Slashdot Mirror
Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option
Many readers have submitted news of a week-old announcement from Wladimir Palant, creator of Adblock Plus, about a change to the addon that will allow unobtrusive ads to be displayed. The change has been controversial because most people who run the addon strongly dislike seeing any ads. Palant hastens to point out that this is a toggle-able option, and by changing one setting, users can resume ad-less website viewing. Many are upset, however, that the setting defaults to allowing the display of "acceptable" advertisements. The description of "acceptable" ads includes the following criteria: "Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar); Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images; At most one script that will delay page load (in particular, only a single DNS request)."
Adblock developers have previously tried to monetarize the addon in very shady ways. I bet this is just another one of those. The announcement quite clearly reads as "we will still block ads, but we will not block Google's ads". I can bet that Google is directly paying them not to block their ads, but still keep continue blocking everyones else. This means increased income to Google, which now suddenly is the only provider whose ads aren't being blocked. This isn't new from Google either - they're currently under monopoly abuse investigation in EU after their contracts with advertisers said that advertisers cannot advertise on competing ad networks, like those from Yahoo and Microsoft.
Shady people, shady deals.
It needs eye-searing color clash detection, too.
The summary fails to cite some of the core reasons for the complaints, which are that this feature will be enabled by default as well as the fact that the Adblock project is hoping to make monetary agreements with advertisers.
There's no such thing as "unobtrusive ad", just like there is no "unobtrusive DRM".
With a toggle or not, it's the thought and default what counts, and we need something to recommend to non-technical friends to make their www browsing palatable. I for one go with several partially redundant layers of anti-crap defense and put some time into maintaining them, but ordinary people deserve to have something decent out of the box.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
> Many are upset, however, that the setting defaults to allowing the display of "acceptable" advertisements.
Hey princesses, how about a nice hot cup of "harden the fuck up".
I'll keep blocking every ad that I see. My screen, my rules. Block me if you want to. I'll go elsewhere.
I don't have a problem with this, even if Adblock is getting revenue from it. I want them to be able to continue to support the product, and I want the sites I go to to be able to afford to continue to exist, and I am happy if they are able to make a profit even. We all win. The only reason I started using adblock is because of all the disruptive, distracting, ads that interfere with the actual reason I came to a website in the first place. As long as they're able to keep blocking those, and sites that do tracking, I'm happy...
Turn off javascript
Turn off images
Ta-da!
It's the only way to fly - United!
I don't have a problem with ads on web pages (hosting isn't free, y'know) but I don't like putting my systems at risk to plugin and browser vulnerabilities. If an ad company promised no flash or potentially dangerous scripts or images I'd add them to my whitelist.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
I'll turn it off and move on. Setting it to this option as default is a little shady, but I'll pick up my pitchfork when they remove the off switch entirely. Adblock is a wonderful plugin, I don't fault its creator for trying to make a little bit of money off of it. As long as the plug-in allows me to keep blocking any ad, I'm happy.
My main reasons for using adblock+ is not to kill adds, but to protect my systems from hosts I consider hostile. Ad networks are a major malware vector because most ad network providers are mostly sleazy scum that can't be bothered to secure their networks. Either that, or they try to exploit javascript and other mechanisms to extract information I don't feel that they are entitled to. I'm sure as fuck not going to execute any script that comes from them.
Second comes browsing improvement, because some ad networks are so badly performing that they hinder the use of many web pages. I also found adblock plus the absolute best way to improve browsing performance on low-end netbooks. (Noscript helps a lot too)
Maybe this new option will enable a real no-bullshit way to enable advertisements that respect instead of exploit end users. I would would not mind that at all. Really, though, I don't want to execute any scripts from ad networks at all. I probably would not mind enabling Google's ad services either. As far as I know they're reputable as far as security is concerned.
I don't use an ad blocker. When I got to a site (usually via google), and I get confronted with an annoying ad, I click back ASAP, increasing the bounce rate for that site. Google DOES note this. Some might argue that a bounced visit is worse for a site than no visit at all. At least from an SEO point of view.
Actually I try to filter my adds through adblock to not block the unobtrusive text based adds (which Google became 'famous' for). If this option is able to do the filter work for me instead of me opting out every single add I find annoying manually, I'd actually very much like the option. If it has this as intention, I'm willing to try it out, see if it can get the job done. I can always put back my original filter list, can I?
...and many other projects that get big and then screw the users that made them big.
Do we really need to monetize everything? If you're out of time to work on the project because you need a paying job, then just hand it to someone else. I'm sure there's lots of capable people that have the time and are willing to do that. Hell, I'd do it...
noscript and flashblock? That's what I run. I don't have any annoying pop-ups or animated ads (which seem to be mostly in flash) Ads are no longer a problem for me, so I never bothered to install adblock. What am I missing here?
I don't like the incentive that the addon maker should decide what ads are "acceptable" or not. I will choose which sites to allow ads on, if they are in the way of content, I will get rid of them, otherwise I will usually allow them.
Heres an example: ads on youtube. I use noscript to block the in video ads, because I am not waiting through 15 seconds of wasted bandwidth and time to get to a video. Ads on the side? Those are fine, and I allow them under adblock. Does your site pop an ad up when I load a page? Adblocked. Ads on the banners and sides, that are not animated / sound, usually just a single image or some text? Perfectly fine.
I have never bought anything based on an ad before, from TV or internet. I always research purchases, or when it comes to consumables like food, I try different brands. It is almost like wasting bandwidth to throw ads at me, but I do know there are plenty of people that eat up ads like candy.
we wouldn't need AdBlock at all. For example, who complains about ads on the Google search page? The ads are highly relevant, and largely unobtrusive. If advertisers were smarter, they'd go one step beyond Google and give the consumer direct control of their ad placement. I don't mind ads when I'm buying, but when I'm not, I want them out of the way. Sounds like a UI problem to me. How hard would it be to solve?
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I mean I paid good money to use this tool every single day that I surf the web. I use this tool on different browsers, running on different platform....all of that cost me good money.
It's about time we all demand a refund from these insensitive clods and go back to use the ad blocking tool that comes with IE 6.
Wow. If you don't pay off the guy, it sounds like he distributes software that breaks your Terms of Service and helps people cheat your site. Gotta love the web.
Then find another program to block your ads, Mr. Entitled, or switch to ELinks.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The reason I decided to even try Adblock Plus in the first place was because of a particular (Flash-based) ad on deviantART which was ramping my then single-core CPU to 100% and not only jamming up my browser, but was also causing the normally invulnerable-to-lockup mouse cursor to stutter as I moved it around.
More to the point, I originally used ABP not because of a hatred of ads, but because of a single ad which was bringing my computer to its knees. So I don't see this change as a big deal - it's easy to change and the classification of an acceptable ad sounds like one which is unlikely to cause performance issues.
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
How DARE they give their free-to-use software more options for the user. I'd rather if on top of ads, it also blocked every website in it's entirety as well!
Why you haters aren't using WGET to pull down a page/strip out all HTML & Javascript/run it through a TeX parser I'll never know.
There's already an obvious way to permit no-annoying ads while blocking annoying ones, which is to have the subscription blacklist you already use for AdBlock delete the entries for the annoying ads. No need to build a special whitelist capability, unless you want to prevent people from using alternative blacklists.
I'm not actually too bothered by having a few ads, as long as
Unfortunately, that kills off most of the advertising services that might be used to support web sites I like (especially the no-tracking features, because the ad services use those to prevent web sites from faking view data.)
The current advertising-like annoyance I still get is Disqus's takeover of the site-comments business. It thinks that I'm blocking its cookies (I'm not), so some combination of Linux, Firefox, NoScript, Ghostery, AdBlockPlus, FF's Don't track is breaking it. (Also, it has lots of other problems, like not being good at keeping track of multiple identities - my comment histories on BoingBoing and various newspapers aren't supposed to all get lost, which happens if they get mushed together into one Disqus ID.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I can see this as only a good thing. There is now an insentive for ads to be less intrusive and "acceptable"
Adblock developers have previously tried to monetarize the addon in very shady ways. I bet this is just another one of those.
*long whistle* Nice ads you have there! It'd be a shame if someone were to come along and block 'em. *extends hand*
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
1. Form LLC
2. Purchase software and customization kit from 3rd party.
3. Act in apparently good faith until the payoff is sweet enough.
4. Profit!
The source code is available online, what prevents a fork from happening? Personally, I HATE ads. They're like intellectual harassment with how stupid and pointless they've become and I go out of my way to avoid buying things from the companies that sponsor them (i.e. I'm not trusting a f-ing lizard to tell me what car insurance to buy). I don't watch tv because of this. Though I'm surely at the far end of the spectrum, it's still true (unfortunately) that this is *their* code and they can be shady with it if they want to as long as it doesn't break any laws (then they "can't" but may still get away with it because of how corrupt things have become in regards to the behavior of companies). The good thing is that since the source is available, why not just fork it? If you don't agree with their principals and want different options in effect right from the start of Firefox, fork it -- they did it with OpenOffice.org and made LibreOffice...so why not here? AND if you can't fork it for licensing reasons, what prevents another version with different code from being created. It's not like Adblock is the Apple of ad blocking...you're not going to get sued naked and bankrupt for it...(which they'd have no basis for because they didn't invent ad blocking (which was around long before them) anyway).
The bottom line: IF you don't agree with their 'shady' behavior and don't want to go through the trouble of changing one setting at startup, then fork it or create a new one...or considering that most people have more energy for complaining than they do for actually doing anything productive...most people will probably just bitch and moan and declare that they're creating another version then just install the new crappy "Adblock minus"...either forget to change the setting or change it and forget this ever happened...
Or just switch the checkbox on the preferences...
Dilbert RSS feed
Then find another program to block your ads, Mr. Entitled, or switch to ELinks.
It's the unsolicited advertisers who are the ones who have the entitlement problem. Why on earth do you think the theft of people's time and attention, the most important thing they have, for almost nothing in return is okay? Unsolicited advertising is based on the premise that it's ok to steal the time and attention of a thousand people to make a sale to one person. That's not right.
I nuke ads at the hosts file level.
- Proud Leech
Quick automatic updates off.
Not to forget the bandwidth! Be it mobile bandwidth that is restricted for everyone everywhere, or fixed-line bandwidth in developing countries that is often limited in speed and volume, ads can be an unacceptable overhead that costs real money just to download.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
At least now I'll know why AdBlock Plus appares to "break" on it's next update, and how to fix it so it stops ALL ads again.
I know the websites make money from eyeball revenue, but I spend way too many hours of my day on the 'net to spend it inundated by advertising. Were I spending a few minutes or an hour surfing the way the general public does, I wouldn't bother blocking ads at all. But I am constantly on documentation sites and such, and even they blare the media message 24x7.
It's too distracting when you're supposed to be working. Would any company tolerate their background music provider suddenly shilling products instead of setting a work-conducive mood? How about some ads embedded in your Powerpoint presentations and company paperwork?
That's the level that "internet advertising" interferes with my ability to work if I don't use AdBlock Plus.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I love ADP, but personally I never use the built-in filters. I just create custom-filters for really annoying ads on the sites I frequent. My experience is that I don't need that many rules to make browsing tolerable.
Ummm... Are you the ones stealing content that people were hoping to pay for with ads? You know, the people who provide the content have bandwidth bills to pay as well as paying the people to supply the content. Would you rather see paywalls?
Why on earth do you think websites /have/ ads? It's to defray bandwidth and other costs.
I, for one, don't want the web to go the path of paywalls and micropayments, and would rather have some ads that are relatively easy to ignore.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
What bothers me the most about this ...stupid move. Is that they make you opt-out . That tells me hes getting money for the amount of people who stay in. Why else would he even care? its a free program to begin with. Nope hes gone to the darkside thats for sure.
Jack of all trades,master of none
I have another comment/question as well, Advertisers want end sales. So just loading up the ads means nothing if the ads don't produce. And those who say it costs money to run a web site well how much does it cost? Ive seen prices all over the board but most are under 20 bucks a month. What does it cost to run a site say like Slashdot? Which does run intrusive ads BTW. It seems to me running a website for free and depending on 100% advertising is a very stupid business decision. Make one mistake and piss off your membership and your out of business . And i do use an adblocker that i payed for not free ones.
Jack of all trades,master of none
It's too distracting when you're supposed to be working. Would any company tolerate their background music provider suddenly shilling products instead of setting a work-conducive mood?
Yes, I seem to remember a device called a "radio" that does exactly that. Of the dozen offices I have worked in, three had music with commercial breaks playing at a low volume in area where the workers chose to enable it.
I'd like an add-on that automatically downloads flash ads over and over again without displaying them.
Regardless of the motives on the part of Adblock Plus or conspiracy theories in other postings- the whole reason I started blocking ads was EXACTLY because of ads that:
1) Contain animation (of ANY type)
2) Contain sound
3) Use Mouseovers or now page floating/etc
4) Are unreasonable numerous or large
5) Delay page loading
If I could use Adblock to stop only the above and allow reasonably sized and fast loading, relevant, text based, or static image based ads, I would do so. I have said that for years.
I am actually just as distressed now by things that are NOT ads, but contain constant or time delayed scrolling and other animations on sites. It is EXTREMELY IRRITATING while trying to read something (not to mention battery draining). But web designers seem to think it is cool and mandatory now. Used to be easy- turn off Flash and animated GIF. But since they are all Javascript now, there is no effective way to stop them without breaking the needed parts of pages (and don't EVEN suggest greasemonkey or the like... far to complex and/or time consuming). I wish there was a Firefox plugin that could auto detect Javascript animation or loops and just stop them.
I don't really like that this is going to default to on, and it reeks of sell out.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
You say, "So here's their options: paywall or ads."
But there is a third option to this: GTFO.
The Internet worked just fine back in the 1970s and 1980s before it was commercialized to such a stringent degree. Who says that viewers of your web page should be the ones paying for it? Has it ever occurred to you that your web page itself is the advertisement? Develop a viable business otherwise, and then go ahead and post a webpage to advertise your business if you like. But don't expect us to pay for it. Support your webpage through the proceeds of your business. Your web page is an ad.
Seriously, this isn't too hard to figure out. Not EVERYTHING has to be "monetized."
Wow, alot of /.ers have a really loose set of ethics! In my mind, it's unethical to use a service without paying, and content providers get paid whenever a visitor's browser renders the ads. Even the most cynical punter must agree there.
So why doesn't someone write an ad-hider? Rather than preventing the ads from being rendered, and the host coughing up bandwidth he isn't being compensated for, we allow them to be downloaded to the browser, and count in the ad agency's stats, but simply prevent them from being displayed (set the CSS opacity to 0 or something)? It doesn't address the tracking and malware concerns that some have, granted, but it seems to be a fairer option for the middle-man.
NoScript is a WHITElist, you only allow the sites you trust to run scripts, it means NO by default. It is perfect, the best sites can run without scripts just fine, and you know immediately with noscript when something was designed with accessibility and standards compliance in mind, versus dis-functionality and laziness.
A script-less web experience is the fastest there is, zero running code in client is faster than the best of the engines; and selectively picking whom you allow to execute scripts makes for a very fast web experience, especially with slower machines.
The reason i started using noscript, is because some sites started to use scripts to defeat adblock. Ad related scripts come from third party servers most of the time. It also happens to do a flashblock like experience not only to flash, but the rest of the annoyances that make web browsing slowdown to a crawl. If you want that particular web thingie to execute (say, embedded video) you click to it and allow it temporarily; in short it will only run after you tell. You can't imagine how wonderful it is to regain back control; i want nothing with a browser with an incomplete implementation of noscript; especially coming from one of the ad serving companies...
Now if Adblock Plus starts acting too funny, i guess is time for a new fork.
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
Yes! I hate noisy tabs/ads, I usually use noscript, but if I've allowed a site, sometimes a noisy ad will start. I wonder if there's an extension to have sound-making tabs light up with a coloured speaker icon!
And yet every paywalled site also has ads.
Just like cable tv was originally ad free. And now it too is crammed full of ads. Yet you can't get cable tv without paying for it.
It's crap and only a sales or marketing moron would think otherwise. And frankly i'm getting damm sick of all the ads i encounter every day. I despise the people who push this crap onto the world. And tell them it's required or actually useful. It's crap.
First we get something good that we want. And pay for. Then they cram ads in without lowering the price or giving anymore value.
it's crap. it needs to stop.
will Google continue to provide the free search service to us?
The user still is in control of what can be displayed or not I don't see a problem.
And it makes sense to cut the throat of every ad that is animated, noisy or epileptic since they are the real reason for AdBlock Plus to appear from the beginning.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Just installed AdBlock for Chrome. First screen was: "Check if you like Google's ads", with unchecked as default. For me that's not really shady
I'm quite sure that if adblock plus will change this way it will loose part of his userbase... for instance for chrome there are at least two ad blockers (adblock - chromeaddblock.com, and adblockplus - addblockplus.org)
Beware of APK-the-troll ...
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added "layered"/"defense-in-depth" security + SPEED:
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Adblock blocks ads (not anymore apparently, lol:
Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option )
in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook!)
Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!
6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can.
7.) 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).
8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:
GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php
http://ddanchev.blogs
The issue is not that this option was added as I'm sure there's a reasonable amount of users that don't mind old-school ads (static, text etc.), but rather that it is enable by default and that you need to change a setting in about:config to disable. It should be an option in the primary context menu and it should be disabled by default, as the arguments for having it enabled are pure bullshit.
Also, using the always obnoxious first run page to inform about this is wrong because too many addon writers use it for blatant begging, propaganda or worse, and many don't include settings to turn them off (Giorgio Maone, author of NoScript, I'm looking at you in particular) so they're closed rapid-fire style without looking at them.
Something this fundamental requires a modal popup, nothing less.
Yes, it's my opinion that people don't need revenue from ads in order to run a simple website. Basically there are two types of websites: One complements a physical business and the other is virtual only. Now, if you can afford a brick-and-mortar place, or to print a rain forest worth of paper publications, you can afford a webserver. Most webservers come with with a reasonable bandwidth included and additional can be acquired fairly inexpensively, and most smaller businesses don't need much and might even do just fine with a simple LAMP webhotel/webshop that can be had for almost nothing (a few bucks a month). If you need ads to finance that, you're in so much trouble I wouldn't bother. Same thing for virtual only solutions. You have replaced the brick-and-mortar cost with hosting. Should come out even or maybe with some savings. Ads are not needed here either.
Now, someone might argue that non-profit organizations have different requirements. But how did they work before the Internet? - They relied on contributions and donations. Why can't they still do that and divert some of the funds from paper and brick-and-mortar to hosting?
I run a small hosted server myself. I pay around €50/month for it and this includes (reasonable) free traffic. I use it as mailserver and a webserver for myself and some friends, who run celebrity fansites, community websites, blogs and a podcast homepage. All the podcasts are stored on the server and the entire back catalogue is available as well. But I still don't exceed any bandwidth limits. I charge nothing from my friends, I have zero ads and I pay the hosting fee out of my pretty average salary. So a business should easily be able to afford this as well.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added "layered"/"defense-in-depth" security + SPEED:
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Adblock blocks ads (not anymore apparently, lol:
Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option )
in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook!)
Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!
6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can.
7.) 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).
8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:
GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php
http://ddanchev.blogs
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added "layered"/"defense-in-depth" security + SPEED (you already own one, & sources for populating one vs. adbanners + known malicious sites/servers are below (only takes work with a text editor to do so)):
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Adblock blocks ads (not anymore apparently, lol:
Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option )
in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook!)
Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!
6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can.
7.) 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).
8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:
GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added "layered"/"defense-in-depth" security + SPEED (you already own one, & sources for populating one vs. adbanners + known malicious sites/servers are below (only takes work with a text editor to do so)):
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Adblock blocks ads (not anymore apparently, lol:
Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option )
in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook!)
Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!
6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can.
7.) 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).
8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:
GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added "layered"/"defense-in-depth" security + SPEED (you already own one, & sources for populating one vs. adbanners + known malicious sites/servers are below (only takes work with a text editor to do so)):
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Adblock blocks ads (not anymore apparently, lol:
Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option )
in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook!)
Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!
6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can.
7.) 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).
8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:
GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
I don't use Adblock to stick it to The Man; I use it due to the prevalence of excessively annoying and/or resource-hogging ads. If Adblock can block only those while letting more benign ads through, then I consider that a vast improvement, because it doesn't strip revenue from site owners who don't employ these unseemly tactics in monetizing their sites. Furthermore it provides owners who do employ such tactics a clear path to more revenue, which, unlike current solutions, actually stands a chance of encouraging change in the way things are advertised online.
I also support making it the default, and in fact I'd prefer it if they made it mandatory. I fully support protesting against annoying and browser-killing ads, but people who just want to stick it to The Man are not our allies.
Seen it crop up so many times in this discussion that "the web is funded by ads." Perhaps many websites are, but the web most definitely isn't.
A few days ago, I just went on about how I block all ads, and don't see advertising. However... I'd allow "acceptable" ads.
Without ads, there would be no Google, no Facebook, no free internet. There would be 1,000 Wikipedias, begging for money. You can't build billions of dollars worth of data centers on sunshine and ponies.
I use Spiceworks. It would be worth millions to their company, able to charge hundreds per copy if they chose. But it's 100% free. I specifically have enabled ads on their web based tools. Why? #1 - I want to support them. #2 - The ads aren't garbage, they are relevant. Very very relevant. I learn about new IT offerings and products through the ads.
Now granted, there are those who will never click an ad. And companies are learning, consumers want ads relevant to them and unobtrusive. I run ad blocking myself, but I'm not 100% behind the idea that I don't want to see any ads. Right now, it's an all or nothing, or manually turning on each site. I want to do the right thing AND have utter crap held at bay.
This is why I think this is a great tool. Rather than saying, "No ads, never, no way!" This is saying to advertisers, "Do a better job, and don't annoy the shit out of people or track them when they don't want to be tracked... and people are willing to see and click on those."
You can try to fight a war of attrition against ads. Or, they can be encouraged to be better.
And so I can't take the position that there's a vast conspiracy of subliminal trash being force fed into our minds by greedy corporations. I'm sure that's true especially in mass media.
But as Sigmund Freud might say, "Sometimes an ad is just an ad."
I8-D
come from the same server as the website. everything else deserves to be blocked.
I dont know much about this as I'm not a Firefox guy, but I don't understand why changing a default is such a big issue, you can just flip the switch and that's it...oh wait, you say they have to upgrade the extension every time the browser gets updated, and your configuration is reset, forcing you to change it back? Now, I understand.
Man, if you hadn't posted AC, I'd have modded you up! (Read my .sig)
(I'm beginning to think that ACs on /. should be banned. I can understand annonymity if you live in a dodgy regime, but not when posting the above. What are you worried about?)
Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!
If the site has advertising, it's trying to make money and showing ads is party of the implied contract of visiting the site (unless they have a paid "no-ads" option).
Is viewing the site from a machine with Adobe Flash Player also part of the implied contract? Because unless it is, I'll continue to use Flashblock to block a large class of unacceptable ads while leaving static ones (PNG, JPEG, text).
I use Opera, and it has a "block content" feature which is kinda manual - you go into block content mode and use the mouse to select sections of the page. Opera then blocks them when the page is viewed normally. For a site you visit regularly, it works well, but not so good for random surfing. But very good if you are surfing at work and the animated advert stand out like a sore thumb, even with CSS and images off for "stealth."
I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to 127.0.0.1 (see below). But I sometimes have a web server running locally (I used to have a really gaudy 404 page that would stand out like a sore thumb when these sections were requested.
Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!
I am actually just as distressed now by things that are NOT ads, but contain constant or time delayed scrolling and other animations on sites. It is EXTREMELY IRRITATING while trying to read something (not to mention battery draining). But web designers seem to think it is cool and mandatory now. Used to be easy- turn off Flash and animated GIF. But since they are all Javascript now, there is no effective way to stop them without breaking the needed parts of pages
Trust me, we don't think it's cool... but it is mandatory. For years, I fought for accessibility, simplicity, robustness, low cost (time equals cost and no matter what JS framework, toolkit or library you use, it's faster to create a pretty link than to implement and test JS contentPane switches...) and the like. That was the happy times when I could accompany our sales guy to a meeting and any mid-range client would bring their own tech-guy with them and I could make the point. Now, we live in the era of outsourcing and more often than not, there is an advertising agency between me and the client. Even when there isn't, the decisions for websites, etc. are no longer handled by IT departments but by marketing departments. If the design sketches don't contain "swoosh"-sounds and eased animations, the MBAs will buy from the competition.
The upside is that things no longer need to be IE6-compatible, so I guess that's something.
I installed Adblock Plus specifically because I want no ads in my browser. If the developers stroke a deal with industry that's fine, it's their choice. I hope a fork will be made that will again disable all ads by default. Adblock++, anyone?:
Thanks, but, whether I'm registered here or not shouldn't matter vs. the content I posted (which is fact/truth & has backing sources on points from reputable sources) really...
* IF it's worth "modding up" then do it (or not, up to you & others on that account!).
Heh - & me? Well, as an AC I have no "mod points" (@ all whatsoever!).
APK
P.S.=> On the "added anonymity" HOSTS can help with, well, that's only really vs. DNS request logs (there's other ways an ISP/BSP or law enforcement can "keep tabs" on you too, so you know)... & I'm not worried on that account, rest assured on that much!
... apk
Mr. Commercial is being backed up against a brick wall by Mr. Blocker. "Please, don't kill me!" Commercial begged. "Whatever they're paying you to stop me, I'll double it! Here!" He takes out a roll of notes from his pocket and holds it out. "Take it!"
Blocker takes the money and looks at it thoughtfully.
or they are tired of seeing this massively long, highly repetitive, and overall poorly written post repeatedly spamming up the discussion.
Or they are tired of your off topic attempts at playing English Teacher.
The post tells u how 2 be safer n faster online 4 free. Ur point's what? Mine's U r a troll.
Opinions vary http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2570782&cid=38351398
Use Adsuck and web pages won't even know you're blocking the ads (because they are blocked at the DNS level)
(2) Expand AdBlock blocking settings so that people can be explicit about what they want blocked, or where they want it block. Post the results online with comments like "Wow, New York Times, time to change the ad rotation as only 9% of AdBlock users want to see any ads on your site." Or "Major shout out to Victoria's Secret who have the best ads for the third straight month!"
With a little creative effort, AdBlock and related products could become major agents of change in the ad world.
I come here for the love
To make that post of Trax3001BBS former +1 rating down to a -1 here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2570782&cid=38351398 score's up to you!
* That trollish, & effete/weak "retaliation" of yours? Heh, that doesn't stop me from posting things about HOSTS files that benefit users for both speed & security (that you, for "some reason", obviously FEAR)...
APK
P.S.=> I don't think you understand - You can't stop me, & neither do effete technically unjustified mod downs (the only incredibly WEAK "weapon", lol, you have (especially vs. facts from reputable sources))... apk
The "best /. trolls got" are effete moddowns vs. facts (from reputable sources) I posted regarding custom HOSTS files being valuable for more SPEED & SECURITY for the end users who use them, here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2570782&cid=38354290
* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!
APK
P.S.=> Man - you just KNOW I've gotta say it, as-is-per-my-usual-style vs. "hit & run moddown trolls" (who can't find any technical errors in my posts on HOSTS files):
This? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'", lol...
... apk
The "best /. trolls got" are effete moddowns vs. facts (from reputable sources) I posted regarding custom HOSTS files being valuable for more SPEED & SECURITY for the end users who use them, here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2570782&cid=38354250
* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!
APK
P.S.=> Man - you just KNOW I've gotta say it, as-is-per-my-usual-style vs. "hit & run moddown trolls" (who can't find any technical errors in my posts on HOSTS files):
This? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'", lol...
... apk
The "best /. trolls got" are effete moddowns vs. facts (from reputable sources) I posted regarding custom HOSTS files being valuable for more SPEED & SECURITY for the end users who use them, here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2570782&cid=38349708
* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!
APK
P.S.=> Man - you just KNOW I've gotta say it, as-is-per-my-usual-style vs. "hit & run moddown trolls" (who can't find any technical errors in my posts on HOSTS files):
This? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'", lol...
... apk
The "best /. trolls got" are effete moddowns vs. facts (from reputable sources) I posted regarding custom HOSTS files being valuable for more SPEED & SECURITY for the end users who use them, here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2570782&cid=38351024
* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!
APK
P.S.=> Man - you just KNOW I've gotta say it, as-is-per-my-usual-style vs. "hit & run moddown trolls" (who can't find any technical errors in my posts on HOSTS files):
This? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'", lol...
... apk