Slashdot Mirror
Website Mass-Bans Users Who Mention AdBlock
An anonymous reader writes to recommend TechDirt's take on the dustup over at the Escapist, which recently tried on banning users from their forums for the mere mention of AdBlock. In the thread in which the trouble started, a user complained that an ad for Time Warner Cable was slowing down his computer. Users who responded to the poster by suggesting "get Firefox and AdBlock" found themselves banned from the forums. The banned parties didn't even need to admit they used AdBlock, they simply had to recommend it as a solution to a troublesome ad. The forum's recently amended posting guidelines do indeed confirm that the folks at the Escapist believe that giving browsing preference advice is a "non forgivable" offense. After a lot of user protest, the forum unbanned the transgressors but heaped on the guilt.
It's their site, they pay for hosting. It's their business.
If you don't like it, fuck off to another site.
Nobody is born with the 'right' to other peopels work, even if that work is a website. It's their decision.
get over it.
When Microsoft decided that they wanted to limit the number of features in the OS based on how much I was willing to pay them, I changed operating systems.
When the Sea Shepherds decided that terrorism was a valid way of combating whaling, I stopped contributing to them.
When Hamas decided that war with Israel would broaden their support, I decided to throw my support elsewhere.
When Obama decided that the only way out of this depression was massive spending programs, I affiliated myself with a different party.
If a site is not going to treat you with respect and dignity, then take your business elsewhere. A site that measures you in "eyeballs" rather than "contributors" is not something you should be associated with in any way.
Hey, where the hell did my previous reply about Digg go?!!
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Starting a thread: Posting is an art; be proud of your work.
This tells you everything you need to know about these forums.
To prevent this day from getting worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD TH
They already have their accounts back, move along.
Lets ban people for suggesting channel switching for the duration of ad breaks on tv aswell...
A site I frequent ran some ads for a while that gave me grief. When it spawned a discussion thread they got rather pissy about it.
but, here's a point...
If your Ads fuck-up the user experience that bad then they can't read your site you dimwits. If they can't read it they will go away and not come back. Would you rather have that? -FIX- the Ads promptly and there won't be a problem.
It's not a threat to say "If you don't fix it, I will leave". It's a fact, and it's not entirely by choice.
All internet users should use some Flash blocker that allows the user to accept specific flash content, period.
FireFox and Chrome have plugins called FlashBlock, Safari's is called ClickToFlash. IE8 provides this functionality from the Flash player add-on in Manage Add-ons under Tools, just select More informations and click Remove all sites. All these will let you reenable either individual Flash applets or whole sites when you browse those pages.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Do what Arstechnica discovered after they tried blocking adblock users from seeing articles; actually *ask* your users to whitelist your site in adblock (or other ad blockers) with a promise that if the adverts on the site cause issues with users machines that they will work to resolve them and/or remove those adverts from rotation.
So far, every site that I use regularly and trust (for appropriate values of trust) that have asked me to whitelist them have had their request granted. I'm happy to help out the sites with their revenue on the condition that the adverts on said site do not impact my browsing experience; pop-ups, pop-unders, sound, fullscreens, "intellitext" or mid-paragraph ads are an instant nono, as are any that impact page loading due to shoddy design and overloaded ad servers, but I'm willing to put up with most other ads if I'm asked to in order to support the site.
What's new? At least slashdot was enlightened enough to implement measures to counteract admin/moderator abuse. Right on, slashdot!
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
After the community manager unbanned everyone, the follow-up posts in that thread are all fan-boyish groveling which I totally don't understand. "We shouldn't use adblockers anyway!! Thanks for unbanning! Much respect!!" Respect for what? Taking the boot off your throat? Here's some bannable "browsing preference advice:" don't read The Escapist.
change website.
the internet is so large that sites that act like this are doomed to oblivion
The first rule of ad blocking is you DON'T talk about ad blocking!
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
The same place as any person inquiring about AllParadox goes on Groklaw. (He left the site due to their moderation policies which are both sneakily implemented and poorly known. See his post to the SCOX forums, for example.)
Not too long ago, around a year ago, Blizzard added banner ads to the official World of Warcarft game forums.
People strongly objected on the basis that nobody can post to those forums unless they already pay Blizzard money for an account, so why should paying customers be subjected to the advertisements? They clearly didn't need advertising revenue to pay the bills, it was just a crass money-grab. This spawned many posts on how to block the ads. The result? All of the ad-blocking discussion threads deleted, and all of their creators banned from the forums. Some people complained, but they soon found out that talking about deleted threads is also grounds for a ban.
It sucks, but what can you do? The only way they would have any incentive to change is if people actually quit the game in protest over the decision, which isn't particularly likely. They perhaps spent some of their good will by way of their actions, but there's no real immediate or obvious negative repercussions.
I am torn as well. I understand the need for advertisements to subsidize content on the web, but I also see it as an issue when a company abuses the ubiquity of ads to slip them in as a money-grab when they clearly aren't dependent on advertising for their revenue. Moreover, I really feel like it should be obvious at this point that banner ads are stupid. They fact that people go to such lengths to remove them should indicate how people feel about them. They're really no different then spam; except spam is free, so it can be profitable with abysmal response rates. Does anyone actually buy anything as result of banner ads? Sure people click them all the time, but how often is it done on purpose? The damn things are just in the way. I'm constantly accidentally tapping on ads on my iPhone, but I sure as hell have never bought anything as a result.
Annoying flash ads, banner ads, and javascript-fueled nightmare ads are not selling anything. Anyone notice those are all things Google does not use? I think they know a thing or two about the business of internet ads. They've got 25 billion dollars in the bank that says internet advertising works better when its not obtrusive and obnoxious.
....on Groklaw or your post will be deleted. It is the same thing. Big deal!
One simple solution:
If i ever get banned from any website or any other place, it's their lost, not mine. They need me as a member and not me them. I can get same info somewhere else.
Strange that Escapist is being singled out when the same policy can be found in several other forums. http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules is one: You use DIII.Net and its affiliates in the full knowledge that advertising in the form of banner adverts, interstitials and embedded adverts appear on all pages. You agree to not interfere with the display of these adverts through banner blocking software or browser features.
But whatever, I've since learnt to keep it to myself that I'm blocking ads. Sad that there are lots of people out there annoyed by ads and do not know that ads can be easily blocked, but I'm not going to teach them on a public forum that is ad supported. I also keep out of threads where people bitch about the ads on the forum.
Apparently (FTA), this is in the site's T&Cs
Do not confess, teach, admit to, or promote ad-blocking software that will allow users to block the ads of this site.
Great. Using ad/flash-blocking software is a crime now? Whatever happened to reasonable discussion?
Instead of just banning the users, could the mods not have simply pointed out that the site needed the ad revenue to survive, and also acted to remove the offensive ads?
Who are the customers of a site such as this; the users, or the advertisers?
Because people complained. Wheras you'd have them not complain until after it's happened, then complain that it's not their site.
There is a good reason a home is called a home. As opposed to a marketplace. People like to actually live at home, not at the marketplace (shopaholics excluded.)
Internet used to be more of a home. Now it is become more of a marketplace. Everywhere you turn, there is some shmuck pitching and pushing his stuff onto you, and when you refuse he goes verbal.
The whole thing is rooted in overpopulation again. Too many people need to survive, and they colonize the Internet space, with their smallminded schemes.
If the site owners need to make sure that everyone that reads the site also gets the ads, then they simply have to figure something else out. Make ad downloading mandatory in order to download the content, or mix ads and content in some more elaborate way. As long as I need to do a number of separate downloads for the ads (http requests for images for example), or even RUN ads as applications (for example flash), I choose when and if I download those ads. This is simply a problem with html and http, nothing else. Should be a disappearing problem as more and more sites realize they need to move off html in order to make sure that what people see is what they intend (for good and bad, ads being the bad).
I do agree that anyone can ban anyone off a private forum, at random, or for any reason however stupid.
When Obama decided that the only way out of this depression was massive spending programs, I affiliated myself with a different party.
I hope it wasn't the Republicans, since the bailout that was required to prevent a depression directly resulting from years of irresponsible lack of oversight was initiated by George W. Bush and merely completed by Obama.
I also hope it wasn't the Libertarians, since it was their lassaiz-faire philosophy of deregulation and strict adherence to the Chicago School of Economics which infected and drove the Republican deregulation push of the last 20 years that in turn was directly responsible for the unregulated behavior that resulted in the current crash, and would have sent us directly into a second Great Depression had Bush/Obama/Brown not acted as they did.
I'm not sure what that leaves ... the Greens? Aryan Nationalists? Socialists? Teabaggers? Communists? The Party of Everything-is-Black-and-White-No-Exceptions-Allowed-and-Anything-That-Doesn't-Fit-My-World-View-Perfectly-Must-Be-a Liberal/Conservative-Conspiracy?
One issue only voting rarely works out--there will be some other issue in your new affiliation that drives you away, like a lone sheep being herded back and forth across the paddock by a playful terrier.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I just wanted to say, I will be deliberately increasing the number of websites I use ad-block on, as well as increasing the amount of peers I recommend it to, as a result of this.
Cheers!
"As we've mentioned previously in great detail, if you've got ads on your website that are annoying your users, that is your fault -- not your users' fault. "
he writes this with a massive animated HP advert that takes up 1/4 of the column width down the side
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Sites such as Neowin.net do the same.
This isn't a surprise, they banned a bunch of people recently for saying they didn't like one of their series (a popular opinion since it started)
when you can use flashblock, stopping JavaScript animations and NoScript. It means if I can't see an advert, it's the own website's own fault. My Netbook is slow enough on the web without Flash and fancy Javascript. Interesting affects of my usage are that www.newgrounds.com accuses me of adblocking in their advert spots and screwattack.com videos don't play unless I turn off NoScript.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Slashdot is not immune from this either. Reading the website's rules page, the general motivation is quite clear, and that is to protect the interests of the said business (Escapist)---read the last post and a bit above that. [I admit that that was more of an editorial-based comment rather than one to do with advertisements, but the idea is that it is made clear not to criticise the work.] Slashdot threads, while not penalising people for comments against Slashdot, nonetheless "mod down" posts which do not agree with the intentions of the original poster. Hence "enforced" or compulsory discretion is present in both cases.
If this post is modded down, then my point is proven.
August 2009 - April 2010..
That's eight freaking months!
Every time HardOCP or TechReport mention web browsers, ADBlock Plus is sure to follow in the discussion. When that happens, administrators go ban crazy on their asses. If your tech website relies on revenue from ads to the point when you ban forum posters, you're just digging a slow grave for your site. The website ads are nothing more then another form of pop-up ads.
:)
I might be quite backward in my thinking here but... I pay my isp for a subscription to access the internets (every last one of them). The specific contect I choose to receive or block at my end is my own damn business. It's like being banned from walking down the street because I chose not to look at the billboards!
AutoPager also prevents ads from displaying, so it may become the next unmentionable. Eventually any system which messes with the HTML or scripts.
... and routes around it (with apologies to John Gilmore).
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
It's juvenile behaviour of people who who have not grown up enough (mentally) to be something on their own but get their self esteem by belonging to a group.
To give some examples more relevant to slashdot where I've seen/experienced this: gnu.misc.discuss springs to mind where everything Stallman says or does is perfect and noone should ever criticize him or suggest alternatives. It's quite similar to religious zealotry and Linux enthusiasts often are no better than that (dare to criticize the GPL or suggest alternatives and see what happens). BSD people are often tired of this and it's one of the reasons I switched to FreeBSD (the final straw was Torvalds behaviour, esp. the unfounded (read as: based on made up 'facts') criticism of John Dyson (the FreeBSD VM guy)). I tried OpenBSD but there's a similar situation with Theo de Raadt. He has done some good things but he's also an ass. The group-following-a-leader phenomenon is clearly visible there too and I wanted none of that.
Everybody should be able to do whatever he wants with packets coming through his NIC.
Maybe some sites will come up with EULAs which state that usage of their site is only allowed without adblocking software. Or they will claim copyright on the tcp packets (no layer 2).
Yes, mod points seem to be a lot rarer after ticking the disable ads box. If this is indeed a real policy, it should be made public so we can assess the pros and cons of ad-free viewing.
I find it amusing that in the thread where they recant the bans... the community manager goes on to explain that forum guidelines have been edited to explain that admitting to using or promoting one (adblockers) will result in a warning and then a perma-ban.
After which he goes on to admit and explain how he uses an adblocker.
Heck, don't point out the Apple double standard, or you'll get banned or binned too.
SCOX :Use of our IP is a DMCA violation!
PJ: How terrible they are! They don't have any IP in the product!
APPLE: Use of our IP (which Pystar don't use) is a DMCA violation!
PJ: See, this is how badly Apple are being hurt!
When you don't have ads? I guess Slashdot's slashvertisment is the best way, it's certainly the least unobtrusive way of advertising.
If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
Hi, I've been a devout adBlock user for many years now. And before adBlock (and Firefox for that matter) even existed I went to the effort of setting up a local proxy server with a hand-crafted list of URLS to redirect to a locally stored static image that said basically "ad blocked".
First and foremost on my list of requirements before I will consider using a web browser is... does it have something like adBlock?
Why??
Because most ads are intrusive, rude and bloated!!
My preferred browsing machine of choice is a 2004 12" ali powerbook. I have Firefox installed with adBlock+ subscribed to the auto list updaters. Usually it chugs along pretty well for a 6yo machine, but from time to time an ad will slip past the filters, and when it does I can tell pretty much straight away even if I have alt-tabbed to another application. The screen and mouse start lagging badly, the cpu pegs at 100%, the fans turn on full blast and it starts getting really hot. Not to mention all the extra bandwidth used up loading this crap.
The fact is, ads are mostly flash based and are designed to be as obtrusive, annoying and epilepsy inducing as possible. I hate them and what they do to my computer. With a passion!
I understand that websites sometimes need to rely on advertising income to survive, but you need to realize just how annoying and offensive it is when big arrogant companies like Time Warner chuck out these bloated flash based adverts that dominate web pages, cripple computers and piss-off readers.
If you can't figure out a way to have advertising income without letting external entities ruin your web site then you probably deserve to go under.
By the way, feel free to ban me, delete this post, black list my IP address or whatever else you want. I don't care.
I had never heard of your website before. I am only aware of it because your actions in banning users for mentioning adBlock made it to slashdot.
I still don't even really know what this website is about, but I created this account just so that I could post this reply, and I am unlikely to ever come back here again.
Any time you spent reading this reply, and any further time you spend deleting it, banning my account, blacklisting my IP address etc, all contribute just that little bit to the manual denial-of-service that is currently happening courtesy of many concerned internet users.
Enjoy your fail.
You joke, but I'd be surprised if TV stations didn't have strict rules about programmes not telling viewers to channel surf while the adverts are on.
some of these things;
the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their platform now. they do pull A LOT of major strings.
continued God's speed to you Mr. President.
never a better time for all of us to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?
you have the right to remain silent.
greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be our guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.
The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)
"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."
"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson
no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 3000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need not to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some genuine assistance available to us(
boeing, boeing, gone.
I am going to block ads, full stop. That's it.
If all your shitty web site has as a means of revenue generation is ads, consider revenue to be zero. It is or it will be. Don't complain that your users are blocking ads, get another revenue model.
If you don't have anything worth selling, something that I want to buy, then your web site can go and die (or you can maintain it at a loss). If that sounds harsh, tough titties! I am not here to be an eyeball for your web site. Either take it down and shut up, or find a way to make a profit without being a whiner.
I want my Cowboyneal
Except once or twice by accident. Banning me from using Adblock will gain you *nothing*
Only retard shopaholics would ever click an ad. If I need something I'm perfectly capable of finding it myself.
See, it works.
The problem I see with ads is editorial control.
With real magazines ads, editors have some kind of control of the ad after they receive it. For example, they can decide if they accept an ad with a full page giant penis in it selling v14gr4.
However, with web ads, the editors have no control over it. The advertizer has complete control of how the ad looks. And even though at the time of "contracting" the ad the editors may like the types of ad, maybe after a month the ad will get changed to something really annoying.
3rd-party ad servers do have one benefit: There is no direct relationship between content makers and product makers. With magazines, newspapers, radio, TV, and direct online ad sales, there is a temptation to do secret editorial-for-content deals with their product-maker customers.
Advertising is most suitable for things like classifieds and job ads. But interruptions with agendas are a pretty silly way to learn about new products. It would be better if we paid people to help us select products.
From many of the posts on the thread in question ...
Mod Edit: Blocking ads is being rude to everyone that works for this site. Non-forgivable offense. -Kuliani
What this Kuliani guy needs to learn is that ABUSIVE ads ... and I already saw several on his site (I'm not blocking them) are rude ... and insulting ... to his readers. I fully understand wanting to show ads on the site to support it. But abusive ads are not called for. Friendly, non-abusive, ads keep your community happy while keeping the site alive.
It sounds to me like Time-Warner needs to be banned for 7 days for first offense.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Generals: "My producer, parodies..." "Parodies are 'fair use' and doing improper takedowns will get us in legal hot water" "The EFF might sue us for big damages."
Hitler: "Anyone who has violated a copyright leave ... the ... room ... now"
[3/4 of the room leaves]
Then the real fireworks start. If you haven't watched it, go look.
I love the way they worked in the mention of "Stalin".
There was a slashdot ad a while back for Chrome on the Mac, that I only saw on my Mac. That makes sense... except that I have Chrome installed and Opera is just my preffered browser because it is the best (Tabbed browsing baked in, mouse gestures that are integrated and keeping all tabs open between reboots, always without fail (take that firefox)).
But I also installed privoxy the moment I got one of those "you have won" banners that have gotten even more annoying since the last time I browsed without an adblocker.
It is far easier for me to block all ads with a single install, then to unblock an ad.
Same as it is MUCH easier for me to listen to my own MP3's then listen to the radio and its constant ad blocks and self-promotion. What is that about anyway? Listen to US, person who is already listening to us. Overselling much?
And it is also easier for me to simply download a tv-show rather then deal with the constant ad blocks and ever more annoying ads displayed over the actual program itself.
Advertisers have never learned restraint. If it was up to them a tv program would basically just be an ad interrupted by ads overlayed with ads. And you would pay for each ad.
The shock of going from an adblocked PC to a regular one after a year is huge. It is just getting worse and worse.
So, I block everything. End of story. Let the fools pay for the hosting, I am no fool.
And if that means some mega sites die. Well that is progress for you. Maybe the net just can't be run on ads going out of control. Maybe site masters need to organize and agree a standard for ads. Google only for instance. The only ads I don't block because I can't be arsed since they never annoyed me.
Oh and PRIVOXY, blocks EVERYTHING. That is PRIV[CARRIER LOST]
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This is my computer, and I am going to run whatever software I want on it including adblock & noscript. websites have abused their users with popups, popunders, animated gifs so dazzling that would make some people have seizures, so fuck the entire internet (nothing personal) just that they lost the privilege of being able to put just anything in my browser.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Moreover, I really feel like it should be obvious at this point that banner ads are stupid. They fact that people go to such lengths to remove them should indicate how people feel about them. They're really no different then spam; except spam is free, so it can be profitable with abysmal response rates. Does anyone actually buy anything as result of banner ads? Sure people click them all the time, but how often is it done on purpose? The damn things are just in the way. I'm constantly accidentally tapping on ads on my iPhone, but I sure as hell have never bought anything as a result.
Yes, advertising is a pretty silly way to find out about new things, or to research a way to fill a need. The best form of advertising is search-driven ads, which is why Google is so profitable. But still, such ads come with strong agendas, unlike organic results from independent parties.
We should be finding improved ways of funding such independent help. Paywalls reduce use and visibility, while affiliate links turn content providers into salesmen. But affiliates can earn people's trust. Do you trust Slashdot not to skew book reviews to the positive, because it means extra Amazon income?
This is the same website that bans you if they think you've commented too quickly on a video. If they didn't have ZP, I'd never go there.
Forms censouring or even banning users for mearly discussing or admitting to behaviour they consider "bad" just because of a conflict of interest is nothing new. I got banned from the steam forums just because I hinted that you could protest against overpriced games by "getting them without paying". I was permanently banned because I "admitted too or avocated piracy". ROFL. I'm never buing anything there ever again.
I've started using multiple browser Safari with ClickToFlash handles nice sites fairly well, but any less well behaved site gets opened in FireFox with FlashBlock, AdBlock, and NoScript.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Nonsense, there is still punctuation -- and capital letters! -- in that. What you want is http://antipunctuation.com/ for no spaces, no lower-case, truly zero punctuation.
I had the same thing happen to me on cnn.com. I posted a comment in reply to an article on ACTA. Basically I just recited some information I had heard on NPR earlier in the day. No profanity, flaming, trolling or anything of the sort.
The next day when I attempted to post I get a message "you have been banned from posting in forums". I finally found an e-mail address that was supposed to provide help with forums issue, but received no reply. My account was never locked out, as I can still log in, but still no posting in forums.
My opinion is that we're seeing a trend of websites banning people from forums to suit their own needs. Which is disturbing because what? We are supposed to only make comments that agree with the web site staff? That doesn't seem right.
I supose it's possible this was some type of technical error, and IT does not read the "help" inbox. Not that CNN actually cares, but I have dropped their feed, and now read Reuters for world news.
"Hitler discovers that his Hitler parody video has been taken down."
The only reason I ever visit The Escapist is Zero Punctuation. Got a direct link to it, and ignore everything else...
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
The link to that story about AllParadox is here for anyone who is smart enough to require them for a bold claim like that.
You can find other, independent corroboration of that from some poor sod who commented about it years ago, from someone who was briefly given moderation powers on Groklaw, and more recent examples on Jay Maynard's website which has some active discussions about how it's going down right now, with respect to those who don't think IBM was justified in how it intimidated TurboHercules SAS.
I've seen it personally, but you don't have to take my word for it. Their idea of "trolls" over there is anyone who disagrees too often. I think that anyone has been around Groklaw for long enough should remember how respected AllParadox was. She calls people who bring up this stuff "PJ moderates trolls" just so you know. Because nobody can think that sneaky moderation systems that don't show you when your post has been deleted, or silently editing people's comments are bad without being paid to think that by SCO, Microsoft or Satan.
Regardless of what a user does with it after downloading, AdBlock is indeed a good solution for blocking an ad that is giving you trouble with your computer (or that you find offensive, or whatever). It's an absolutely effective tool for the problem that was originally brought up. A car can be used for drive-by shootings and police chases, but that doesn't mean you have to use it for that.
What would be awesome is if Adblock worked in kind, and just "adblock" escapists domain. lol
I'm quite the oddball, I guess, but, I haven't browsed with scripts enabled by default since the mid-90s.
Although huge chunks of the modern internet simply don't work without it, I simply move along and ignore such sites - even if I've been browsing them for a long time. If I'm not welcome, I'll go find somewhere that I am; it's a very big internet. Exceptions usually require me moving to another browser on another computer and making onerous configuration changes that are good for only one session; this is deliberate so that I make the exceptions only when they're important (same for images and flash; the actual process is booting a flash drive with Ubuntu and viewing the page, then shutting down).
But one side-effect of that is that I never see ads. I don't have flash installed anyway, but even aside from that, I still almost never see ads. JPEG- and GIF-only banners went out of style a very long time ago; plus, I don't have images turned on by default either (half the time, I'm using lynx or some kind of configuration in a program like emacs that takes so long to configure that I simply don't bother).
I will say, though, that when Google first started selling ads (I mean banner ads, not homepage search ads), I was very surprised because - for the first time in several years - I could see them! You see, these ads had fallback text, and didn't require scripts, and in the beginning had no flash at all. I absolutely did not mind these at all; they used minuscule bandwidth, essentially zero processing time, couldn't possibly harm my computer or spam me with pop-ups or achieve anything but the most rudimentary tracking without me clicking on them, and were marked - in readable text - as advertising.
But after a year or two, the Google ads began disappearing until there were none at all. I guess that gradually started using scripts and flash - I doubt Google has stopped selling ads. I remember that they said that they would permit flash soon in the future if it totaled less than 50k and didn't use sound.
What I want to know is: sure, I can think of a thousand reasons why you want scripts, flash and frames (I am actually a web developer); but why don't you have fallback text? Tracking efforts and such are useful, and creativity is your cleverest tool in advertising, but it looks like you have backed yourself into and all-or-nothing corner where you can't go back to text, and you can't suppress a revolt from your most lucrative market who are fed up with the outrageous processing and bandwidth requirements you are demanding, even as computers become more portable (meaning less bandwidth) and greener (meaning lower power consumption hence less processing power).
It's almost as if there is literally an untapped market there. I can only presume that Google found out first-hand that there was no such market; or, more likely, that advertisers of the day refused to pay to reach them no matter how many there were. We'll see if they end up changing their minds before their host websites lose all of their readers.
It has bothered me for some time that sites are becoming more and more willing to add third party content to the site I navigate to. In theory I do not have a problem with it but in practice it just means that they are skirting their editorial duties and pushing un-reviewed content at users. As others above have mentioned many of these third party ad networks have served up some great malware in the recent past and I am sure will continue to do so. When I go to a site I am indicating that I trust the content served by that site, if they want me to load content from another site I see no reason I am not within my rights to say no. I would be happy to see sites reviewing the ads they want their users to view and serving them from their own domains (they could give a sub domain to their ad provider but it might backfire). But as it stands sites make it difficult for me to pick the good from the bad since I am not going to research all the different ad networks.
There is one line in the post that intrigued me:
I ad-block sites that I've never been to before. If they look like a cool site or something that I'd use in the future, I turn off the ad-blocker on that site for any future visits. It's my way of saying "hmm, good job" to the site.
I realized then that most websites offer opt-out advertising. That is, you have to see it unless you pay, use an ad-blocking program, or contribute something that the owners deem worthy of removing adds (like that tempting "no ads for good karma" thing I keep seeing on /.).
I agree with what this community manager said and I would dare ask the logical follow-up question: why don't websites ask you to opt-in to their advertising? The idea would be simple - you visit the site and after X page views, or some other evil metric, you are taken to a page that says: hey, you can help us out with $$$, view ads, or just be a leech. I firmly believe that you will find that the majority of people who become engaged with the content will select either the $$$ or advertising paths. Right then and there your advertising space is worth more than all of the traditional "opt-out" websites.
So, do any advertising market providers allow for this?
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Some of the worst of this lot I've seen on The Pirate Bay, so maybe I should try AdBlock for that site. Normally I don't mind ads that behave themselves and don't try to "get in your face". But Flash ads have gone too far afield in this regard.
Let's face it. If you have something to advertise that I am interested in buying, a simple JPeg ad will get my attention. If I am not interested, the most flashy of Flash ads will have no hope in hell of changing my mind, and become annoying if they start tying up my computer resources trying to get my attention for their crappy products.
The owners of Escapist and other sites should recognize this basic fact and spend more time policing the ads and less time harassing their users, who can go elsewhere in a heartbeat. I thought this was obvious, but some never learn.
And when your browser chews up 400 megabytes or worse due to these bloaty ads, that's a problem. Users shouldn't have to throw out their old computers and buy the latest and the greatest just so they aren't slowed to a crawl -- or even crash -- because of silly bloaty ads. Go figure. So the STFU works both ways.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
But Fringe can tell you exactly how long before the show comes back on. That's very helpful for people who won't be watching the ads.
The escapist's web admins and forum admins are responsible for their site, and the overall user experience I get out of the site is that they are pretentious douchebags, they don't let users download their videos and I'll be damned if I let some asshole web admin tell me how I can view content, now they're banning for adblock advice? Fuck off!
Zero Punctuation was the only reason I ever visited the site and even that has been changed in annoying yet subtle ways by the morons at The Escapist, so screw it, Don't watch ZP, don't view their site at all.
I don't click on ads. I rarely, if ever, pay them any attention. When I do, it's for something that would interest me regardless and I probably already knew about. I don't block ads - it's not as reliable as I would want it to be and I don't like pages which load up with missing blocks - I hate my screen looking like they've been loaded on a copy of IE where 50% of DNS queries fail... it's just horrible. I can easily look *around* the ads when they load. I build web-filters for schools as part of my job and I actually go out of my way to configure the open-source filtering software I use to only block what's necessary, not to block sites just because they are used to load ads (a lot of filters come with the ad-domains blacklisted by default).
That said, if your ads are obnoxious I won't bother to block them, even though I could do it in a second, I just won't go to your website very often. If it becomes a real problem, I will complain (if I actually care about the site, like I did with the BBC's TV listings site when it filled up with noisy Crazy Frog ads, and they were promptly removed) or just stop visiting. The beauty of the Internet is that someone, somewhere will have the same content at the same time as you do... there's no such thing as an "exclusive" any more, even if that means someone just copy/pasted an article onto Digg or something. If you have a problem with the way I browse your website - fine, I won't browse it. It's really not that big a deal. I'm not going to be crying myself to sleep because of it.
However, forum moderation is one of my biggest bug-bears. I hate overzealous moderation. And if you moderate comments about your moderation, you're just starting down a slippery slope that will destroy any forum community. I have never been banned, but I have posted comments about bad moderation that I've seen. I've never been banned because, basically, I would never hang out on a forum that I suspected the mods would ever do that sort of thing for just *discussing* a quite reasonable, legal activity. It's just not the way to promote discussion, and if you don't want to promote discussion, don't have a forum.
Forums where every single comment is moderated tend to be dull, enclosed and "up themselves" (i.e. self-promoting). I don't read them, I have little interest in contributing to them. I think the exception would be things like The Register, where I've never had a comment disallowed even when I've been discussing things I would imagine some forums ban you for. Forums which contain an "off-topic" or "general discussion" forum? Sorry, but that's a free reign for anyone. I can understand not breaking the law or discussing breaking the law but virtually everything else is fair game.
Removing fair criticism of yourself is the one thing guaranteed to stop me coming back to your website, though. It means you're a charlatan and a liar - you're trying to paint the picture that your forum is perfect and everyone is happy and that's just disgusting. Some support forums do this, and I just stop buying their products.
If you wonder why you're losing ad-revenue, it's not because of those people who don't want to see ads ever at all (who are in the minority... I don't know the official stats but if it's more than 5% I'd be surprised), it's those people who just won't touch your site/forum ever.
I think the Internet has made my commercial habits even more honed - I stick with a product/website until it pissed me off, and when it does I just find another and stick with that, etc. I take much less crap in terms of things that hinder me getting at the information I need than I do in other media. A TV listings site that I used for *years* and never even bothered to research any other changed its look overnight and destroyed its usability. After the third week or so of trying to cope with it, I just researched others, moved on and have *never* been back to that site since. On the Internet, the user is king. Even a bad redesign or dodgy scripts or slow access ca
Its been my experience that customers actually buy something and generate revenue.
Users do neither, they are consumers. Advertisers are customers, they pay for page space and views. The site content brings in the consumers who are then exposed the products (ads) that the advertisers paid for. Ideally then the consumers then go to the advertisers and are converted into customers there.
I also find that the bar-stewards collaborate on their commercial breaks, meaning that switching to a different channel often gets you the same inane ads about fuel efficiency, automobile collision legal advice and the anti depression pill whose side effects are more depressing than anything you could possibly be feeling before taking it.
TV is passive entertainment. Site forums aren't, so your comparison isn't exactly accurate.
Besides having rules on directing continuity people to keep viewers in place for the ads though, TV companies use localisation, CGI to alter advert content, higher sound volume during the adbreaks, adverts during the programmes themselves (not counting the product placement) and they crop the programmes' lengths to suit rigid advertisement times.
And none of that even mentions the lengths they'll go to censor writers, commission programmes for the braindead and shuffle their schedules around in direct competition with each other - just to pander to the advertisers.
Oh yeah, and in Ireland and the U.K. you're required by law to pay for a TV licence to watch that crap.
If they acted like that on your favourite website, would you still use it?
Actually, I'm pretty sure they synchronize their ads to make channel surfing during ad breaks pointless.
Well the simple fact is advertising executives have MUCH more experience than you in ascertaining the play-off between annoying/distracting and revenue clicks. And I guess your gut feeling loses out to their terabytes of data.
It's more like banning people who suggest buying an ad-detecting and automatic ad-skipping machine.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
What if AdBlock was modified so that it would load the ads but not display them? In this way the website would be paid by the advertiser and you would not have to look at the ads. AdBlock could even fake a click on a few ads, just to be nice.
AdBlock should load the ads in a low priority thread after all the other elements of the web page was loaded. This would maximize the bandwith usage. Of course, all of this would be disabled if you pay per byte transferred.
It's not devils adovcate when you always do it. It's YOUR advocacy when you do it all the time. You just want to be able to say to anyone who has something you can't avoid or counter "hey! I was just being devil's advocate!".
Weasels think you're backstabbing.
Why would Darl care about Pystar? Or is your only counter a silly statement?
Escapist is not alone. EA bans anyone who talks about the Better Business Bureau and removes their posts. I recently, after 40 days (irony?) got a free copy of Mass Effect 2 Collector's Edition after turning them in to the BBB (something I've never done before) for their shitty Bad Company 2 launch and the fact that several weeks after launch, and after I had talked a friend in to buying the game for the whole 15 minutes I had been able to play it, it was still broken and took HOURS to connect to a server to the point where sane people walked away and wanted their money back.
I had purchased from STEAM so they told me I was fucked because they wouldn't talk to me since it had been a digital download (that they had to distribute to Valve, got their cut of the money for, and I paid full retail for; something else I rarely do). I appealed to the BBB, I guess because they didn't want the 3 year mark on their record they finally ponied up a game after refusing to refund anything, going through 3 tiers of tech support idiots and going full circle when they tried to "troubleshoot" my connection after already offering an alternate title.
I think people who are dicked on releases like this (in this case, the game was fine, it was their horrible MP authentication and Punk Buster server fiascos) should absolutely be compensated by the company at fault so they have a deterrent from pulling that shit again.
I should say, I haven't even opened the box for ME:2, I may well sell it, and I haven't touched BF:BC2 since either. Fuck EA, the Escapist, and all those like them. This will probably be marked OT but it seemed relevant enough, and happened recently enough (I just got the replacement game yesterday, after literally 40 days of going back and forth between EA and the BBB mediator every couple days) that I thought I'd share my story of woe.
TV companies actually factor in how many people will skip the ads, or channel surf whilst they are on. TV channels have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad. It's a medium based on potential and not provable results. Comparing adverts on a website to TV is like comparing apples to asparagus.
The nerve of those people! Assuming their web site is their own property to do with as they please.
Now, go ahead /. and start the ridiculous ranting about caches and 1 and 0's etc...
I have some machines with adblock and some without. I guess I've gotten used to ads, because they don't seem to bother me that much anymore. But one thing that does drive me crazy is when a page stops loading, and the status bar says something along the lines of, "Waiting for ads.clickme.net". That's asking a little much.
Evil is the money of root.
Farva01
AC55
Hey, Farva, what's the name of that browser plugin the admins don't like that keeps getting more controversial the longer it's been around?
You mean AdBlock?
*clicks "Report to Moderator"*
And riding a power trip by abusing fantasy admin powers and putting down or banning any user who might show a little independent thought? Wow. Never seen that before....
Camping on quad since 1996.
If we are not allowed to talk about AdBlock plus, then lets talk about "document.write".
Most (probably all) ads are created with "document.write", so simply block "document.write". And enable "document.write" for the few sites that you really enjoy.
Add the following to "prefs.js" (seamonkey, firefox, ...):
user_pref("capability.policy.default.HTMLDocument.write", "noAccess");
... ");
user_pref("capability.policy.trusted.HTMLDocument.write", "sameOrigin");
user_pref("capability.policy.trusted.sites", "http://localhost http://forums.mozillazine.org/
user_pref("capability.policy.policynames", "trusted");
See http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/components/ConfigPolicy.html for more details ...
Good thing they've never heard of junkbuster or squid, eh?
Seriously, though. If advertisements had remained a small, unanimated banner at the top of a page, then blocking them would never have even been needed.
You dumbasses dug your own graves and started this ridiculous arms race, sucking down OUR bandwidth and CPU cycles with SHIT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE. Let's not even get started on how a lot of it is a malware vector!!
My computer, my browser. I will format content as *I* see fit. That was the whole point of HTML way back in the old days. Remember?
The response is simple.
Advertising execs aren't the ones who we're concerned about. It's the "Click the dancing monkey to win $100!" scams, or "Download smilies for your messenger app! Hear the sounds now! *GIGGLE FART SNORT SCREAM*" obnoxious Flash assaults on the senses which irritate us.
I typically browse with AdBlock enabled constantly, and whitelist sites I browse frequently. If I see one of these advertisements, I re-enable AdBlock. It's very effective.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Shh. If you listen carefully, you can hear me playing sad music on the world's smallest violin
I know that most of you weren't even born yet, but there was a time when the internet had no advertising. And it did just fine.
"Monetizing your assets" is marketing bullshit-speak for "fleecing stupid people and annoying the rest". In fact, I own several websites right now that contain no advertising and get traffic. Any business that performs a service that's worth more than a pile of post-horse-oats can afford enough hardware and bandwidth to support thousands of users for less than they spend on getting the mats by the front door cleaned. And anybody who wants a personal site can do the same for less than the cost of a "value meal" at McDonalds.
And as bizarre as this seems, I could even post original content and have user interaction just like The Escapist and still charge nothing.
Not only do I recommend ad-block to my friends, I install ad-blocking proxy servers for businesses, because nowhere in the world is wasted time, money and bandwidth more apparent than in businesses that actually measure expenses and productivity. Employee wants to spend a little while looking for a new recipe for hummus? Great! Employee gets distracted and spends a half our down the rabbit hole with punch-the-monkey ads, not so great.
They can advertise all they want, but nobody is going to tell me that I have to:
And I guess your gut feeling loses out to their terabytes of data.
Nope. It doesn't. I consistently use Adblock anymore simply because the ads are annoying. If the ad exec's terabytes of data actually did overcome my gut feeling, I'd still be seeing ads, and I'm not. So, their terabytes of data lose with me every time.
Whether ad execs win with other people is of no concern to me. If they're crazy enough to watch all those annoying ads, so be it. I basically do the same with TV. Anything I want to watch I record on the DVR first and then ff through all the commercials.
If my wife is watching something I sit and pick the commercials apart by finding the logical fallacies they employ, or point out the incongruencies the ads expose in the product. I amuse myself with ads for prescription medicines by counting the number of fatal side effects the ad narrator lists. There's such a long list of serious side effects for most drugs that they have to digitally compress the voice overs to get the entire list mentioned in the time the ads run. Much of the time the drug's side effects are more serious than the condition it is supposed to cure.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
On EA forum, when you started to talk about problems with the game, the DRM and the fact it is broken, and how one suppose to play it - one gets banned as well. Escapist is not big enough, but when it is, they don't give a shit to few voices - you squelch them - like EA does.
I will not buy a single EA title, they dont care - but hey, neither do I about their shit and censorship anymore. They are not entitled to my money - they are not important.
Folks, it is true of all big corporations - they are dictatorships - and you do not "gave rights" - that is if you care that they mean anything - go somewhere else.
I didn't know what Escapist was until now... but my task for the day is to go sign up and post about adblock and get banned.
FAIL: I would have thought, as a slashdotter, you were more interested in the facts. Do some homework: The banks were bullied into lowering their lending standards by left-wing idealists intent on equal opportunities at any cost.
Ah, no, that would be your collassal FAIL for swallowing right-wing talking points and fiction hook, line, and sinker and calling them "facts".
This crisis had nothing to do with the tiny minority of sub-prime loans disbursed under federal fair lending requirements. These banks were not "bullied" into anything--they aggressively sold sub-prime loans to far less debtworthy recipients than specified in any federal fair lending statutes, and did so for one very simple reason: profit. Not long term profits for the bank, but for short term paper profits off the back of irresponsibly low interest rates that translated into large bonuses for the Bankers and Traders involved, and then packaging up the toxicity and selling it onward as CDOs and CDSes that were fraudulantly sold to investors in a climate of no oversight, little to no regulation, and a business model of raking in the profits and shedding the liability as fast as possible...initially onto investers, then ultimately onto the shareholders while the main culprits pocketed millions and made for the hills. I work in this industry (for the investment arm of a large bank BTW), and there is nothing "poor" or "bullied" about these banks...this is pure, unadulterated, and unregulated greed--raw, freewhelling free markets just as the Libertarians and "small 'L' libertarian Republicans tout as the answer to all of society's ills.
And guess what, it had results that were entirely predictable to anyone thinking outside of the right-wing dogma of the Chicago School of Ecomonics (which seems to require debunking about once every generation or so), and the right-wint Libertarian and Republican economic policies it inspires.
It's amazing the level of audacity the right has, to try and place the blame on their successors, whom they've left to clean up their mess. I'm not a particular fan of Obama, but to try and blame him for cleaning up Bush's economic mess (and seeing Bush's bailout through to the end, no less), and to blame a statistically insignificant number of fair lending loans as the cause of this crisis is absurd to the point it beggars belief, and belies a willful ignorance of the facts that appears to stem more from political (some might say 'religious') dogma than any fundamental inability to grasp the basics of economics and credit markets. Fair lending loans weren't the cause of this crisis, nor were the policies that put them in place. The cause was a combination of low interest rates creating a real-estate bubble, and investors who were lied to about the underlying risk and value of the credit instruments they were sold, which in turn created a lending frenzy whose enormity far outstripped anything mandated by government, by orders of magnitude in size and risk. In short, the very CDOs and CDSes that have Goldman in the sights of the SEC right now (and very rightly so, I might add).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
AdBlock is totally awesome becaQWfl;a,$25DFtgNO CARRIER
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
Seriously, zeropunctuation was funny for approximately two seconds, and they have never had anything else remotely worth looking at. This just cements my hatred for them.
Oh, and I suggest everyone use Firebox with adblock and a special unique layout that changes the title bar of every page to "The Escapist sucks"
I was banned from HardOCP after being a member for ~4 years for mentioning use of Adblock. Another person in the same thread who mentioned it was also banned (A thread about chrome extensions).
What did I do? I said piss on that place. The admin must be a serious a-hole so there is no reason to stay there. I guess maybe the payment on his second hummer was late or maybe he needed a new .50 cal barret.
I did send a snide email though asking them to add it to the rules if it is a bannable offense.
This is just like SlashDot.org's policy of karma. You degraded my karma to negative with no explanation, no way for me to know why, no way for me to contest your unfair actions.
This has been standard procedure at Ars Technica forums for YEARS. There mere mention of an adblocker was automatic ban by some clown who fancies himself as "Caesar". There was a sensationalized article several months ago by this very prick on this subject that somehow managed to make headlines on many of the geek sites.
As a matter of fact, a year or 2 ago their login system was broken for several months, they had an ongoing thread for people with issues. I finally left and didn't return for several months until the login issue was supposedly fixed, but by that time I had forgotten my login and pw. What to do? Create a new account. A year later some whiny moron there accuses me of being a "newb", I point out to him I have been lurking there since 1998, BAM, email the next day banning me for multiple accounts. I replied to the email explaining their incompetence and telling them to FOAD.
I say good riddance. I get much better hardware advice and conversation on the HardOCP forums and don't have to endure flaming and name-calling over simple geek shit like hardware.
Any business thats sole source of income is advertisements is fail. It will never last long. I really wish people were more anti-advertisements. It really is a serious problem.
Visit my Forums?
Having "rich web content" implemented using a plugin is really convenient, as it is self-contained, separate from the rest of the site and easy to disable by default. Right now I can simply install flashblock and disable animated GIFs, and not have to deal with 95% of the obtrusive ads, while still supporting sites with reasonable ad policies.
As annoying ads move further towards using open standards like Javascript, DOM, CSS, SVG and Canvas I have no clue how I am going to selectively block it. It will be using the same tools as the legitimate portions of the website, and also opens the door to advertisements not being spatially segregated into a single area. You already see this with floating ads and it is only going to get worse. Given how many sites need things like Javascript for legitimate reasons, I can't turn it off indiscriminately. I have tried using noscript, and got sick of half the sites on the web not working. I got sick of having to fill out every form twice because I got to the end only to discover that it requires javascript to submit, and enabling javascript inevitably reinitialized (cleared) the form.
I have the feeling that it will become futile to try and block these ads, so my granularity will change to boycotting entire sites that include them.
The first thing you see if you happen across Daily Kos is the big "SUBSCRIBE! (or exclude from AdBlock)" notice or whatever it is. Yah, let's see, am I going to do what someone angrily 'tells me to do' via a obnoxious notice or am I going to just click elsewhere? I just click elsewhere, I've never gotten past a line or two of the 'Notice' - screw you guys! Screw you into the ceiling! - I have a right to not be subjected to obnoxious, irritating ads and I exercise that right. I don't run Adblock on Slashdot cause I'm not assaulted by ads. Ars Tech in their highly underpopulated comment pages and elsewhere scold folks for having Adblock. Well, screw you guys as well. Plenty other tech sites that are written better and without annoying attempts to scold or guilt me into letting them run asinine ads that insult my eyes, ears and intelligence.
I work at a school. I got a complaint that one web site that was kid oriented was showing pornographic images to elementary students. Turns out it was a screw up with the advertisement server. They contracted with 3rd party add service that was supposed to deliver only kid-safe adds. Once the dust settled and I spoke with the web site operator I banned all adds from that advertisement service.
Windows users (Vista, 7 32-bit): Start, notepad - ctrl+shift+enter; click yes at UAC; File - Open: c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
Add:
127.0.0.1 escapistmagazine.com
Save. Close notepad.
Linux users: You're linux users. pick an editor of your choice (not my war) and run it as a superuser to edit (usually) /etc/hosts
Add:
127.0.0.1 escapistmagazine.com
Save. Close %editor%.
In before baby and bathwater commentary.
I lose nothing by ditching that site.
Zero Punctuation is not funny at all.
The rest of the site isn't of any use to me.
And now, they can ban me for telling people how to permanently fix their ad problems.
That's what Blipverts are for....
and demand people watch there animated ads? screw that.
You do know that the president isn't the king, right?
You also know that the Republicans had a veto proof majority, right?
You know they pretty much state the would over ride any veto, right?
In stead of vetoing it, he got them to add parts so people other then the rich would benefit.
The government is a little more complex then ' the president did it'.
"Just write down his name, wait a month, and then mod his posts into oblivion.
Ah the Fox approach to 'fair and balanced'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
> The readership consumes content, and in return gives you the eyeballs that
> you sell to the advertisers.
Do they have to be human, or will any kind do? For the right price I;m sure I could arrange for Countryside Hides to ship you a truckload of cow eyeballs.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
What kind of screwed up site would have a rule like that?
No, Ars actually went about doing exactly the wrong way. Ars only asked when the backlash got to the point where it had taken over discussion on the site.
The first thing they did was block content for ABP users, then started banning people who started asking what was up.
They then became rude and condescending towards users who criticized the way in which the action was carried out, to the point that some Ars staff were publicly stating that they were sorely disappointed in the attitudes of other Ars staff.
Within 24 hours, people had figured out how to bypass the Ars-side ABP anti-filter and had posted instructions. (Consider your audience, Ars!)
Only then, after Ars' anti ABP measure become moot, did Ars come back and "ask nicely" which was accompanied by Asian/Jewish/Catholic mother-in-law levels of guilt tripping.
I was one of the ones who pointed out Slashdot's "Disable Advertising" checkbox - the day I saw this is the day I whitelisted /. for most of my machines and signed up for a subscription. One discrete, unobtrusive note was enough to remind me that I was adblocking, that bandwidth isn't free, and that I enjoyed the site enough to pay for it. That one little note generated a lot of good will from me towards Slashdot, which had been flagging.
That stunt Ars pulled, OTOH, along with the commentary of Ars staffers, has essentially destroyed all of my good will towards them, good will that took the better part of a decade to develop.
I had previously subscribed to Ars but I will NOT be renewing my subscription.
A company with a business model that ignores basic physics of what it operates in, represses the fact that it’s about to die, and thereby moves itself into death in the first place... News at 11. ^^
This is no conflict, since everyone gets what he wants:
1. The Escapist is happy, because everyone liking to decide himself what he requests from their servers (eg. not ads) will go away. (What they don’t think about, is that nobody will be left.)
2. Other sites with reality-based business models will gain more clients, so that they can offer a better service (*hint*), and thereby gain even more clients.
3. We will get new, better sites, that adhere to our conditions (=reality!).(But since nobody at such a site will work for free, we’ll have to ultimately pay something for it. Especially for something special.)
In one sentence: Escapist: You’re not special.
You got nothing to offer, that somebody else can’t supply for equal or better conditions. Unless you change that, you can’t make demands, even when it looks to like it to you.
How this all will work? Well, if you knew how little money companies actually get out of those ads (1000 clicks was 50€ about 5 years ago, and a >3% click rate was considered good. [Internal and accidental clicks included!] Now we have ad blockers and fallen prices. You do the math.)
So if you’d pay perhaps 5€ a month more on your Internet bill, that would pay for all sites you could possibly ever visit. They would most likely even get more than with ads. (The problem I see with billing it in that generic flat-rate fashion, is that not all content/information has the same value. But the bill could also come from a payment service provider, who would have to adhere to strict privacy rules and the bank secret, so your ISP does not get even more monopolistic power.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Cracked did the same thing, and as a matter of fact, many many moderators walked out because of it. http://www.matthewnicol.com/adblocksummary.html here is some screenshot stuff http://www.matthewnicol.com/furtherinsanity.html and a bit more.
that I've ever seen are at GlockTalk.com I frequently browse with a netbook at 800x480 and the site is just unusable. Firefox with Adblock and Remove It Permanently tame it fairly easily.
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
They will never receive another dime from me.
Fuck Ajit Pai
Advertising executives are professional circle jerk bullshitters, nothing more. They pretend to ascertain the play-off but have very little comprehension of reality. Buzzwords kids, buzzwords.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Actually, it's not uncommon for talk shows (or other "live to tape" programs) to say "we'll be back in two minutes" or what-not. (Chuck Woolery is famous for "We'll be back in two and two", for instance.)
"You should absolutely not use AdBlock, the wonderful advertisement blocking addon for FireFox and Google Chrome, to block irritating and obnoxious advertisements when browsing the "The Escapist" website!" - by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Wednesday April 21, @06:19AM (#31920312)
Then, don't use ADBLOCK - use a BETTER solution, & it's one you ALREADY HAVE, in HOSTS files!
HOSTS FILES ARE SUPERIOR TO ADBLOCK ON THESE GROUNDS: (mainly in more security, because it covers MORE than just Mozilla browsers & email clients, but EVERY webbound app you have, AND, more speed (adblock only gains you speed by blocking ads, which HOSTS can do too, but for ANY webbound app you have PLUS the ability to "hardcode in" your fav. sites, which aids speed, but, also reliability (when kept up on, thank goodness websites don't change hosting providers TOO often, & usually if/when they are about to, they let you know first!))):
----
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, since it's NOT a program, only a filter... OR even less "buggy" than DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky's findings & Moxie Marlinspike's also), as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)
10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this latter one, & in FireFox (because Opera for example, allows a site by site setting on scripting @ least, where FF natively by itself, doesn't) as NoScript covers FF in what HOSTS files can't, in javascript, which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowada
Then, don't use ADBLOCK - use a BETTER solution, & it's one you ALREADY HAVE, in HOSTS files!
HOSTS FILES ARE SUPERIOR TO ADBLOCK ON THESE GROUNDS: (mainly in more security, because it covers MORE than just Mozilla browsers & email clients, but EVERY webbound app you have, AND, more speed (adblock only gains you speed by blocking ads, which HOSTS can do too, but for ANY webbound app you have PLUS the ability to "hardcode in" your fav. sites, which aids speed, but, also reliability (when kept up on, thank goodness websites don't change hosting providers TOO often, & usually if/when they are about to, they let you know first!))):
----
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, since it's NOT a program, only a filter... OR even less "buggy" than DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky's findings & Moxie Marlinspike's also), as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)
10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this latter one, & in FireFox (because Opera for example, allows a site by site setting on scripting @ least, where FF natively by itself, doesn't) as NoScript covers FF in what HOSTS files can't, in javascript, which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security")
----
To keep "ontop of the latest known malicious sites" online? See these sites (1 I mentioned here already, this is the rest of the list I use, & others too):
START OF WEBSITES & SOURCES + TOOLS I USED TO POPULATE THIS LIST + MY ORIGINAL
Then, don't use ADBLOCK - use a BETTER solution, & it's one you ALREADY HAVE, in HOSTS files!
HOSTS FILES ARE SUPERIOR TO ADBLOCK ON THESE GROUNDS: (mainly in more security, because it covers MORE than just Mozilla browsers & email clients, but EVERY webbound app you have, AND, more speed (adblock only gains you speed by blocking ads, which HOSTS can do too, but for ANY webbound app you have PLUS the ability to "hardcode in" your fav. sites, which aids speed, but, also reliability (when kept up on, thank goodness websites don't change hosting providers TOO often, & usually if/when they are about to, they let you know first!))):
----
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, since it's NOT a program, only a filter... OR even less "buggy" than DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky's findings & Moxie Marlinspike's also), as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)
10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this latter one, & in FireFox (because Opera for example, allows a site by site setting on scripting @ least, where FF natively by itself, doesn't) as NoScript covers FF in what HOSTS files can't, in javascript, which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security")
----
To keep "ontop of the latest known malicious sites" online? See these sites (1 I mentioned here already, this is the rest of the list I use, & others too):
START OF WEBSITES & SOURCES + TOOLS I USED TO POPULATE THIS LIST + MY ORIGINAL
They are going to make more money off of people not reading their ads than people not being on their website at all
Then, don't use ADBLOCK (alone @ least, as it only covers 1 browser family) - use a BETTER solution (that covers ALL webbound apps), & it's one you ALREADY HAVE, in HOSTS files!
HOSTS FILES ARE SUPERIOR TO ADBLOCK ON THESE GROUNDS: (mainly in more security, because it covers MORE than just Mozilla browsers & email clients, but EVERY webbound app you have, AND, more speed (adblock only gains you speed by blocking ads, which HOSTS can do too, but for ANY webbound app you have PLUS the ability to "hardcode in" your fav. sites, which aids speed, but, also reliability (when kept up on, thank goodness websites don't change hosting providers TOO often, & usually if/when they are about to, they let you know first!))):
----
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, since it's NOT a program, only a filter... OR even less "buggy" than DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky's findings & Moxie Marlinspike's also), as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)
10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this latter one, & in FireFox (because Opera for example, allows a site by site setting on scripting @ least, where FF natively by itself, doesn't) as NoScript covers FF in what HOSTS files can't, in javascript, which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security")
----
To keep "ontop of the latest known malicious sites" online? See these sites (1 I mentioned here already, this is the rest of the list I use, & others too):
"AdBlock is of course not ideal from a website's owners point of view." - by Teun (17872) on Wednesday April 21, @06:24AM (#31920350) Homepage
Adblock isn't "ideal" for the end users either, vs. HOSTS files, & here is why:
Don't use ADBLOCK (alone @ least, as it only covers 1 browser family) - use a BETTER solution (that covers ALL webbound apps), & it's one you ALREADY HAVE, in HOSTS files!
HOSTS FILES ARE SUPERIOR TO ADBLOCK ON THESE GROUNDS: (mainly in more security, because it covers MORE than just Mozilla browsers & email clients, but EVERY webbound app you have, AND, more speed (adblock only gains you speed by blocking ads, which HOSTS can do too, but for ANY webbound app you have PLUS the ability to "hardcode in" your fav. sites, which aids speed, but, also reliability (when kept up on, thank goodness websites don't change hosting providers TOO often, & usually if/when they are about to, they let you know first!))):
----
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, since it's NOT a program, only a filter... OR even less "buggy" than DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky's findings & Moxie Marlinspike's also), as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)
10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this latter one, & in FireFox (because Opera for example, allows a site by site setting on scripting @ least, where FF natively by itself, doesn't) as NoScript covers FF in what HOSTS files can't, in javascript, which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @
Don't use ADBLOCK (alone @ least, as it only covers 1 browser family) - use a BETTER solution (that covers ALL webbound apps), & it's one you ALREADY HAVE, in HOSTS files!
HOSTS FILES ARE SUPERIOR TO ADBLOCK ON THESE GROUNDS: (mainly in more security, because it covers MORE than just Mozilla browsers & email clients, but EVERY webbound app you have, AND, more speed (adblock only gains you speed by blocking ads, which HOSTS can do too, but for ANY webbound app you have PLUS the ability to "hardcode in" your fav. sites, which aids speed, but, also reliability (when kept up on, thank goodness websites don't change hosting providers TOO often, & usually if/when they are about to, they let you know first!))):
----
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, since it's NOT a program, only a filter... OR even less "buggy" than DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky's findings & Moxie Marlinspike's also), as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)
10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this latter one, & in FireFox (because Opera for example, allows a site by site setting on scripting @ least, where FF natively by itself, doesn't) as NoScript covers FF in what HOSTS files can't, in javascript, which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security")
----
To keep "ontop of the latest known malicious sites" online? See these sites (1 I mentioned here already, this is the rest of the list I use, & others too):
START
Don't use ADBLOCK (alone @ least, as it only covers 1 browser family) - use a BETTER solution (that covers ALL webbound apps), & it's one you ALREADY HAVE, in HOSTS files!
HOSTS FILES ARE SUPERIOR TO ADBLOCK ON THESE GROUNDS: (mainly in more security, because it covers MORE than just Mozilla browsers & email clients, but EVERY webbound app you have, AND, more speed (adblock only gains you speed by blocking ads, which HOSTS can do too, but for ANY webbound app you have PLUS the ability to "hardcode in" your fav. sites, which aids speed, but, also reliability (when kept up on, thank goodness websites don't change hosting providers TOO often, & usually if/when they are about to, they let you know first!))):
----
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, since it's NOT a program, only a filter... OR even less "buggy" than DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky's findings & Moxie Marlinspike's also), as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)
10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this latter one, & in FireFox (because Opera for example, allows a site by site setting on scripting @ least, where FF natively by itself, doesn't) as NoScript covers FF in what HOSTS files can't, in javascript, which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security")
----
To keep "ontop of the latest known malicious sites" online? See these sites (1 I mentioned here already, this is the rest of the list I use, & others too):
START
I'm betting that most of the staff of this site have DVR / T!V0 type equipment in their homes. I'll also wager that they don't watch every commercial that is available on said equipment. Could possibly have been a determining factor in purchasing that equipment. With that being said, what's the difference? Someone paid for the commercials to be run. In return, they expect viewers to watch them. Sometimes that doesn't happen. Technology enables the viewer to choose what they watch. Am I missing something?
Per my subject-line above, adbanners have been known to harbor malscripted content in them, & more (proofs are listed below)... &, I want to show you about a SOLUTION THAT'S SUPERIOR TO ADBLOCK ON MANY LEVELS (for better speed, AND BETTER SECURITY + reliability too)... read on IF you are interested:
First - Don't use ADBLOCK (alone @ least, as it only covers 1 browser family) - use a BETTER solution (that covers ALL webbound apps), & it's one you ALREADY HAVE, in HOSTS files!
HOSTS FILES ARE SUPERIOR TO ADBLOCK ON THESE GROUNDS: (mainly in more security, because it covers MORE than just Mozilla browsers & email clients, but EVERY webbound app you have (unlike adblock which is FF/Mozilla only), AND, more speed (adblock only gains you speed by blocking ads, which HOSTS can do too, but for ANY webbound app you have PLUS the ability to "hardcode in" your fav. sites, which aids speed, but, also reliability (when kept up on, thank goodness websites don't change hosting providers TOO often, & usually if/when they are about to, they let you know first!))):
----
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, since it's NOT a program, only a filter... OR even less "buggy" than DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky's findings & Moxie Marlinspike's also), as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)
10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this latter one, & in FireFox (because Opera for example, allows a site by site setting on scripting @ least, where FF natively by itself, doesn't) as NoScript covers FF in what HOSTS files can't, in javascript, which is the main deli
When the Sea Shepherds decided that terrorism was a valid way of combating whaling, I stopped contributing to them.
Terrorism? Not even close. Pull your head out of your ass.
Organizations have been trying to play the politics game for decades with NOTHING to show for it. The only things saving whales right now are the economy and last-minute regulations pushed through to protect species as they face extinction. Those ships are engaged in blatantly illegal commercial whaling in international waters. Governments choose to ignore it. Civilians, then, under international law, have a legal right and moral obligation to intervene.
Stalking ships involved in criminal activity? Not terrorism.
Filming and documenting the actions of ships involved in criminal activity? Not terrorism.
Throwing bottles of butyric acid* onto the decks of ships involved in criminal activity? Not terrorism.
Ramming ships involved in criminal activity? Not terrorism.
Boarding ships involved in criminal activity? Not terrorism.
Are these actions dangerous? Yes. Fuck, just being that far south is dangerous in itself. But they are legal and justified under the circumstances. It isn't terrorism, it isn't even piracy, it is sanctified naval enforcement.
Watch "Whale Wars" if you haven't already. You need to see two things. First, what actually happens out there. The horrific nature of whaling is something you have to see to comprehend. Second, that the Sea Shepherds are woefully ill-equipped, inexperienced, and incompetent. But they are the only ones trying to make a difference. When politics fails, when the public loses interest, when governments choose to ignore a problem, what is there left to do but take action into your own hands?
Do some research. Look at the bullshit politics. Watch an entire herd of whales slaughtered in one of the most inhumane ways imaginable. If you can still tell me you don't support the Sea Shepherds, I have no respect for you as a human being. Period.
* Butyric acid is derived from rotten butter and cheese. It is harmless. About as acidic as beer. Nontoxic, but a mild irritant with extended skin or eye contact (4+ hours on sensitive skin), and completely safe to ingest. At best, it is a mild stink bomb useful in wet conditions. The goal is to force the crew off of the kill floor and to "spoil" the whale meat. Crew members are not specifically not targeted.
So now the accepted pronunciation for "Escapist" is "asshat".
Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
...let me try and explain: The Escapist used to be a great site where the staff and mod--they used to have only one, and people still miss him--would treat users with respect, would argue with us, would let us disagree with them. They also put out a really great web magazine committed to exploring the more intellectual ways of appreciating video games.
So they're riding on a lot of built-up goodwill from a period that does not exist anymore. Something like this never could have happened on The Escapist a few years ago. Things have been changing, and they seem to have changed a WHOLE lot: I know they've been acting like spoiled children lately, but this seemed too crazy even for them.
A while back, I made a post defending software piracy as the equivalent of Ragnar Danneskjold's piracy in Atlas Shrugged because the video game industry keeps asking for tax breaks, which is what the 'looters' are doing in that book: the CEO is a big fan of Objectivism, and the whole forum community used to have great, civil discussions about all kinds of political topics. Well, my thread was locked for no reason at all. I didn't complain because I liked the site and the people running it so much.
That's why people are thanking the mods for taking the boot off their throat: like me back then, they don't realize just how much the place has changed, that the website that used to invite their users into a discussion of everything now bans first, asks questions later, and wants people to think they're the good guys for lifting the bans of people who discussed a topic no sane mod would ban people for discussing in the first place.
This mod Kuliani is the one who dealt with my permaban a few months ago. He gave me a garbage explanation back then, and never responded to my reply. I thought maybe it was just me: I'd run afoul of the 'new' (now the old) moderators back when they first replaced their original mod. I see now that it's more about this guy being a complete jerk who thinks because he was lucky enough to become the 'community manager' or whatever on a site that had the smarts to hire Yahtzee, that somehow he's the Yahtzee of Mods; I mean, really, what was with that little 'dialog' he wrote? Talk about getting high on you own power!
Here's my "browsing preference advice": read it with all the ads blocked. After my treatment by The Escapist, where a few mods with a grudge finally got their wish in banning me and staff members I'd had frequent conversations with for years did nothing, not even give me an explanation, I stopped reading.
Now that I know they are this irrational about people reading their site with the ads blocked, I'll be there for Yahtzee everytime he comes out. Maybe I'll even check out some of their other stuff and enjoy the free bandwith.
Because seriously, that's what The Escapist forum claims to be: The Internet's version of the Lighthouse of Alexandria I agree: no forum should treat its users badly or be run by whiny little mods, but when a forum makes some grandiose claim to being a bright shining example of enlightenment and then acts like this, that's not only behaving badly, that even worse.
I've always feared the networks timing all their commercials to be on during the same intervals, so no matter witch of their stations you were watching they would be selling you something.
horror vacui
That the only way the sites hosting the ads (and we can presume the ad-purveyors) can find to circumvent Adblock, Noscript, etc, is to request/badger/guilt users into turning them off!
... and I use AdBlock against my OWN site because I can't stand the sometimes interminable delays caused by some of the lousy crap that sponsors have buried in their ads.
I can understand sites needing to make enough money to keep the servers running, so I allow ads on many sites I visit, but if the delays and hang-ups get too bad, they are BLOCKED.
(On my site I try to keep the delays minimal, but when administering a sometimes very fast moving set of forums, I just cannot put up with even fairly short delays.)
Well the simple fact is advertising executives have MUCH more experience than you in ascertaining the play-off between annoying/distracting and revenue clicks. And I guess your gut feeling loses out to their terabytes of data.
Well, well, well... Of course, you make assumptions about my experience. Yet you know me not. I spent about 3 or 4 years doing Internet Marketing. I think I know a thing or two about what will grab attention and what won't. About what clicks will actually lead to sales and what will just be curiosity seekers that will eat up your click-thrus and not buy anything.
Many advetisers get it all wrong -- they spend enormous efforts at generating click-thrus but not refining their techniques so that they only get the clicks that lead to purchases. Their money to waste, and I am more than happy to take their money when they advertise on my sites.
On the other hand, myself personally will ignore most ads and wish that the advetiser could actually figure out what I'd really be interested in, because I would love to see the very thing that I "just gotta have no matter what."
What we really need is better targeting technology. The current stuff all depends on word matches that becomes rather elusive. Semantic matches that can match the actual content (not the words in the content) to a product or service that the content consumer would actually want to buy would be sweeter than sweet, and would cut down on much of the annoyance.
There are other approaches that I can think of or know, but I am not going to write a book in this post.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
.
99.99% of all online advertising is stuff that I don't want, can't use or can't afford - even if I didn't want it.
.
So why are these people acting as if it's their divine right to keep shoving this shit in my face?
.
Like are they so stupid - they just don't get it? Apparently so.
.
One newspaper company in Melbourne Australia, called "The Age" would produce sometimes newsworthy columns worth reading; AND picture this. Say the webpage was 30cm wide. The left column filled with links and adds was 12cm wide, the right column usually filled with the same was also 12cm wide............. and the center column being the actual article was 8 cm wide; and
.
These stupid fucks in the Age / Fairfax news group, would insist in putting brightly coloured, flashing, animated adds smack in the middle of the news column.....
.
And it was like trying to read with a strobe light in your face...
.
No matter how many times I complained - these stupid cunts did nothing.
.
That is when I made the decision to get and use add and javascript blockers on a full time basis.
.
And the editors of "The Age" and the entire scummy media group can go fuck themselves.
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
Around here publicly funded television is not allowed to show ads. Also, ad delivery is always passive. It's the site i'm interacting with and if ads stop me from interacting it, im gonna "switch channels" or kill the ads. With former removed, the value that I could give by interaction alone is also lost. So... the owners choice.
See subject-line, and it's about time those idiots at arstechnica took a beating, but even moreso a beating that they administered to themselves too, lmao. What comes around, GOES around.
"They were hostile to NoScript users too, who didn't even notice Ars had done anything until the forum postings started. Once some NoScript users mentioned that, and then loudly said they'd never, under any circumstances, enable scripting for doubleclick, etc, Ars got nasty toward them too." by Zan Lynx (87672) on Wednesday April 21, @05:52AM (#31920152) Homepage
See subject above, and ARSTECHNICA IS GOING DOWN (rightfully so, & about time: I LOVE IT). They're nothing more than a pile of gossipy little online scumbags who are there to TAKE MONEY FROM YOUR POCKETS, and showed their "true colors" based on your reply. I knew that one day, those arstechnica scumbags would do themselves in, and today's that day.
"What dicks!" - by Spad (470073) on Wednesday April 21, @05:34AM (#31920034) Homepage
See subject-line and about time: Arstechnica only revealed the TRUE NATURE of arstechnica to you all, and this man's words I quote above said it all: They're dicks (and dicks that eventually DID THEMSELVES IN at arstechnica, and about time too). LMAO, & I love it.
See subject line and the person I quoted above:
"The editors at Ars there were dicks and after they realized that they didn't even apologize, just called it a failed experiment. They also drew my attention to their ridiculous TOS. They've been redirected into oblivion in my /etc/hosts since then." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 21, @05:29AM (#31920006)
There's NOTHING as satisfying as watching a pack of jerks like arstechnica has (especially their forums board mods like Jeremy Reimer) take a beating and one they administered to themselves, as well as seeing them reveal their TRUE NATURE there, making themselves GO DOWN FOR THE COUNT. I love it. About time.
"I'd love to whitelist them, but a) when a problem occurs on my machine, it's too late for them to fix it and b) as I mentioned in a post above, they're not just showing me ads - they're also giving my information away to third parties every time I visit a page. Ads really are the smallest part of this issue." - by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) on Wednesday April 21, @12:38PM (#31925260) Homepage
Seeing the idiots at arstechnica go down due to greed is just making my day, because thePowerOfGrayskull's quote above reveals arstechnica's TRUE MOTIVATIONS of using their viewership to feed their heroin habits and that kind of greed always does in that type, every time. About time.
I have a friend who is an actress on one of the bit movies they show. I am proud of her, and the show is cute. However, as much as I want to support her, escapists idiocy is unforgivable an I won't be a part of it. And when I talk to her next i will tell her. Ads are revenue and everyone deserves to be paid. However, banning someone because they discuss a problem with a ad causing issues with their system is foolhardly at best I have never visited their forums and will never go to the site again. It disappoints me because I will have to get to send me the end now. After for mister stfu/ I don't ddon't use adblock because I happen to like ads. They amuse me. But I won't people force them on me.
Due to greed. They only revealed their true motivations as a pack of greedy little rats who thought they'd be clever and use their readership to fund their wasted lives, only to ruin it for themselves in the end. I love it, and it's about time. So "bye bye, arstechnica... bye bye" LOL!
I've already forgotten who/etc ....
Site that doesn't want customers?
Site that thinks time-waste-removal tools are "Verboten" for the customer-sheeple?
Two identical sets? Thought so.
There are people who don't AdBlock? Why not??
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Even prior to Google's acquisition of DoubleClick, Google engaged in prime and subprime advertising. Good, reputable, high revenue adverts appear on Google's websites. Make-Money-Fa$t adverts appear on third-party AdWords websites.
JonKatz was an editor!?!? I though that he was a Markov generator.
Seriously, he wrote some very populist stuff but he kept writing variations of the same essays with just the occassional howler which indicated an absence of any fundamental understanding.