Slashdot Mirror
Think Tank's Website Rejects Browser Do-Not-Track Requests
alphadogg writes "The website for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) now tells visitors it will not honor their browsers' do-not-track requests as a form of protest against the technology pushed by privacy groups and parts of the U.S. government. The tech-focused think tank on Friday implemented a new website feature that detects whether visitors have do-not-track features enabled in their browsers and tells them their request has been denied. 'Do Not Track is a detrimental policy that undermines the economic foundation of the Internet,' Daniel Castro, senior analyst at the ITIF wrote in a blog post. 'Advertising revenue supports most of the free content, services, and apps available on the Internet.'"
Here I thought awesome people were responsible for most of the finest free offerings of the internet, turns out it was just penis enlargement all along.
Can't the browser just give bogus data on request?
I'll just keep using AdBlock Plus, NoScript, etc. and they won't get me to see any ads at all. If on the other hand they respected my desire not to be tracked, I'd have given some simple unobtrusive ads a chance. They're only shooting themselves in the foot.
So they're afraid they aren't going to make all the money they have been making with advertisements.
My take on this: go get a real job.
Joke's on them. I run NoScript.
We don't deny the right for any site owner to do advertising. If we don't want to see the adds, we can stop going on the site. But what's not normal is tracking visitors across multiple sites and without their consent or knowledge. I recommend everyone to install the ghostery pluggin, just to see how far this has gone (eg: so many sites are displaying trackers from 3rd parties).
If only there were an alternative to hosting content for free...
Okay, two questions:
Does anyone really give a shit what this particular group has to say?
It is possible to advertise online without tracking users. It may not be quite as profitable, but it served the Internet well in the early days.
Besides, you don't need tracking to know that Slashdot's audience is full of nerds who will buy open their wallets to companies like ThinkGeek, NewEgg, etc.
Given that the message depends on JS, most people who set DNT are either incredibly naive, or block JS too.
The internet (spelled with a small 'i' despite my spell checker) worked just fine before the economic discount-superstore model was imposed upon it in the mid 90s.so if you don't mind ITIF, I'm gonna go start my own internet... with star trek and porn.
Do Not Track does not mean Do Not Advertise. It just means don't collect my personal data from every site I visit and form a profile of my habits.
Honestly, from the way these people are talking you'd think advertising never worked in the past when it wasn't possible to do that.
Do Not Track essentially enables people who are concerned about privacy to support the web page owners by still being targets of advertising. To reject their request means "we don't want you looking at our ads" and pushes these people to simply use adblock. Mind that people who are already blocking ads have no use from DNT.
Good. Get off the web. Someone better will take your visitors. The internet was not originally built for hard to disrupt communication, not selling out.
There was one crucial piece of information missing from TFA: exactly why would a non-insignificant fraction of the population in large would even care that this particular think-tank's piddly web site exists? It would be news if say, some major national bank's web site blocked visitors who've enabled the do-not-track header. That, I can understand, would be news. But...
1) Who is ITIF, and
2) Who cares about their web site?
As soon as someone explains that, we can move ahead to the next step.
The economic foundation of the internet has nothing to do with advertising. The current state of the world wide web does, but they're different things. For a supposedly technology-focused think-tank, I'd expect them to understand that difference.
The economic foundation of the internet is the advantage gained from interconnecting networks. You care for your bit of network, yet have access to everyone else's too. In return you carry other networks' traffic just as they carry yours. As such, the internet's foundations are those of "being a cooperative".
The world wide web, now, that's something different. It's the conceptual web made out of various parties' "content" linked together. Since it can be used to show pictures and text from elsewhere, advertising is easily added to many a page. Advertising is used to fund large parts of that, and it's an interesting exercise to imagine what the www would be like without the advertising income. There'd be many fewer websites, especially since many of them currently survive by the grace of advertising income, even exist for the sole purpose of attracting "clicks" to be sold to advertisers. Those would go away right quick.
What would be left? Discuss.
The internet is already paid for. Every home user and business pays their ISP, every small ISP pays their upstream, every large ISP pays to run their lines and to peer, etc.
Advertising on the internet is a huge assumption. It is assumed that people will:
1. See the ads.
2. Click on them if they're interested.
3. Buy product if they're interested.
There is no obligation for anyone to do any of these. No contract, written, social, or otherwise, requires people to even see the ads, and as this failed business model dwindles, companies have started tracking users and harvesting information as a business model, simply because they can.
Where do these overblown assholes get off telling us it's the Economic Foundation of the Internet?
in their tank.
Do these people really believe that advertising only works without tracking ?
Most of the things they do now, they can do without tracking:
https://air.mozilla.org/tracking-not-required/
New things are always on the horizon
From the link:
However, privacy advocates do not like this so they have been pushing for the creation and implementation of a Do Not Track standard. The problem is that if users are not tracked, then websites cannot deliver targeted advertising. Instead, websites would only be able to use non-targeted advertising which does not generate as much revenue.
Well... yeah. That's the whole point.
If your business idea needs the revenue from targeted advertising and the revenue from NON-targeted advertising would mean you'd have to close down, then your business idea is not good enough. It does NOT mean that everybody else has to endure being tracked so that you can make more money. Of course, you're free to prevent whoever you do not like from visiting your website. But your sense of entitlement ("we cannot have user privacy because *I* deserve more money!") is wrong.
Not that I think those "do not track" settings ever will work, because they rely on the bad guys cooperating, and advertisers clearly have shown over the years that they will do ANYTHING to get around advertising restrictions. But the general idea (users should be able to decline targeted advertising) is good.
Think-tank known for its strong stance on turning the Internet in to a locked-down shopping mall takes strong stance against technology designed to protect users. No-one notices.
In other news, the KKK blocks users from predominantly black/latino areas, leaving them with on average 1600 hits per month (down from 1617 hits per month).
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Its just that simple.
The corporations and the governments are waking a sleeping giant that will dwarf the previous one!
I like that they refuse to serve their content, rather than simply disregard the DNT and serve the content anyway. If all sites that disagreed with DNT did this, we'd end up with a split internet of people who want to make money by selling on your personal data (i.e. host third party surveillance scripts) and those who want to make money in other ways (or, you know, just put up cool stuff for free).
Looking at the ITIF's post on DNT. I love how the word free is thrown about even though those "free" products aren't really free when we are being advertised to and our behaviors tracked. In fact, I don't know if the price we are paying is worth calling any of those products free.
Don't like people blocking your tracking?
Easy peazy, you give them an incentive to allow it.
Or some such, is what browsers should pop up instead of the website in question when they try to do dishonest and unethical things like tracking users. This push by "the powers that be" for having everything and everyone's business out in the open for them to data mine at will, without paying us for the privilege of using our data for their purposes, is getting pretty darn obvious.
Once a site delivering free content is popular enough to have significant operating overhead, it's probably worth the effort and money to formally organize the content provider as a for-profit or non-profit entity.
The local newspaper in my town of approximately 100 thousand sells subscriptions to readers who want more than a fixed quota of articles per month.
Wikipedia has fundraisers.
Both of these free content providers have found ways to fund their efforts without using targeted ads.
Suggesting that ad revenue will disappear without personalized ads seems to overlook the fact that many people are willing to pay a fair price for content instead of expecting ads to support their mooching.
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
Advertising is supporting the TV show I'm watching right now, and the newspaper I read this morning ...
Neither of them were tracking me.
Browsing http://www.itif.org/ with noscript installed or javascript disabled, I don't even see their rejection of my DNT header unless and until I enable javascript for the site.
"Do Not Track is a detrimental policy that undermines the economic foundation of the Internet"
No, it's a policy that undermines the ability to steal peoples' identification information and track their movements on the Internet so that data can be sold to marketers and handed over to government to build informational databases about its citizens so that they can be more effectively oppressed.
What a load of BS. Tracking is not the same as displaying advertising. "Do Not Track" doesn't prevent advertising.
. . . from a site that goes out of its way to block adblocking users that I couldn't live without. It seems to me that those running sites who do this sort of thing vastly overestimate the value of their "content."
'Do Not Track is a detrimental policy that undermines the economic foundation of the Internet,' Daniel Castro
Maybe if that 'economic foundation' were undermined, the Internet would, once again, become a useful tool. I remember, all too well, the day that AOL opened the floodgates. The ads back then where simple, to the point and less obtrusive.
Okay, I'll say it first.... "Get off my lawn."
> The website for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) now tells visitors it will not honor their browsers' do-not-track requests
No it doesn't.
http://www.itif.org
Works just fine - I'm using Firefox 15.0.1 on Windows XP
I followed the instructions at http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-turn-do-not-track-feature
And the itif site works just fine.
Did I do something wrong?
Indeed we have a digital economy, and, as has been shown again and again, those that hold their IP too close to their chests not only damage innovation and economy, but also themselves. Look at Google who has expanded the smart phone industry exponentially by using open source. Look at HP who has open sourced WebOS. Much of Apples fortunes has been built on open source. Local governments has released that the closed source textbook is bleeding the taxpayers dry, so has gone for open source textbook. Firms that open clearly have a competitive advantage. Users that are closed and do not share personal data clearly damage the web.
ITIF, you are obviously very wise people who know better than we do. You obviously have big penises and big breasts and are therefore best suited to tell us, the lower 99% of the consuming proletariat, what to do. So I encourage you to continue to show you superiority by further courageous moves in the progress of unbounded innovation. Make your books all digital and allow all of us the opportunity to read your wisdom, not just those who are old and have money or go to the library. The old are not going to be the innovators, and the young only know how to download free stuff. So make you wisdom accessible to all, as you want to make our personal details accesible to all. Do not just publish chapter 1, but all of your incredible mind changing orgasmic words from on high so we can all know you infinite enlightenment and become person who know our place in your perfect world.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
This is one area where we are not given enough credit, but the Internet as we know is here thanks to Free Software.
Sure, most people doesn't realize this, and of those that do, most won't accept it, but it's still the truth. What allowed the internet to grow so big? Do you think Google would exist if they had to pay an expensive Unix license for every machine they own? Sure, they might be able to afford it now, but they didn't years ago, and they would have never gotten this far. Even now it would be a huge hit on their wallet. Take the Internet as it exists right now. Remove GNU/Linux and *BSD, Bind, Apache, SSH, MySQL/PostgreSQL, PHP, Perl, Python, nginx, squid, rsync. I can go on and on. Now remove 90% of all web apps out there. Remove Wordpress, Joomla, and just about every other CMS. Now take the client side. Remove KHTML (And with that webkit, and therefore Safari and Chrome), remove Firefox. Remove Android. What are we left with? I think if you remove all Free Software from the Internet, aside from the fact that there would be no root DNS servers and most of the routers would be down, and what servers are still intact? microsoft.com? I'm pretty sure even they relay on Free Software.
So, Fuck off ITIF. It's not advertisement. Many people think content should be pay for, that content couldn't exist without advertisement, well,you are using the most advanced infrastructure ever created to create and serve your content, and the infrastructure was created for free. Certainly we can create some GPL'd cat pictures, porn and tech articles to replace your stupid content. Please go away.
All the pro-advertisement self-entitled idiots are using trillions of dollars of infrastructure the community created for free, and they go "But our dong jokes are priceless. We need money!". Well fuck you.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
If the argument is that tracking users furthers commerce and getting in the way of it is Luddite, shouldn't they start by railing against the evils of cash?
Slashdot should ignore people like Daniel Castro, and thus avoid linking posts by people like him on this forum. By linking this person's very poorly written drivel, Slashdot is giving him credibility. Here is my major complaint with his story: There is not a single fact cited in this person's article. There are dumbfounding statements such as: "The problem is that if users are not tracked, then websites cannot deliver targeted advertising." This statement is just wrong if you hold to even a very lax scientific standard. The logical connections that he makes are threadless: DNT will lead to collapse of the internet.
The article reminds me of the type of absurd argument that high school policy debaters put forth. But at least in that case, those high schoolers are forced to find facts to support their claims.
Browsers need to fix tracking, like they did for popups and malware sites. Aggressive technical measures can bring tracking networks in line. Tracking networks pay popular websites to include their crap and then sell the data they collect. Make it a pain for websites that include 300 tracking networks and we'll be attacking the money.
At the very least browsers should:
* Lockdown the user-agent string
* Force plugins (like flash) to either not have cookies (or storage), or let the browser control any tracking
* Raise awareness by warning users when they are obviously being tracked
* Limit the number of cookies generated by visiting a single web page -- don't let one page lead to 300 cookies from hundreds of domains
Here's an idea: the browser won't download anything from any 3rd party domain, unless the primary website asserts responsibility for the 3rd party domain (either in source or headers). No website would want to take responsibility for an advertising network, much less a tracking network. Advertisers would be under enormous scrutiny to not track people, because their clients would be the ones getting sued.
Here's another idea: Mozilla runs it's own adblock-style blocking list. Companies would have to convince Mozilla they're not tracking people, and possible sign legal agreements to enforce it. Mozilla could simply block any site they don't think is acting honorably. If they collected info on 0 byte images they'd know most of the worst players right away.
Another idea: browsers could auto-change identities every 10 minutes; like switching to a new profile. If cookies from active tabs were saved it would eliminate 80% of the problems without the user having to do anything.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
Run Noscript and Better Privacy. Set cookies to be accepted and then deleted when the browser closes. Set Better Privacy to delete flash and other more persistent tracking tags when the browser closes. Only enable javascript temporarily on pages you really want to see -- most of the time I'll see the page is not usable without javascript and just close that window. Want to serve me a click through ad? Fine, I'll just close that window. There isn't a page on the internet that I need to see, and I certainly don't care to visit one that wants to jam adverts down my throat. And yet I just bought some more stuff from a Google-served unobtrusive text ad the other day. If Google can appeal to someone as ad-hostile as I am, is it any wonder they're doing so well when everyone else is apparently circling the drain?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If Mr Castro is willing to send me daily updates on his personal life I might reconsider my stance on tracking by default. If not, it's DNT+, AdBlock and NoScript for me..
Just set your browser to only have session cookies. Why this big DNT thing?
Or do people think even that is too much? How will you even log in?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
What's funny is that DNT doesn't say "Don't send me advertisements.". They're just throwing a tantrum, threatening to take all their toys and go home if they can't do absolutely anything they want any time they want. I say treat 'em like you'd treat the other 2-year-old on the playground who does that: shrug and go play with everybody else and their toys. Ain't worth puttin' up with the brat's drama.
Do we live in a free society or what?
If you are vegetarians, don't eat in a restaurant that doesn't serve vegetarian dishes.
Some non-vegetarian restaurants may indulge your preference and prepare a special dish for you, but don't think you are entitled to this favor.
The same goes for privacy preferences, and preferences for other features (more security, more storage, more content, etc.).
I think it is great that browsers (and apps and OSes) are adding capabilities to communicate user preferences (I just wish the DNT flag's meaning would actually be defined before it is implemented). But it is silly and destructive to want to force service providers to abide by them.
If lots of users have a given preference, services will seek ways of serving that need economically and competitively.
One proposal that I think would work for many websites would be to charge people for removing ads or removing tracking or removing data collection. Ads are the source of revenue for many free (0 dollars) services that we enjoy, and targeted ads command a premium, the service provider has to find a way to offset the revenue loss if the service is to remain available.
Do you see other workable proposals?
Anyways, it's great that some websites choose to stand their ground and make the deal clear to their users. We don't give you our content unless you agree to this deal.
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
From the ITIF website... "It is my hope that with this alert ITIF will be able to remind people how easy it would be for sites to block users who enable Do Not Track..." I really can't see any website that makes direct revenue from users would block access. Would Amazon block me if I have DNT enabled? Would they risk losing a sale on that new plasma TV over $0.03 of indirect revenue. Sure, the Amazon example is a bit extreme but seriously. I can't see any legitimate website blocking a user, and possible direct revenue stream (subscribing to, or buying from, etc) just because they are running plugins. Is the corporate world really that insane? Have they totally forgot in the long run we are the customer and ultimately the revenue stream. Can't they see that now matter how many ads they force on us if no one is looking THERE'S NO MONEY?!?!
Well, adblock OTOH can work way more fine tuned, e.g. it can block only specific url pattern, as sites have started to offer unwanted content on the same hostname that the wanted content is hosted.
My personal combination is NoScript, Adblock+ and Ghostery.
Btw, Windows 8 hosts file are automatically reseted by the system, and using some binary that I would have to run in wine to edit /etc/hosts sounds fishy to me.
You switch from Free (as in speech) to free (as in beer) halfway through your post, greatly weakening your point. The creation of all of that software was not free. It was, in fact, very expensive. People paid for it for various reasons: altruism, idealism, and, yes, to make a profit. Not to mention that the physical infrastructure, without which none of that software would matter, was (and is) very, very costly.
That's not to say I agree with ITIF's statement regarding DNT. DNT requests should be honored (although I don't think sites should be forced to serve those who select DNT). But I have no problem with sites advertising. In fact, I'm glad of it, because it means I've got access to Google, Slashdot, the Washington Post, many webcomics, and hundreds of other sites that probably would not exist otherwise.
I'm glad other sites can get by without advertising. Wikipedia survives on donations and not advertising (except for the self-advertising on the site), and so do a couple of my other daily-read sites. But I'd lose access to a lot of information without web ads.
All the major browser manufacturers--Microsoft, Google, Apple, Opera, and Mozilla--need to retaliate by blocking the ITIF. Block all their domains and all their IP addresses. Hardcode it into the source code; don't export the blocking to any configuration files. For the open-source browsers, they should obfuscate the blocking code and tightly integrate it into the rendering engine (which will also be obfuscated) so you'll need to be a certified genius in order to remove the blocking without completely breaking the rendering engine.
Well, it appears they don't know about Adblock plus.
And this is me adding them to my hosts file:
0.0.0.0 [tab] www.itif.org [enter]
Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.itif.org.
Other sites similarly "standing on principle" in regards to this in a similar way will also be added and I encourage everyone to deep-six in whatever means seems convenient.
It's as if there was nobody making money through advertising before tracking.
--
BMO
Use TOR.... NOW!
I'll feel as bad as I did for SCO or whOracle.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
For Windows users:
http://www.funkytoad.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=31
Thats like requiring coffee cups to be labeled with: caution hot.
Anyone, who has a brain knows that coffee that just came out of the machine is hot.
It just seems that in the US, you cannot expect common sense.
DNT is just another similar thing.
US made standard: "i just sent you data, but you may not use it".
US folks will follow it and sue each other for ignoring this header.
The rest of the world is sitting, watching, eating popcorn and laughting their asses off on how there seems to be no common sense at all in the US.
How dare you try to make money!
Filthy capitalist scum!
Maybe we can start a blackhole list for domains that don't honor DNT the way it was designed? Maybe in the form of an addition list for AdBlock?
Screw the ITIF. You can advertise on the internet without tracking users and milking them for information and statistics. How can they claim it will hurt the economic foundation of something that isn't a business in the first place (the internet)? They're missing the forest though. Revenue comes from clicks, not from tracking users. I don't know of anybody who clicks on web site ads anyway- I use the goog if I want to find information on something, buy something, whatever. I'm not going to click on a web site ad. That's like trusting the adverts in the back pages of a tabloid magazine to "increase your sexual potency", let you "lose weight overnight" or "how to tell which Nigerian emails aren't fake".
I'm a bit torn on this, actually.
Without a doubt, the guy is wrong on multiple levels.
First, advertisement is not the foundation of the Internet, there are plenty of sites that are ad-free. I run a few. They are either commercial according to a non-ad model, or they are done by people who simply love doing them, or they are supported by donations, or, or, or... there are lots of models and that's one of the beauties of it all. He is diminishing the variety and creativity of the Internet by claiming everything needs ads.
Two, it's Do Not TRACK, it is not Do Not Advertise. People who have DNT enabled can still be shown ads, you just can't treat them like cattle and mark every step they take. You could still run ads on them, just not the ones you so desperately want (because they pay the best).
However, denying service with a message is actually the right step to take. It is much, much better than silently ignoring the DNT flag. I applaud him for having the balls to stand up for his opinion instead of doing the sleazy thing.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Who pays for the local connection to the Internet? The users, though their ISP, telco, or cable bill.
Who pays for the backbone? The users, through their ISP's payments to the backbone companies?
Who pays for hosting? Every business with a web site of their own. Most ISP customers even get a free web site with their account. Commercial hosting services start at $4 per month.
Who pays for online shopping? The people who buy from the sellers? Amazon doesn't really need to run ads outside Amazon.
Who pays for eBay? The buyers?
Who pays for Netflix? The subscribers.
Who pays for search? AltaVista was originally a demo for DEC Alpha computers. DuckDuckGo and Bleeko cost about $30 million to $50 million to run. Most Google employees are ad sales reps. It really only takes about 100 people to run a search engine company. Add search to your ISP account for $2 a month? That was Google's original business plan.
Without ads, we'd lose Facebook. No great loss. Myspace, which is mostly paid for by bands, would still be around. Twitter would be replaced by IRC or something like it. Social services would be handled by some peer to peer system. You'd host your photos on your ISP-provided web site.
I guess I'll just have to give up on the free content, services, and apps available on the Internet gee suks to be me.
It should be a prominent enable button. However, AdBlockPlus has the right idea: let the users decide if they want advertising, and let them decide if they want to allow tracking.
It is telling, though, that when I install ABP on a less-technical user's computer, I hear no complaints -- nobody seems to miss all that advertising. Perhaps website operators should take a hint.
Palm trees and 8
Another piss weak right wing dummy spit.
The world does not exist purely for your profit, douchebag.
A "Do not track" flag on a browser is like putting top-secret info on a billboard with a "do not read" banner above it. You must deny them the information but that makes the browsing experience much more difficult.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What do you suggest to use instead then? Someone ought to fork Ghostery and call it something else (obviously)
As a UK citizen, I send do-not-track headers to sites in the vague hope that it might make them stop showing me ridiculous EU-mandated cookie warning notices.
Without DNT, there are several cookie notice scenarios:
If the user has enabled Do-Not-Track, the site can, theoretically, choose not to display a cookie notice, because the user has implicitly denied the use of cookies for the purposes that require a cookie notice. I don't think I've seen this happen in practice, though.
When I see an ad on TV or hear one on radio, or even read one in print media, the advertiser has no idea who I am.
You do not need to TRACK someone to display ads. Do Not Track does not mean Do Not Advertise.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
There. Problem solved. Can't serve up ads to me without tracking me, even when I ask not to be tracked? Then no ads for you at all.
I think you each have valid views, but the issue as I see it, isn't quite what either of your points are about.
It's the sense of entitlement.
Some folks seem to think that because they create content, or enable others to create content, on the internet, that they are entitled to make money.
(Sounds like some people from the music industry.)
You can try to make money, or don't try to make money. But if you are trying, and fail, don't blame anyone else, and don't bitch and moan that we're a bunch of no-gooders ruining your fun because we don't want you looking over our shoulders and following us around recording what we do.
Not sure who decided the internet population is there to provide income. It's not.
I'm pretty sure if I was standing following one of these people around all day in 'the real world' taking video and notes of everything they did, they would be pretty upset. And when I said "You have to let me, I am making money doing this," I doubt that would make them okay with it.
At least in the real world, when someone is peeking in your windows, or reading over your shoulder, sooner or later you'll notice them, and possibly have them charged. Why is it different on the internet? Because most people can't see you snooping around, it's okay?
You may joke about Slashdot editors, but actually, editing user-submitted articles is not necessarily something people need to be paid to do. Many scientific journals are edited by volunteers, and really, why shouldn't a website that people read for the user comments (like Slashdot) be run by volunteers? Users are already moderators on Slashdot, and we have metamoderation to help cope with the miscreants who manage to get mod points.
Palm trees and 8
Just destroying the ad-funded free content sites.
Sorry, if your site needs to track me without permission, consume all my CPU time with ads, and annoy the hell out of me, all just to stay afloat, then you are doing things wrong. If those ad funded sites do not respect their users, then why should their users respect them?
You see, the point of DNT was to give those poor, ad-funded websites a chance to redeem themselves, a chance to respect their users. The other option is to just have ad blocking enabled by default, just like popup blocking is enabled by default. Should DNT fail, should it not be respected by the advertisers, then the browser makers have only one choice, if they do actually care about their users: including ad blocking as a feature, not an add-on, and let users opt-in to advertising if they want it.
Of course, there are plenty of other reasons to install ABP, like the fact that advertisers like to place hover ads over the text you are trying to read, or the fact that modern web ads have this tendency to spin your CPU for no apparent reason. Again, if website operators respected their users, this would not be happening and nobody would have bothered with ABP.
The ball is in the advertisers court; they can decide if they want to respect us, or if they want to face a world of ad blocking and technological arms race.
Palm trees and 8
"Advertising revenue supports most of the free content, services, and apps available on the Internet"
Useless crap like yours. Do not track fricking pages not updated in 20 years crud would be nice to have all gone.
Adblock plus baby, Delete cookies after I close firefox baby nice automatic setting.
You still get nothing If I have to close firefox every time I change web sites I will.
No, his argument holds completely if you only take 'free' to mean 'free as in beer'.
That much of the free stuff is also free is just a bonus.
I would rather not give any money to people driving this type of frame of ideology for the internet.
That's one more site I need to stay away from, I'm glad that they are self-flagging.
I hope that all similar sites follow their awesome lead, it provides a wonderful signalling mechanism.
I hardly need to do any work at all if they would all just do that.
It would be like the 'evil bit" made manifest.
I wish that were the case...
"Advertising revenue supports most of the free content, services, and apps available on the Internet."
So they've essentially admitted their advertising-supported model is a complete and total failure, since it cannot work without violating our privacy.
I get exactly the same effect with my Hosts file and for those that don't understand how they work, it's pretty god damn simple. I never make the connection to the god damn server - no ad/malware or other crap to see. As to updating the damn thing every week? I don't do that. That's why I also use Noscript and I look at what scripts are being blocked. If any ads make it through, I'll cut and paste into my plain text editor the obnoxious site. Works quite well for me. Yes I do see the random ad but now that my hosts file is configured, I rarely see them as I'm not surfing all over the net anymore and into the god damn underbelly.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
That screed clearly shows that they don't understand the difference between "do not track" and "do not advertise".
If a so-called "think tank" doesn't understand a concept that simple, then it's quite safe to assume that their postings aren't worth my time to read.
I think this website has got something confused. DNT and advertizements are different things. DNT says that i don't want targeted adds, i definitely don't want Google or any other tracking business knowing how often I look at porn. I especially don't want to see a add for penis enlargement at work the day after. And I wouldn't mind the occasional ad, if... they weren't so intrusive or personal. For example, some websites place adds over every inch of white space on the page, if your using a tablet then that means that if you click off to the side to scroll then you suddenly clicked on a website you never wanted to visit. Advertizements have gone overboard, and people like the ones at Think Tank deserve a reprimand for their practices.
Now, even if I wanted some of Think Tank's products they just lost my business. There is a thing called respect, and if a business can't respect the consumers wishes then they get crossed off the list of places where that consumer visits. Hope they tank after this. (pun intended)
There is a reason i have ghostery and adblockplus installed, if these sites were just more moral about their uses of technology i wouldn't need these tools.
"I get exactly the same effect with my Hosts file" - by fast turtle (1118037) on Sunday September 30, @03:00PM (#41507585)
Excellent - You get better:
1.) Speed/Bandwidth
2.) "Layered-Security"/"Defense-In-Depth"
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or dns-poisoned redirected dns servers)
4.) Anonymity (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL)
5.) MULTI-PLATFORM ability to do the same (think smartphones, you can apply hosts there too)
6.) MORE EFFICIENT OPERATIONS (ring 0/rpl 0/kernelmode filtering @ THE IP STACK LEVEL, vs. ring 3/rpl 3/usermode layered on MORE INEFFICIENCY in browser addons)
7.) The ability to SHIELD OTHER APPLICATIONS from ads & threats (I used to do this using hosts for Opera before it was freewares, & Ubuntu users can do the same now (since part of it's adbanner sponsored now)
& FAR MORE... good choice on YOUR part, but... there's more you can do with hosts than merely adblocking (read on)!
---
"and for those that don't understand how they work, it's pretty god damn simple." - by fast turtle (1118037) on Sunday September 30, @03:00PM (#41507585)
They are, & SIMPLER than editing adblock lists, that is certain... hosts are just a text file with line records you can add/remove/alter etc. as you wish with tools you already own in text editors, but also for more?
Well, you can use the app I wrote that I posted about earlier... there's a reason I am noting this, since you are NOT USING custom hosts files TO THEIR FULL POTENTIAL!
Seriously...
(The app handles filtering them vs. comments & other bloating crap hosts files makers put in (they mean well, it's usually documentation, except MVPS which puts WAY TOO MUCH B.S. in theirs), importing hosts data from reputable & reliable sources, deduplication of hosts repeat bloating entries + making the hosts use a MORE EFFICIENT parse by using smaller blocking addresses (0.0.0.0 vs. 127.0.0.1)... & more!
---
"I never make the connection to the god damn server - no ad/malware or other crap to see. " - by fast turtle (1118037) on Sunday September 30, @03:00PM (#41507585)
"EXACTAMUNDO" & that?
That also EXTENDS TO MALWARE LADEN SITES/SERVERS/HOSTS-DOMAINS as well as adbanners!
So - that's where you aren't using hosts to their FULL potential here (as well as the fact you can "hardcode in" your FAVORITE SITES into it, making them resolve even FASTER than remote DNS can do!)
My "APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++" does all that for you, & "automagically" IF YOU WISH (it has the option to run automatically)...
If you opt NOT to use my app? Here's the sources I import from for your reference:
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
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.blogspot.com/
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://www.stopbadware.org/
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)
---
"As to updating the damn thing every week? I don't do that." - by fast turtle (1118037) on Sunday September 30, @03:00PM (#41507585)
Well, per what I wrote above? Vs. mal
I apply my "do not visit" technology.
Problem solved.
Often there's only room for one community in a particular space
Indeed; sci.crypt on Usenet comes to mind. Funny how nobody can "lose interest" in "running" sci.crypt, because no single person is responsible for running it.
Maybe the model of the web is just not the right model for an online community. Maybe a peer-to-peer model is better. We could build it right into web browsers if we were willing to, and create a better way to run obscure, low-budget blogs and forums. Of course, we would first need to convince browser makers that the only people whose interests matter is their users, which seems like an uphill battle (after all, if browser makers cared about user interests, DNT would not have been created; we would have just made ABP a standard feature).
Palm trees and 8
If you are only going to allow people to visit your website when it turns a profit for you, why not skip the technological arms race entirely and just use this "new" idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paywall
Oh, what, you are worried that all those people who run blogs at no cost to their users and without advertising might run you out of business? Sounds like you are the one with an entitlement problem in that case...
Palm trees and 8
Time for our friends at Anonymous to teach these pinheads the error of their ways! :rolleyes:
Mr. Kowalski (APK),
Your insistent and frequent posts urging people to use your program come across creepy. Please reconsider your method.
That said, I'm interested in learning more about whether hosts file manipulation is a good way to address (if only in part) web malware, ads, tracking, and botnet C&Cs. It's an intriguing idea, but my intuition balks at it. I'm trying to figure out why. Could be that what feels wrong is that it feels like a "dysemantism", a utilization at odds with the purpose of the file. Do you have any comment on this idea?
since i really do not want Any Co tracking my every movement online if you as a company do not honor a Do Not Track request then i will block every ad i can (which btw also includes blocking tracking servers).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Especially on my posts on hosts files benefits to user of them:
---
* THE HOSTS FILE GROUP 37++ THUSFAR (from +5 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):
BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274
APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128
HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952
HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066
HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584
HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850
HOSTS and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450
HOSTS & PROTECT IP ACT:2011 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700
HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457766&cid=37592458
HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comment
would I even be visiting TIF's website anyway?
Vs. the facts I posted, then you failed...
APK
P.S.=> TO WHOEVER DOWNMODDED MY POST (you cowardly worm):
I'll take on ANYONE regarding what I posted here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154101&cid=41506583
Disprove the points I posted there... go for it, just so I can SMOKE you, easily!
(and, I'll win, because I always do & have for YEARS now on /. + other spots online)
Since just like here? In the end, my "naysayer detractors" are FORCED into UNJUSTIFIABLE DOWNMODS, or off-topic illogical attempts @ ad hominem attacks in 'effete retaliation' etc./et al in their defeat vs. facts I use!
... apk
Fuck You.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Having once borrowed a MS employee's company laptop, I can confirm that they do use free software at work. FileZilla was the one I remember.
GPL'd porn? I sense a Kickstarter idea forming... or perhaps a Humble Porno Bundle? Take my money!
Do you think Google would exist if they had to pay an expensive Unix license for every machine they own?
Do you think Google would exist without the revenue from delivering highly targeted eyeballs to advertisers?
It's important to avoid false dichotomy here. It's not Free Software or Ad Revenue. It's both. Both are necessary to produce the kind of Internet we have now. Granted if there were no ad revenue, but free software, there'd be an Internet, but not like the one we have now. It might be a *better* Internet, but it's safe to say most of us enjoy sites and services which wouldn't exist without ads.
Now as to ad revenue vs do not track, that's another false dichotomy, but not quite a black-and-white one. Clearly there would be ad revenue if all sites were mandated to honor Do Not Track, but it wouldn't be as much. That means less of some ad supported services many of us use. On the other hand, there are very good reasons for some (although not necessarily all) people not to want to be tracked.
It seems to me that websites should honor Do Not Track. But Will Not Serve *does* honor Do Not Track. Although the site in question doesn't actually see it this way, I actually believe Will Not Serve is the right way to handle Do Not Track. It forces both the user and the site administrator to think about the costs and benefits of their policy. The user loses access to some services, but he gains privacy. If the loss is too much, he can change his mind. Likewise the site owners lose users and revenue when they kick people out. I doubt site owners will find it more profitable to turn away customers, but it's their right to do so if the decision is made on the basis of some customers being unprofitable to serve.
I like handling it this way because it makes people *think* about their knee-jerk reactions. In the end though I think ITIF is tilting at windmills. The Internet works on the financial equivalent of the Law of Large Numbers; call it the Law of Many Users. If you have a large enough user base, you can always find a way to monetize that. It's like copy protection in the late 80s. Yes, it stopped *some* piracy, possibly even *most* of the piracy that *might* have occurred. But it alienated paying, legitimate customers and most firms found they could grow *that* group faster by serving them better.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
IF & when all you have is UNJUSTIFIABLE downmods? You fail... you know it, I KNOW IT, and anyone else reading with 1/2 a brain does as well!
* I don't even WONDER who did it, since it can only be 1 of 3 types of people, trying to suppress truths...
APK
P.S.=> Keep blowing your modpoints, you'll run dry of them sooner or later, & then? I win again anyhow... as usual!
... apk
Appears couchslug didn't like that, modded you down and ran.
Downmodding my post & running isn't much of a discussion (and you avoided my questions too)...
* Still, since I have said it to others downmodding my posts here? You've made MY points, for me, with unjustifiable downmods with NO valid technical substance behind them as regards this topic in computing... thanks!
APK
P.S.=> After all, a rational discussion is ALL I asked for here from you, in regards to our exchange here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3153677&cid=41508827
... apk
Downmods of the post can't affect his post other than proving apk right. It's not like you can hide it either. There are many of us that browse beneath the slashdot default moderation level.
I thought stuff cost money. Sad but a true story.
If your site is that good, ask your users/site visitors to contribute. If they don't, obviously no one cares enough about your precious site, so bye-bye and no one will miss you.
Your complaint about parasite is like complaining that the farmers are using CO2 YOU breathed out to make money growing plants.
Who, precisely, is demanding you make content available over the internet? Nobody.
If you wish to monetise your work, don't give it away free. Ask for subscriptions and make a login page for subscribers.
Well, they asked for it, adblocking them all then.
Oh, and guess what, if the industry can't regulate itself the government is waiting in the wings to jump in and do it for them. And, then they'll have real trouble.
"Yes, you win" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, @08:05AM (#41511889)
Thank you for realizing that in the end when you run out of modpoints to downmod my posts with, I DO WIN...
---
"the prize for the most boring, pompous, tedious, self-promoting bag of wind in the world. " - by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, @08:05AM (#41511889)
At least I have something to "promote", unlike a "ne'er-do-well" like yourself... lol!
---
"Your prize is also your punishment - to be condemned to be *you* (shudder...) for the rest of your life." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, @08:05AM (#41511889)
LMAO - It's FAR BETTER THAN BEING YOU, that's certain: You're a trolling off-topic cowardly "ne'er-do-well" worm that stalks others by ac posts and downmods others for no valid reasons on the subject @ hand!
APK
P.S.=> Troll, face it: YOU WISH YOU WERE ME...
... apk
"Last time I tried the hosts file trick, which was several years ago, I kept getting bombarded with annoying "Document Contains No Data" pop ups every time something got rerouted to 127.0.0.1 - That pretty much made Web browsing impossible. Is there a way to suppress that error?" -
QUESTION: What webbrowser do you use, and, what addons for it?
* The reason I ask is, if it's Internet Explorer, it's the LEAST "amenable", afaik, but it NEVER put up popups in regards to using hosts files - however, it does leave placeholder frames for ads though, which I never liked since other browsers don't!
(Now, on popups? IE does for JavaScript/ActiveScripting though too, more of what YOU describe & IT IS A PAIN, that NO OTHER BROWSER does).
APK
P.S.=> Strange part is, as far as my speculation? Well, here, on IE9?? I get no such problem... but, answer the question above, & we'll go from there!
The reason I note this is pretty simple: There are nearly 70 folks on /. alone that use custom hosts (that I know of @ least, there are probably FAR more) & none complained of what you claim to have... I'll try help though!
... apk
I've been looking for a way to automatically screen out sites overdependent on advertising revenue, this looks like a perfect method to do so-- turn on do-not-track and they won't do business with me-- what more could I ask for?
"they're".
I haven't downmodded you. I don't have points at the moment, and I'm posting in this forum, which means the system would deny me mods of any kind.
I don't contest the "FACTS" of what you're posting. It's how you're posting that concerns me.
A hosts file solution may be a good idea or it may not be. I haven't decided (so don't tell me others disagree). I can't get to discussing the particulars of the technique to make a case either way because your behavior — not your arguments — your behavior is making me concerned.
How about this? How about I try using hosts, but I'll do so in trade with you. If you take fish oil (or vegetarian omega-3 supplement), I'll try hosts.
You assume that advertising will go away as DNT is implemented. This greatly weakens your point. DNT merely prevents advertising to be targeted through invasive tracking. Other forms of advertising, such as advertising based on the subject matter of the website one visits - similar to having a billboard for a hotel placed along the interstate - is perfectly fine.
However having my car track which places i most likely drive to, and then placing an ad on my windshield for a hotel while im driving to the grocery store, is not.
to clarify, "the website one is visiting." I expect to see an advertisement for an aquarium store when visiting plantedtank, that is the decision of the forum owner and is just a graphic on the page. i dont expect to have advertisements for aquarium stores when visiting cnn because through tracking cookies cnn knows i spend too much time reading about aquarium plants.
"A hosts file solution may be a good idea or it may not be. I haven't decided (so don't tell me others disagree)." - by Onymous Coward (97719) on Monday October 01, @01:14PM (#41515185) Homepage
I didn't tell you that: 65++ other slashdotters did, along with a security expert from SYMANTEC, + myself too, of course!
See here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154101&cid=41508399
(I let OTHERS "do the talking for me..." in your peers, & "experts" (for whatever that means)).
---
"I can't get to discussing the particulars of the technique to make a case either way because your behavior â" not your arguments â" your behavior is making me concerned." - by Onymous Coward (97719) on Monday October 01, @01:14PM (#41515185) Homepage
Well, fine: ASK WHATEVER YOU WISH, I will answer, point-by-point vs. your questions... ok?
---
"I haven't downmodded you." - by Onymous Coward (97719) on Monday October 01, @01:14PM (#41515185) Homepage
I actually DO believe you... not sarcasm either!
---
"I don't have points at the moment" - by Onymous Coward (97719) on Monday October 01, @01:14PM (#41515185) Homepage
LMAO - THAT'S BECAUSE YOU SPENT THEM DOWNMODDING ME (now, that's sarcasm)...
---
"and I'm posting in this forum, which means the system would deny me mods of any kind." - by Onymous Coward (97719) on Monday October 01, @01:14PM (#41515185) Homepage
Perhaps I ought not tell you this, but I wager you KNOW how it's done anyhow:
1.) Downmod
2.) Logout of your registered user account
3.) Troll away as ac
* Doing so preserves your cookie state, & thus, "karma points" (which I guess GETS YOU MOD POINTS, I don't have a reg'd 'luser' account here, so there you are).
Of course - there's also ALWAYS the route of MULTIPLE REGISTERED ACCOUNTS here too, for sockpuppets to do the job for you as well (and to mod yourself up with too).
It's not a joke - I caught tomhudson (long gone now after I caught them doing it & other 'troll tricks' - hasn't been seen on /. since Mid may) doing 2 accounts here: One is tomhudson, the other is "Barbara, not Barbie".
---
"I don't contest the "FACTS" of what you're posting. It's how you're posting that concerns me." - by Onymous Coward (97719) on Monday October 01, @01:14PM (#41515185) Homepage
I post the way I do, & that's that... "oh, well!"
---
"How about this? How about I try using hosts, but I'll do so in trade with you. If you take fish oil (or vegetarian omega-3 supplement), I'll try hosts." - by Onymous Coward (97719) on Monday October 01, @01:14PM (#41515185) Homepage
I eat fish nearly every day, & I don't NEED fish oil man (had a co-worker who was losing his hair that needed it, & one thing I have a TON of, is hair (ponytail nowadays in fact))...
APK
P.S.=> Again - ask what you want to, or make whatever points you wish, & we'll discuss them... fair enough? I've done it SO MANY TIMES, especially vs. "naysayers" here on /. alone, it's NOT even funny - however, perhaps YOU may raise points they haven't, & that can only make ME, stronger for it...
... apk
"P.S.=> Again - ask what you want to, or make whatever points you wish, & we'll discuss them... fair enough? I've done it SO MANY TIMES, especially vs. "naysayers" here on /. alone, it's NOT even funny - however, perhaps YOU may raise points they haven't, & that can only make ME, stronger for it..." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, @01:38PM (#41515525)
Well?
* I don't care if you use custom hosts or not, that's up to you ultimately, of course, but... I am more than WILLING to help 'dispel any bogus notions' about them to you, IF you have any that are, that is!
APK
P.S.=>
"You might consider cutting back on the fish. Contaminants are a concern, things like PCBs, dioxins, and mercury. I recommend omega-3 supplements for brain health." -
I get the phosphorus I need for "brain health" & what-not out of STRAIGHT fish (I love it in fact, always have) - I don't know if you know this or not, but - a LOT of supplements are constructed of molecules that are TOO "strongly bound" for the human digestive process enzymes & acids to extract, + take advantage of (sure, the "organics" might not be that way, but why should I bother IF/WHEN I am eating the food that has it, & IT TASTES GREAT TOO?)...
Anyhow, like I said quoting myself above? Have @ it, ask what you wish on hosts files...
... apk
(Disclaimer: I used to work for a large newspaper in the online advertising department)
The cost to advertisers for running a print ad depends upon a number of things (day-of-week, ad size, section, placement [above/below the fold], etc.), but also the perceived value. One of the numbers papers live and die by are the audited circulation numbers. This is what they then turn around and say to the advertisers: run a full-page in the A section on Sunday, and you'll get your ad in front of ___ (1,000s) of people!
Advertisers believed they were getting value for the money, and all was good. Until the interwebs did two things:
Suddenly, online advertising didn't look like such a great deal at all. And as the print circulation numbers went into their death-spiral, the papers had nowhere to turn. Their revenues from online aren't enough to keep just the online part running, let alone the rest of the deal.
Partially to blame is the calcified mentality that Print Is King and online is "for kids." The other thing is the executives refused to believe their business model was dead, that their news distribution model was dead (who wants to read yesterday's news today?) and their management style (top-down) was dead.
They thought the iPad would save them (that's why newspaper apps require a 'subscription' -- they're still in that mentality).
They look on with envy at Huffington Post (ugh) and Daily Beast (puke) -- two successful online "news" organizations that are doing what they can't: make sufficient money on line.
Basically, they're dead dinos. It will take nothing short of a complete reboot (i.e., fire everyone VP/General Manager or above) to get them going again, maybe.
Yeah, right.
How hard can it be??? If a person has "do not track" set then don't show any content to the user... If they don't have it enabled allow them to visit the page...
This will then get users to decide what sites they want to visit and sites can decide what users they want to get... Either the value of the non "do not track" users will go up or they might even realize that the value of the users is the same if they have it on or off...
Or maybe they will come up with some new tech where a user, anonymously, can select different areas that they are interested in when viewing pages and then get ads related to that...
Fair enough - just trying to help (and also learn too @ the same time)...
I find it odd that a Linux did that, & here's why:
Linux is actually SUPERIOR with hosts files!
Man... that's right, I said it (superior to Windows, & in 2 respects):
---
1.) Linux HAS no faulty-with-large hosts files issues like Windows local DNS clientside cache service does (flakes out on big hosts files, as it loads into a statically sized cache structure afaik as the cause...)
2.) Linux STILL supports using the smallest, fastest blocking IP address there is -> 0
---
(1 byte long per record in hosts, rather than the 0.0.0.0 7 digit length one, which is more "compatible" with OS out there, but longer, & CERTAINLY better than the local loopback adapter address of 127.0.0.1 which can incur a "loopback" speed penalty IF the loopback's installed on Windows!)
* That latter one PISSED ME OFF, since I got a Senior MS VP (of the "Windows Client Performance Division" no less) to ADMIT I am correct on it... why?
Well... here's why:
REPORTED TO MICROSOFT by APK here ->
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true&PageIndex=3#comments
As well as here on www.slashdot.org to a Richard Russell who posts as FOREDECKER there (he is a senior VP at Microsoft and leader of the "Windows Client Performance Division" there) and he conceded my points on HOSTS files also:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918
APK
P.S.=> What pissed me of is that NOBODY THERE did a DAMN THING to put it back into Windows, VISTA onwards (which VISTA used to be able to use it prior to MS "Patch Tuesday" 12/09/2008 iirc)... i.e.-> They promoted "bloat"!
I even inquired IF there was a security issue as to WHY it was done, but IF there was? Then, why does Linux STILL ALLOW 0 as a valid blocking IP Address then??
Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 can still use 0 though as a valid "blocking IP address" though... how much of a diff. does it make, to ME, personally here?
---
Using 127.0.0.1 with my custom hosts file (1,845,285 blocking entries):
54, 544kb in size
Using 0.0.0.0 with my custom hosts file (1,845,285 blocking entries):
50,940kb in size
Using 0 with my custom hosts file (1,845,285 blocking entries):
40,127kb in size
---
See my point? There's NO WAY AROUND IT, even if the OS reads by "blocks" at the diskdriver device level or filesystem logical level:
Programs that use hosts (DNS clienside cache OR the IP stack prior to caching is even worse) STILL have to parse the file interior, & LARGER FILES TAKE LONGER, period...
... apk
'Advertising revenue supports most of the free content, services, and apps available on the Internet.'
False dichotomy/strawman. Who is saying 'don't advertise'? TV was/is supported by advertising, and all without creepy snooping. Is he deliberately doing this or is he really that stupid?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It kills ads, online threats, and gives ya more speed http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154101&cid=41507295
Plus, known maliciously scripted sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malwares, adbanners, & more... far, Far, FAR more in fact!
(To YOUR BENEFIT as the end user of them)
* You MAY want to read this, as you might find it informative:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154101&cid=41506583
(REPOSTING THIS SINCE SOME JACKASS "GETS HIS JOLLIES" DOWNMODDING MY POSTS, but never manages to validly disprove or dispute my points & claims in them... typical weak trolls!)
APK
P.S.=> I still use AdBlock (along with NoScript, firewall rules tables, WOT, plus custom hosts files), but only for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" really, since hosts files are so far superior to other methods like browser addons in many a way shown in that link above by doing things AdBlock just plain can't...
... apk