Slashdot Mirror
IE8 Will Contain an Accidental Ad Blocker
JagsLive sends in a Washington Post blog post reflecting on one privacy-enhancing feature of the upcoming Internet Explorer 8, the so-called "InPrivate Blocking" that has privacy advocates quietly cheering, and advertisers seriously worrying. Here is Microsoft's description of the feature. From the Post: "The advertising industry is bracing for trouble from the next version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, details of which were announced today, because it will offer a feature that blocks some ads and other content from third-parties that shows up on Web pages. A Microsoft spokesman said that the feature, to be known as 'InPrivate Blocking,' was never designed to be an ad blocker, though 'there may be ads that get blocked.' Instead, it was designed to stop tracking 'pixels' or pieces of code that could allow third-party sites to track users as they move around the Web."
The two are one and the same.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Anybody that really wants ad blocking can do it now. Most of the people that do want it don't use IE.
All that this changes is control of the ads that are shown in IE. Instead of some 3rd party ad, you will get an ad that is 'blessed' by microsoft (after the advertiser pays a fee to M$).
From Microsoft's decription:
"Have you ever wanted to take your web browsing "off the record"? Perhaps you're using someone else's computer and you don't want them to know which sites you visited. Maybe you need to buy a gift for a loved one without ruining the surprise. Maybe you're at an Internet kiosk and don't want the next person using it to know at which website you bank."
IE8 is supposed to solve all of that? Bullshit.
Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid?
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Get your own accidental ad blocker right now! We will block some of the ads (Google) but our own stay!
Install Firefox, whack in AdBlock , NoScript, and FlashBlock and you have more privacy and security than with IE.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
http://www.privoxy.org/
back in the early days of the web, if a website was 500k in TOTAL is was large. now days chewing 10 megs on a single site is nothing, most of it is ads and very little content. all of this is paid for by us, without our permission. so what if a website is offering free content in exchange for banner hits, they don't ask me if i'd like to be tracked and bombarded with ads for the pleasure of it first do they, in fact i'm pretty sure if websites started placing a front page stating you had to unblock ads and allow 50 doubleclick cookies to be placed not many people would visit them. So cry me a fucking river if they go broke from all the ad blocking.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
This has far reaching implications for all browsers. If you can't track a huge portion of the pie using google/yahoo analytics then it makes no since using 3rd party tracking software. The user in me cheers, the site administrator in me cringes.
This program won't block all ads. It will just block those ads that are geared towards non-Microsoft products! Furthermore, this browser will be smart enough to actually rewrite ads on the fly. So an ad for a Linux cluster will appear as an ad for a cluster running 10,000 licensed copies of Windows Vista Enterprise. I think everyone will be happy about this.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
If IE8 either accidentally or purposefully blocks the intrusive pop-over ads that float over a website's content (what scatter brained nut actually looks at a finished product with such an ad and goes, 'yep, our reader base won't be utterly pissed when this happens') then I think I might just be a full convert to IE8's camp. Now I realize that other web browsers may have that functionality now, but super-mainstream-government-institutions (like this here Air Force) will never allow any browser but Internet Explorer on their computers, so I have to silently hope...
...there will be lots of comments along the lines of "Hey, I use Adblock Plus, it's good!".
I'll admit that I more or less forgot about advertising on the 'net, and was quite horrified when I saw somebody browsing without an ad blocker. The screen was crammed with idiotic messages, stupid images, blathering animations. The net actually looks completely messed-up, swamped in advertisements (most of them obviously created by waaaay-below-average-IQ people).
Sheesh, am I glad I found an ad blocker. Blocking some data actually makes the net more useful (as long as it isn't the state defining what is to be blocked).
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
It's almost as bad as going to the bathroom during commercials when you're watching tv!
words?
The giveaway is the word "subscription" - Apple got itself a slice to mobile phone revenue by means of the iPhone, MS is trying it again with ad revenue now the Yahoo deal fell through (who do you think will feel ad blocking most? (OK, "selective" ad blocking, I'm willing to bet it won't take long before the "trusted partner" scam will show up)*.
I suspect that that "possibility" will become mandatory to "maintain browsing security". You're welcome to it. Just a quick reminder: Automatic Updates led to the WGA disaster, so I wouldn't invest *too* much trust in it.
And remember: these are just tools - they are not an excuse to avoid using your brain.
*: I may be harsh here, but it's not like we're talking about a sterling track record here. I believe it when I see it.
Insert
Not just the new IE8 blocking, but all forms of ad blocking? Seems unfair to destroy the business models of so many websites. Maybe it's just me, but ads on sites like Digg or Slashdot don't even remotely bother me. Who am I to block their ads when I'm receiving free content?
I admit I do run a site myself and this sort of thing worries me. I have just two ads per page, both google ads, one leaderboard and a wide skyscraper. They aren't even remotely intrusive, and are there just to pay the bandwidth bills. For those complaining about bloated sites, my biggest page is just 10k without the ads. I'm currently a long way away from being affected by this, as 90% of my users are still using IE6, but it does concern me that I might have to shut down a free service because people can't handle two ads.
I know things like adblock are designed for really intrusive ads like those obnoxious animated overlays, but the problem is reasonable ads get blocked as well.
I wonder if there is any legal recourse for sites like Digg or companies like Google who are hurt by this sort of thing. Especially Google, as I highly doubt this whole thing is an "accident".
Name...That...Autocomplete!
Ads are theft too, with all their flash, sound and graphics, it costs more to watch the ads than the content if you're on a pay per byte subscription.
So it's fair to place all kinds of heavy and annoying ads, if people are just free to block those that gets too expensive or annoying. Action equals reaction, it's up to the ad-funded to find a profitable business model, including a sensible advertising policy that does not encourage visitors to block. If visitors block your ads, your product was not worth paying for anyway.
Alright I do know that blockers like ABP simply blocks everything and I gotta admit that may be unfair, but on the other hand, the majority of ads online are excessive, so the ones i feel sorry for are the minority who actually have a sane advertising policy.
If I was as pragmatic and objective as I claim to be, would I be commenting?
Follow the link to MSDN. Check the images it serves you:
http://c.microsoft.com/trans_pixel.aspx?TYPE=PV&r=http%3a%2f%2fslashdot.org%2f
Yes, it's a transparent 1x1 pixel GIF.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
But when you read an article about it, it seems perfectly reasonably stuff; 'sandbox' your session against cookie- and form-storage, block annoying trackers - all part of the standard browser ! There's no pretense of 'total security and/or anonymity' here, people, so stop whining.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
I can barely contain the mixed feelings I have over this issue and some of the juvenile responses. Right now I more annoyed with the Linux/Open Source/EFF advocates that can't give a simple acknowledgment to a step forward of the end-users' protection and privacy IE8 may.
One thing I can say before going back to replaying Halo 2 on my now decommissioned Beowulf cluster is, "Good job Microsoft for trying to protect 75+% of the worlds Internet users".
I am personally grateful that the users of our 1000+ Linux, Solaris, BSD server farm are better protected.
Let's remember there is no such thing as a free lunch. Some where, some how, the bill must be paid. Until socialism or communism govern the Internet some level of commercial advertising will need to be tolerated in order to pay the bill in order to keep the "lights and water" running.
--magus
(not to be confused with magu$)
No, it's not. They have the right to advertise, but they don't have the right to force me to look at their ads. I'm still free to ignore them all I want.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Typical Microsoft. IE8's webpage (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/ie/ie8/default.mspx) has two versions of its banner, just to underline one piece of text. If this is how the product itself works, then this will be one hefty download
Favorite username: admin'--
A Microsoft Ad Blocker that only works by accident.
Not everyone wishes to pointblank block adverts but few people want the shady and legally quesitonable tracking techniques some ads used gathering their details, especially those that get around strict cookie rules/settings.
However I find it amusing that people still find ways to bash Microsoft over this. It's a sensible privacy feature. If you want to block ads completely, fine, we all know that firefox can do that amazingly (at least until it's widespread enough for ad providers to start making their clients use an impossible to block local caching system) but this a smart feature for those who don't wish to block ads completely.
There is difference between ad blocking and tracking blocking.
This identifies 3rd party code that keeps track of users browsing habits, and allows the user to reject being tracked.
Google would be hurt by this, as Google is NOT just about displaying ads, but displaying 'contextual' ads that it gets from not only the site content but the user viewing the site, based on the user's browsing history stored at Google.
Check out the Channel9 interview for more information and the intent of this.
http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-8-Beta-2-Privacy-is-about-more-than-cookies/
It would be 'easy' to paint MS as being evil, but in reality, this is a feature that 'exposes' the evil that exists all over the web, from pixel tracking systems to full ad user tracking systems like Google uses.
If Google or other online advertisers wants to display Ads, and not be affected by this, then display Ads and STOP TRACKING USERS along with the Ads.
Namely a "private session" tab, and history/cookie that preserves selected sites. Is there a FF plug-in that knows how to do any of this? Usually I'd be the first to bash M$, but it looks like they're actually in the right direction with this feature.
It could seem like a chicken and egg situation where you can't provide content without users but without content you don't get any users but ultimately the balance tips much further towards Slashdot who provide the hosting, wrote the site code, organise the site and keep it up and running.
You don't even need AdBlock if you have NoScript, and using NoScript is much fairer on individual sites.
With scripts disabled totally for a domain, you don't see any ads. If you enable javscript for the domain of the site you're visiting, then you still don't get pop-over ads because they always come from an another domain. This way you get the functionality of the site to work and actually help them out by preventing a third party from messing up the user experience of their site (only for you, but it's a start).
Still, I've no idea why they don't just make static images and count the requests for specific referers, and also count the times that they've been linked through. I still saw ads when they did this kind of thing, though I would've used adblock to kill that damn monkey and anything that made a noise. Nowadays we should have things like per-tab muting and a visual indication of which tab is making sound.
Bravo for Microsoft! The feature doesn't affect honest advertising at all.
Anyone who wants to put up a straightforward ad, presenting information about a product and letting me decide whether I'm interesting in learning more and buying it, can still do so.
This only affects companies who are doing more than just advertising.
The fact that this is being described as an "ad" blocker just shows that advertising practices on the Web have become so debased that writers about the Web simply take it for granted that anything under the guise of advertising is likely to be invested with snooper gadgets that gather information about us without our knowledge.
That's not advertising. That's spying. "Advertising" is just the cover story.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
look guys...ms will cave and remove this if advertisers complain loudly enough. there is a reason why many sites are run out of the marketing department. sites are mostly for marketing and the metrics that marketers can get from users are the primary reasons why they run sites.
it's this simple...if Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot had a tool that would allow them to see every book their citizens read, every item their citizens bought, or everything that was done, they would have retained absolute power over their populaces.
this is what marketers are attempting to do. create a dominance over you that television, newspaper, or any other medium has never been able to do before.
Is it 5:30 yet?
*yawn* Ridiculous.
Theft is theft. Advertising is advertising. Adblocking is adblocking. Blocking ads is not theft, advertising is not theft (as a responder to you tried to claim), and asking you if have the time is not theft.
If I don't want your ads sent down my line, I'm perfectly free to block them. If you don't like the fact that ads can be blocked, you're perfectly free to charge for your content, or take it down.
Yes, ads are the business model that many websites rely on, but consider how ads work.
Every time you buy a product, you're paying a little extra fee to be advertised to. Ads aren't free money that appears out of the air, they don't make things cheaper, they are just a different way of distributing wealth. You are still paying to fund these websites, they are not free, the cost of the ads is paid by YOU every time you buy something.
Personally, if I am going to pay the same regardless, I'd prefer not to have ads. Maybe the wealth isn't being distributed fairly, but honestly I think my eyeball-hours are worth more than that. To use a wee bit of economist speak: the market will adjust.
There are tons of free web hosts, and it's easy to set up a website yourself or have your techno-savvy friend do it. (Broadband + $15/mo for static IP + Old PC + LAMP + $6/yr Domain Name). If you're getting enough web traffic that you need more bandwidth than that, consider commercializing your user base in more than one way. (T-shirts, events, subscription benefits, surveys, etc...)
"'It has the potential to undermine the economies of the Internet,' said Mike Zaneis, vice president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau."
Go kill yourself, you worthless festering sore on society's anus.
The advertising industry could have been responsible from the start, but they chose to incur a backlash of end users who got sick of sneaky tactics like popups and pop-unders. Advertisers who whine that end users no longer tolerate ads make me laugh.
Seriously, choke on your failure and die. You fuck.
So Microsoft is actually listening to it's customers right?
But I still think we will have plenty of MS bashing here...
I for one and glad that they are "attempting" to provide what people want.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
This is a shot at Google Adwords! Marketing agencies put their customers' ads on Adwords, and use tracking pixels to capture ad performance. No tracking pixel means no ad, which means no revenue for Google! Again, Microsoft using its technology position in one area to gain an unfair advantage in another area, and in the end only hurting its customers (yes, small business owners that advertise on Google are probably Microsoft users, too!)
"Doesn't it read a bit more like they're trying to block google analytics"
.:)
.. where's the INNOVA~1 in that :)
.. :)
I block Google Analytics because the page seems to hang on it, same with most third party advert sites. The main site seems to hang while downloading from some advert site, waiting on DoubleClick etc. Now if they incorporated this 'stuff' into a static page it would most probably improve my viewing experience and I would haven't to go to the trouble of blocking the adverts
Downloading thirty elements just to view a 6x4 inch square of text
No, I'm not going to click on that advert on the top of the page
davecb5620@gmail.com
This post is clearly just as Funny/Insightful/Redundant as its ancestors.