactic would be to provide content people really want to see. You get more traffic that won't buy things, but you will also get traffic that comes by word of mouth, and get people who will buy things.
That their webpage to tell you why firefox is blocked, doesn't work in firefox.
I don't just run Ad Block, I also run NoScript and QuickJava. I disable Javascript from sites I don't like. This also disables their Firefox blocker. Fail.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
ssh root@70.87.42.226 hacker's now its your turn to take it down!
just wonder why there are so many anonymous cowards in this world....
If there was no abusive advertising (huge banners flashing and disturbing the user) there was no need to use addon such as adblock..
If people start blocking ads in numbers, there will be a few misguided counter-attacks, like battling it out with adblock software authors, but ultimately the ads will prevail. They have to because businesses need to make people aware of their products. If iframe and popup ads get blocked, they will make the ads inline. If those get blocked (much harder than the trivial blacklist toys that adblockers are today), the advertisers will turn to product placement, guerilla marketing, whatever it takes to get the message across. The ads are here to stay. You can be civil about it and accept that authors of "free" websites need an income too. There is nothing evil or dirty about clicking on an ad that interests you. Many geeks have an irrational no-advertising stance and kill off reasonable forms of advertising together with intrusive, flashing overlay ads. They are shooting themselves in the foot that way because the ads will come back and not only will they not be blockable as easily, they will also be less obviously ads, which is what you really don't want.
I have 2 comments:
people that say "I never click on ads" are fooling themselves. If you see an ad for the new Family Guy DVD set, or a new movie, or a new game, or whatever, you don't click it, but the next time you are at the box store - you pick one up. Same goes for soft drink ads, candy, whatever. Even the ads that you see that you think you'll never click on are in your head. You have heard of this product/service now, and if they did their ad right, you don't need to click it because you'll probably remember enough later to find the URL. If you see enough online home mortgage ads, you get it hammered into you that such companies exist. Next time you refinance you are more likely to go the online route than you would have been otherwise.
The second comment: The internet is big enough to incorporate different models and economies. You go your route and I'll go mine. We will both have different internet experiences and it is hard to say which route will be "better". Usually different variations of the same animal lead to evolution.
I think blind people should be banned from stores. They never look at the displays, and are obviously stealing from the store. Blind people are THIEVES!
Just use the user-agent switcher to pretend to be a different browser. Or don't and let sites who block firefox block you, and ignore them forever. Checkmate, bitches.
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
Reality - Firefox is spelled F-i-r-e-f-o-x - only the first letter capitalized (i.e. not FireFox, not Foxfire, FoxFire or whatever else a number of folk seem to think it to be called.) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx". Oh my god... how could I have been so blind? Guess it's back to IE for me!
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
The site whyfirefoxisblocked.com appears to be owned by a Danny Carlton (dannycarlton.net).
Interesting that Mr. Carlton's own home site does not block firefox.
Less interesting is his reasoning, that ignoring ads equals stealing.
So I'm tooling down the highway, and avert my gaze from the latest obnoxious billboard as I pass. Have I just stolen from the billboard owner, and the advertiser?
The claim is ludicrous. The only "right" the web owners have in this context is that of free speech. They can put up any ad they want to, but I as a viewer am under no obligation to pay attention to it, and am perfectly within my rights to use any tool at my disposal to assist me. (As a species, we are, after all, really big on tool use.)
On the flip side, the web owners are welcome to try and come up with better tools of their own that get their ads through to my eyeballs.
The claim that demographics show FireFox users are a "small percentage" is outright wrong. True, the latest numbers show it to be behind IE - if you count 6 & 7 together. It's about 2 percent behind 6, and nearly 15 ahead of 7. Netscape, Opera & Safari combined are less 20% of FireFox.
I personally use noscript, not adblock, but as I'm the one looking at the site, it's my decision to ignore some parts and not others, so don't have a problem with the concept of either addon.
The only way not viewing ads could possibly be construed as stealing would be if it were a pay site, that required login credentials, and said credentials were bypassed or forged.
So far as his supporting quote by Judge Posner, I seem to recall one of the big inducements for going to cable (when first hearing of it in the 70's) was that, as a PAID service, there would be no commercials. Yes, I shell out a good deal of money every month for access to the shows I like, and have no qualms whatsoever about having the DVR skip through commercials.
If their ads are that intrusive, I'm going to block them. If the ads are intrusive elsewhere, they're already blocked.
Screw 'em.
This goes for sites that deliberately block other browsers as well.
But if you are not a lawyer, or no one who will do this for free, then just work around it. It was the legal quote in the little screed by Danny Carlton I thought was ridiculous.
i am the opposite of tom_good, i am the XOR of ]=9fÆ"ÝÕ and ÖÆ\KF, i am 746F6D5F6576696C00.
What percentage of the blogging public are Firefox users? Do they really want all the bad press this will bring them?
Nothing to see here. Move along.
What do you mean "firefox" I'm running IE 7.0 using windows 3.0 on a dual chip Pentium and only 64k of RAM!
Boy does it run great!
Good mozilla / firefox addon
User Agent Switcher 0.6.10 Homepage
by Chris Pederick
Adds a menu and a toolbar button to switch the user agent of the browser.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59
hth
DP
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
After realizing that his attempts to block the ADP users are useless, he chose to block Firefox users completely. And he's made a site called whyfirefoxisblocked.com using outdated information to justify what hes doing. I love it.
The bottom line of all of this is that the purpose of his site (http://articlewagon.com/) is to serve Google Adsense ads and generate revenue only by adsense. A clear violation of the Google Adsense TOS. https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer. py?answer=48182 Specifically the part that says "No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant."
I recommend reporting him to Google Adsense TOS violations, since its not fair to those who use Adsense the way it should be. adsense-abuse@google.com
judging by the fact that http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com/ doesn't WORK on firefox (and thats not on purpose.. it's just bad code)
...umm maybe his real argument is that he's not a good enough at making websites to make them work on more than MSIE
AND the fact that he uses FrontPage 4.0
man I really don't like this guy... and I don't think I'm alone
----------
Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
That's really quite an unfair comparison. You chose to go to their site. Your actions initiated all the transfer of data that eats bandwidth and so forth. Your use of the service the webmaster provides (a website you can access) and expects payment for (from advertising) is not being compensated. Don't play the "I'm the victim here; I went to a website and it started transmitting data and eating my bandwidth!!" game; it's not one you're likely to win. Complain about the intrusiveness of the ads, or the fact that Flash adverts occasionally crash Firefox, or that ad servers pose a privacy concern, but don't pretend that anybody is sending you anything that you didn't, directly or indirectly, request that they send.
Yes, I use Adblock Plus. No, I don't use it because it costs me bandwidth (although if my ISP charged by the megabyte that might be different). I certainly don't play the victim as if by choosing to visit a website I hadn't also chosen to download all content the site tells my browser to download. Give me a break, that's just whining.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Oh god, I know that. But not everyone does, obviously.
Browser diversity is a pain for web developers. Thanks to Firefox, one can't ignore "alternative" browsers due to commercial implications.
Looks like some people are missing the good old "Best looks in IE 5.0, 800x600" days.
WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
You have no right to not buy our product.
You have no right to not watch the ads.
You have no right to think for yourself.
You have no right to choose your own tools.
Yeh, right.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
I dunno about the rest of you, but ads on web pages are annoying. And the arguments that they are losing money? Oh please.. Try selling an original work instead of ads. If they worry about "content" being free, try locking it up and see where that gets you.
I look at running a web site or in my case, 3 domains, as the cost of doing business.
I think if I see lots of other sites start to block their "content" to certain browser users, then I'd dust off the script I last used during the Netscape & IE wars. Wasn't that about 7 or 8 years ago? Afterall, Fair is Fair.
Agrisea Tsunami - Epyc Servers... https://agrisea.net/products
I use firefox (wih adblockplus) and it works great. If I need to use IE7 then I do with the "IE7Pro" addin - that blocks adds! So both my main browsers block most adverts!
Hip Hip Hooray! I can go to pages on NOT have to decipher through endless crappy adverts to get to the info I want. Too many sites run way too many adds - to the point where the internet is nothing more than one big advertisement !
IF sites were to make advertising more appropriate, and less obstructing then people wouldn't need add blocking software.
So if your forced to go to some sites with IE then dont forget to install IE7Pro available from http://www.ie7pro.com/
Then these sites will have to block IE as well?
At:s html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070817/143014.
I'm not willing to use it to view their ads. They think I'm stealing from THEM? They're stealing from ME!!! It's a two way street. I pay for bandwidth and get to use it in any way I wish...short of illegal activities. If I wish to preserve my bandwidth for other things, that's my choice. They have to live with it. Or get creative as ALL web developers do and circumvent my ability to block an ad. And then another dev creates a way to kill that. It's a game. Now...the first time someone sees an ad that offends them....since they are trying to force me to view it, and a lawsuit is slapped on his arse...his tune will change I'm sure. It's not up to this moron to dictate to anybody what they see and not see...if I switch to text only...thats MY choice...not his...screw them.
As it was just pointed out to me, the content of the site has changed. It now reads:
* * *
"Why is firefox blocked?
Because some douche wants to infect your computer with popups, search bars and endless ads, the same kind of douche that made you get Firefox in the first place because of horrific popups, search bars and endless ads.
[ Link to download Firefox 2 and "Upgrade Now / Take back the web" ]
* * *
My website ( http://coccinella.im/ ) receives more than 60% Firefox users, Internet Explorer has a share less than 20%. Oh yes, it's not a personal site, but a real website with lot's of visitors (not as much as google.com etc of course). Anyway, I think blocking Firefox is stupid. I don't think the person that is behind this action is involved with the advertissement business as this is bad PR for their business and will cost them money. I think Microsoft is behind this campaign (or it least sponsoring it) for these reasons:
* FUD to slow down Firefox adoption and to create the impression that websites will not be able to earn money from adds on their website if they allow Firefox
* giving Firefox users an incentive to fake their browser identification to access websites. This is important for Microsoft because in the past people would do this by themselves to access several websites...these websites are now removing the requirement for IE and also allow Firefox (and other browsers). So, by this action Microsoft tries to force users to change their browser identification again and by this Microsoft can give the impression the Firefox growth stalls.
So, in case this campaign is successful, I suggest this counter attack: add support for http://explorerdestroyer.com/ to your website (I did not did this yet for the simple reason that I think it is still too hostile, plus I don't want to only promote Firefox; I want to promote browsers that care about open standards. Though, I still plan to create a much less hostile version in the near future because we only get less than 20% of users with an incompatible browser B-) )
A company that benefits from reducing the freedom of its clients, made available through technology, is campaigning against said freedom.
Well this has worked well for Sony, Toshiba, Microsoft, etc, so I assume this will work just as well for these sites.
I'm just glad market forces are always stronger than a companies PR campaign.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.