Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica Inveighs Against Ad Blocking
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica recently conducted a 12-hour experiment in which story content was hidden from users of popular ad blocking tools. Explaining the experiment, Ken Fisher appealed to Ars's readership: 'My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love. I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil. It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin. As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature. We've all seen it happen. I am very proud of the fact that we routinely talk to you guys in our feedback forum about the quality of our ads. I have proven over 12 years that we will fight on the behalf of readers whenever we can. Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that? Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads. But any of you reading this site for any significant period of time know that these are few and far between. We turn down offers every month for advertising like that out of respect for you guys. We simply ask that you return the favor and not block ads.'"
But all the while a lot of people, mostly us geeks, cannot grasp that immaterial products and content also costs to create and takes just the same manhours.
- what about 'woman-hours'? Those are about 1.5 times longer than man-hours are and you are deliberately neglecting this in your comment!
You can't handle the truth.
If you block browsers that have "with Mega Ad Blocker" in the browser string, then those programs will just stop mentioning their presence in the browser string. Or if the server detects if the ads were downloaded or not, then the Ad Blocker will starting downloading the ads (lowest priority), but still not showing them.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I started using an ad blocker just a few months ago, and my use has nothing to do with advertisements.
* One, my privacy is harmed because ad providers like Google/DoubleClick are logging my use of most of the websites I use.
* Two, some sites use flashing images for ads, and that interferes with my reading.
Print and TV ads never did either of these to me. Ars, any thoughts on these issues?
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
It's freeloaders like you who are ruining the advertising industry. Ad people need to work, too, and you people are sending descent, god-fearing advertisers into a death-spiral. Advertisers aren't paying Ars sweet sweet green so people like you can just unblock and then ignore those ads. If you aren't scrutinizingly reading each ad, clicking them, and making a purchase, you're no better than a common thief. Each time an ad is loaded on Ars, it costs those poor advertisers money. If people like you continue to not block but ignore them, they will go out of business, and soon we'll have to have a subscription based service for the advertisers to keep them in business. Do you really want that?
"If they are saying they demand that I run all the scripts on their site if I'm going to look at the content, well sorry, no way." - by metamatic (202216)
on Sunday March 07, @09:58AM (#31389872) Homepage
Correct/Very good - Also, per that quote? See this:
The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219
They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above. Thus, I agree on this account with you by ALL means.
So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.
There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.
So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).
So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?
The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)
So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??
The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??
This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.
Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" & now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together"!
(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).
Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???
I hope the article writer reads this.
The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've
"Advertisers have no morals and no shame. If they could legally send a barker around who breaks into your house and yells at you through a megaphone, they would." -by walt-sjc (145127) on Sunday March 07, @09:32AM (#31389610)
Heck man - they ALREADY DO, see below:
The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219
They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above. Thus, I agree on this account with you by ALL means.
So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.
There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.
So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).
So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?
The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)
So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??
The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??
This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.
Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" & now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together"!
(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).
Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???
I hope the article writer reads this.
The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, yo
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
----
"Why not take it a step further and ask him to pay you to read the site?" - by Neoprofin (871029) on Sunday March 07, @01:13PM (#31391938)
I think that alone above pretty much says it all as to what I put into my subject line above.
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
-----
Ironically it appears that arstechnica has been guilty of what's in my subject above.
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
***
"If you'd bothered to go to Ars" - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, @04:22PM (#31393780)
No thank you. Especially after I read the above years ago. So much for ad banners and so much for arstechnica and your line of bull.
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
***
"Yet Ars doesn't run those kind of ads" - by Game_Ender (815505) on Sunday March 07, @04:24PM (#31393798)
No, apparently they run ones with trojans in them instead. Game over for Arstechnica, and your game has been ended, Game Ender.
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
See subject line above. Ken Fisher saw this coming and sold a "dead dog" of a website to Conde Nast is what most likely happened. Now there's probably some clause in his contract, contingent on income levels present, that's going to get his ass nuked out of his own site that he (K. Fisher) created, and he is worried now, because his income stream will be gone since he is still probably employed by the new owners in Conde Nast Corp..
Serves him right. Especially for trying to sucker a company like Conde Nast really, and for this apparently happening at arstechnica years ago too:
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
"Would you stop posting this? You're as bad as the advertisers. Especially with the bold tags in the subject." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, @06:47PM (#31395112)
Somehow I think your real motivation for stating what you did above was simply because somehow the truths in his posting affect you personally, and adversely. Is your name Ken Fisher fellow AC? LOL, or, are you just some major stockholder in the Conde Nast Corp. (who got "suckered" by Ken Fisher and crew imo)?? So, why would I say that??? Simply because they saw this madhouse coming on the web in the future, once this had happened to arstechnica apparently:
Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008
Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet
Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"
Link to Original Source
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008