Slashdot Mirror
Playing Around With Tracking Protection In IE9
Roberto123 writes "I have tried out the Tracking Protection feature in the coming Internet Explorer 9 browser from Microsoft. While the feature does effectively block ads from Web sites, I'm not yet convinced that giving the users the options to select content to 'Block' or 'Allow' will be that effective."
no doubt the button to reset this feature to defaults (and remove any blacklisting) will be hidden seven layers deep in complex "Options" dialogs
Tools>Safety>Tracking Protection>Disable
I would say that most people think of a Computer with Internet the same as Television.
If I just watch content then how could I get a virus? I was just watching!
I have to agree with them at the most fundamental level.
Bing doesn't need a backdoor. Its probably easier for them to just Google you to find out about you.
Ryans Tutorials - A collection of technology tutorials.
I would say that most people think of a Computer with Internet the same as Television.
If I just watch content then how could I get a virus? I was just watching!
I have to agree with them at the most fundamental level.
The difference is that television is one-to-many communication and fundamentally one-way.
The Internet is many-to-many communication and fundamentally two-way.
The people who fail to recognize the difference and the implications of that difference are simply wrong. Fundamentally wrong, if you like. The fact that assuming security doesn't matter is a sure way to get 0wned is a very strong argument against them. I am all for advocating what someone believes is an ideal expectation, but not when it contradicts the manifest reality. Then it's just ignorance. Ignorance is not and has never been a solid foundation for good decision-making.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Let me get this straight. It's my fault if someone kills me in my home. I should have cared better about security? It's not the consumers fault for believing when they buy a pc with legal software they have everything they need. When I buy a new car, I'm not going to take it to a garage to check the brakes, you just assume it works. Not everybody knows a thing or 2 about software/hardware. No matter how you turn it. It's still the baddies fault.
If Microsoft suddenly get good ad blocking - as in, really good ad blocking, they could completely cut off all oxygen from Google. Of course, MS also makes some money from web advertising, but they don't need it to live like Google does. Also, it really would improve the quality of the user experience in IE if this were done well and thoroughly.
I do, because Firefox has slowly turned into a bloated pile of ass. Ironically, it's now more bloated and slower then IE9. This isn't 2004 anymore and we aren't talking about IE6.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
You should care, because if ad block becomes defacto and comes preinstalled with IE9, ad agencies would quickly start workaround it (just like how hulu does currently (hulu's policy is, you can use adblock, but you would have to putup with a min of absolute silence and blank screen before the show continues))
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Ad-supported models are inherently brittle. They rely on advertisers being willing to purchase space, because they believe it to be worth their while. If consumers are unwilling to watch (and, indeed, act on) adverts, the magic money tree suddenly goes bare. No amount of howling that people who skip adverts are "stealing" content will put the fruit back on it. In the UK --- I don't know enough about the US --- the PVR has essentially killed one of the advertising-supported channels (ITV) to the point that its target demographic is now variously the old, poor and stupid who cannot manage a PVR. The smaller advertising-supported channels (ITV2/3/4, say) contain nothing but debt consolidation and personal injury shark adverts, and no-one with a post-16 education would find anything they might want to buy, even if they watched the adverts, which they don't. Unable to see their model is in a death spiral, the owners chase to the bottom, with programming aimed at the diminishing pool of viewers who are prepared to watch. The same is happening with Channel 5, while Channel 4 (which isn't directly ad-supported, but is indirectly ad-supported because as well as its own, small, advertising sales it is funded by a levy on ITV) has seen the writing on the wall and is desperately seeking funding as a top-slice on the BBC license income.
TV is progressively going subscription. Yes, some of the subscription channels also show adverts, but that's gravy, in the manner of adverts in cinemas, and they could live without it by just raising their subscriptions. It's only a matter of time before "free", advertising-supported, web content goes the same way. How are AOL these days?
Have you even looked at the list of providers? They are third-party sites, like eTrust that has been around for ages.
I had to read your post twice, because it made absolutely no sense to me. Then, I realized I understood you - I still don't think it makes sense.
No ads = less diverse content.
When I think of "sites with ads" I think of: sites like cracked.com, link aggregators, and facebook - sites with no content of value
There will be unintended consequences. If one person blocks ads then they're just a free-rider. If everyone does, the web will really suck.
Unsubstantiated claim. On what basis do you make it? The absence of twitter, facebook and the like is hardly a game-stopper.
Sure, some sweet folks will continue to post hobby sites, just as in the golden days of yore. And non-profits will publish. And big corporate sales and propaganda sites. And the Government and lobbyists. (BTW: They're all selling you something, aren't they?) But most of what makes the web diverse and useful and free today will die if advertising is eliminated.
Wait - I'm completely lost by these statements. Aren't these "will still be around" sites the actual content on the Internet - the stuff that brought us all here in the first place? By your Slashdot UUID it would seem you're likely old enough to remember the days of dialup and maybe even BBSes; surely "the web" isn't more functionally useful now to you than it was back then? Honestly: it was easier to find stuff back then because there was a lot less noise (at least now that google has insisted on making their search engine less functional than astavista).
There will still be sites like Debka and WND, which get most of their revenue through syndication and memberships - if that's what you'd miss. CNN, Fox News and the like would likely be cut down to size if the syndicated adverts were all gone, as well. Wikipedia, by far the most useful "modern" web source? No ads to speak of, so 'blocking' them isn't a matter.
But even if that happens, getting rid of "all ads" is unlikely to happen. Honestly: I hope it doesn't happen.
Let me explain. I'm really adverse to ads. They bother me on a 'ok, now my eyes are twitching and i need a cigarette' level. However, within specific contexts, I appreciate them. For instance, I went to the trouble of disabling ad blocking on a couple sites I frequent because:
1) the sites were small: either community or proprietor run, with strong communities
2) the ads were communally targeted (ie for the group/community interests)
3) the ads were specifically picked/allowed by the site proprietors/owners/managers
4) the ads weren't intrusive or excessive
If advertisers hadn't decided to nuke users from orbit for short-term monetary gain, the popularity (and capability) of ad blocking software would've never come to be. They dug their own grave: they're providing nothing useful to their customers at this point, and need to re-think their business. (This goes for Google as well. Their ad noise is worse now than AltaVista was when I decided to stop using them.)
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Don't bring facts into this.