Slashdot Mirror
5 Years Later, 'Do Not Track' System Ineffective
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from ComputerWorld:
"In 2009, a few Internet privacy advocates developed an idea that was supposed to give people a way to tell websites they don't want to be monitored as they move from website to website. The mechanism, which would eventually be built into all the major browsers, was called Do Not Track. ... But today, DNT hangs by a thread, neutered by a failure among stakeholders to reach agreement. Yes, if you turn it on in your browser, it sends a signal in the form of an HTTP header to Web companies' servers. But it probably won't change what data they collect. That's because most websites either don't honor DNT — it's currently a voluntary system — or they interpret it in different ways. Another problem — perhaps the biggest — is that Web companies, ad agencies and the other stakeholders have never reached agreement on what "do not track" really means."
You can't trust ad agencies even if it was spelled out in law. There are always parties who just don't care about anything but making money.
If you want to not be tracked use some anonymizing technologies.
I bought an mp3 on Amazon, went to facebook on the same tab before closing my browser, and found an ad for the same song had slipped through adblocker.
Also: water: wet. Sky: blue. Rob Ford: drunk and high.
More at 11.
"Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want."
Don't care. I don't see any ads, 'wanted' or not.
Adblock+Ghostery+a Refererblocker works for me.
I use a script blocker and am testing out EFF's Privacy Badger: https://www.eff.org/privacybad...
I feel pretty well about my privacy from private enterprises, and luckily I have nothing to hide from the NSA.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
Said one CEO, "I thought it was for the NSA."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Another problem â" perhaps the biggest â" is that Web companies, ad agencies and the other stakeholders have never reached agreement on what "do not track" really means.
"Do not track" is dead because the meaning is so obvious that they couldn't find a way to gut its meaning while pretending to give it lip service.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Do not track"?
Everyone wants everything for free, and so there is advertising.
The entire idea of "do not track" was ludicrous.
Everyone wants their free lunches with no strings attached, but there will always be strings.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want.
If only they weren't lying. I don't want _any_ of the ads.
Right now, most geeks think of advertising as bad things, because they hate the ads served to them as geeks are a horrible audience demographic. They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.
No -- that's certainly not why people buy newspapers, except for those people who just want the coupon section (which is generally segregated from the rest of the paper). Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?
As for magazines, there are some which clearly seem to be able the ads -- particularly style magazines and such. Mostly it's something to allow people to drool over clothes and other luxury fashion items they can't afford (or could barely afford). But yeah -- SOME magazines seem to be bought for the ads.
Many others, however, like ones focused on news or politics or science or literature or whatever, are definitely not about the ads. At best, they're a minor annoyance that readers put up with -- very few people buy a copy of Scientific American or The New Yorker for the ads. In some cases, like trade magazines or foodie magazines, the ads can be targeted better, so I can see how some people want that.
In any case, the point is that "in the real world" people do NOT want advertising incessantly. How many people prefer to watch TV with advertisements thrown in (other than as a break to go to the bathroom or get a sandwich)? If everybody did, there would be little reason for technology that allows you to record and fast forward through the commercials.
People are often happy to receive ads on their terms and when they want to receive them. They know what they're getting if they buy a newspaper for the coupon section or if they buy a magazine 90% full of photos of expensive designer clothing ads.
But "real everyday people" are just as annoyed by pop-up ads or random ad interjections getting in their way of accomplishing tasks as anyone else is. And, let's face it, that's what MOST of the advertising on the web is. If I want to buy something on the web, I go to a freakin' merchant site and browse for things. It's not like I have to go out and buy a magazine to show me ads for designer clothes, when I can just go to the websites of the companies that sell this stuff and see the stuff directly!
In sum -- yeah, sometimes people buy things that have ads when they want to see ads. But on the internet, people often just want to get tasks done too -- whether it's sending email via webmail or interacting on Facebook or whatever. I have NEVER EVER in my life heard a person say, "Gee -- I really love how Facebook keeps adding more ads to my newsfeed" or "I really wish that my webmail would have more pop-ups to get in my way when I'm trying to read a message."
HaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA In Europe, even if there is some degree of lipservice going on, there is some real teeth in a LAW. DNT was a joke from the start with nothing to back it up.
I certainly didn't figure this to work at all. I'm actually surprised that the "Do Not Call" list works as well as it does.
As for me, ABP, NoScript, BetterPrivacy and Ghostery seem to do the job well enough
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
I gave up on ghostery. they're not bad guys (they cannot be trusted).
use 'disconnect' instead.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Isn't this like that April Fools RFC?
Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want.
Do-not-track only means you're going to end up with ads you hate. It's not a "do-not-advertise". It's not going to stop ads at all.
Right now, most geeks think of advertising as bad things, because they hate the ads served to them as geeks are a horrible audience demographic. They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.
Besides, it's the website that decides how they want to treat their audience, not the viewer. The only thing the viewer can/should do is to not visit the website in the first place if they feel their usage rights are violated, and right now, no one is going to miss losing an audience demographic of geeks.
Completely disagree, there's a huge difference in what people are willing to --tolerate-- and what people do not want. The article is about these ads collecting data on you, and because of ignorance/arrogance no ones knows the extent of what they are collecting. Your notion of advertising is delusional, when it comes to a brick and mortar stores, yes people have interest in it, but the ads don't track your every move, you read them, throw them away.
It's the types of abuse collecting data can provide, pretty much a physiological, detailed profile of a person. And that isn't from logging in, creating an account then filling out all the attributes with your real life information on social sites, websites, credit/bank cards ect.. What they are doing really is no better then the NSA. And their proving to be another corporate industry that owns politicians, this should have been dealt with by them, and yet all we hear is about the NSA, but nothing about the companies who are doing the same and not being halted/punished for it.
In principle it's supposed to stop telemarketers from bugging you. But in reality you still get calls because companies that you are currently doing business with are allowed to solicit you. Companies lobbied Congress for a loophole and got it.
As long as Do Not Track is voluntary it will be ineffective.
Send a hot woman to walk naked in front of a frat house holding up a "do not take pics" sign and see if that works. Same idea.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.
That's like saying I buy Playboy for the articles. I NEVER bought magazines/newspapers for the ads; I bought them for the content.
"That's right...I said it."
Honoring a DNT would mean a high risk that sooner or later the majority of the page served would ask to not track. And that would have meant to return to the old day of "dumb" TV like advertising where they do only lknow statistically who is watching the ad, but not idnvidually. This would mean billions of $ of market evaporating.
From the get go advertised never intended to honor DNT, they simply slowed down any discussion and finally simply pulled excuse out of thin air to not honor it.
And the result is : thanks ghostery, noflash, adblock, and referer check.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Happily, the author is not connected to the ad industry: https://abine.com/donottrackme...
I buy Playboy just for the ads.
Of course, it's only to drool over the luxury centerfolds that I couldn't possibly afford.
Ive come to the conclusion that using ANYTHING in conjunction with adblock is a bad idea-- they seem to overlap and cause conflicts, and adblock already attempts to do the stuff that Ghostery / disconnect / etc do.
They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.
Wrong.
In the days before the World Wide Web existed I bought Computer Shopper magazine for the ads (the whole magazine was 95% ads). But that's the rare exception. People DO NOT want ads and they especially do not want the annoying, obnoxious ads that have become so prevalent.
The timing of this amuses me, given what I recently saw on Yahoo. They've updated their privacy policy to say they ignore DNT. But since marketing types have to spin everything, they bill it as:
Thank you Yahoo for caring about my experience! :P
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting tracking. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Trackers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop trackers for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from trackers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Trackeres don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of tracking
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with trackers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of trackers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Thanks Apache for being pretentious assholes and hard coding your web-server to ignore the do not track flag when sent by I.E.
Use RequestPolicy. It makes both AdBlock and Ghostery obsolete -- by referencing 3rd party servers on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. It might be a bit tedious to use the first time you visit a new website, but almost always it's obvious what needs to be unblocked.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?
You must be a youngun'. Back in the pre-web days there were magazines that were pretty much 100% ads. "Computer Shopper" was one. "Nuts & Volts" was 90% ads. The best part of PC Magazine was the page of tombstone ads at the very back of the magazine, often for some weird product from a garage start-up. I have bought many, many newspapers/magazines "just for the ads".
I told you so 5 years ago, but of course no one listened to me.
Too bad - this is precisely this kind of situation where hostfiles can represent a good technical measure to counteract tracking behavior. It's a shame that this particular piece of software is authored by an unreliable individual. While hostfiles are a valid and effective technical countermeasure to website tracking, the author of this particular hostfile manager has often and repeatedly displayed his instability in multiple online forums. Simply google on Alexander Peter Kowalski. I believe any intelligent research will convince users that permitting software written by APK to run in kernelspace is dangerous at best. The software may or may not be just fine, but the software's author has already demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to make rational, acceptable decisions.
Fortunately, the cyberstalking behavior APK has repeatedly demonstrated is almost certainly a compulsive, involuntary behavior on his part. I have no doubt that soon he will demonstrate fully the exact instability I have pointed out here. C'mon, Allie - post a bunch of links to your past posts, or call me "bigmouth" again. I'd say pick the most bellicose and insulting of your past posts; but nearly all of your cyberstalking is consistently offensive and insulting, indicative of a juvenile intellect. Instead of contstantly reposting the same insults and invective, give us something new to gauge your mental state from.
DNT was dead the moment a vendor, and not the user, made the decision to set the flag on by default. Why should any content provider respect the wishes of a browser company, with regards to tracking?
(cue the ad hominem attacks by A/C a.k.a. APK)
And almost exactly as predicted.
No. Just, no.
Go back to class and learn how HTTP works. The user (and his "agent", the designated software making requests on his behalf) are fully in control of the experience. The website presents content on an open interface, and the user, via his agent, requests it as he sees fit. If he requests the text of the page, but not the images, that's his prerogative, not the site owner's. If he requests only certain images, follows only certain links, and doesn't do certain DOM manipulations via scripting, that also is the viewer's prerogative. The site owner has fuck-all to say about it.
That's why site owners cannot win against AdBlock. HTTP was built for exactly the situation that AdBlock enforces. It's just that most site owners got used to lazy, unconfigurable user agents that didn't do what their users actually wanted. Now that some users are daring to go against that "standard", site owners are showing their true colors by becoming a bunch of whiny asshats.
This has nothing to do with geeks, either. AdBlock is becoming my go-to tool for people that complain their "internet is slow". And once they get a glimpse of the web without ads, it's game over. Nobody wants advertising. People tolerate advertising as long as what they get in return is worth putting up with some no-skill ass-clown shouting about the product he's been hired to shill for. But advertising companies long ago stepped across that line. I have no moral qualms about wiping out advertising completely. I'm willing to do it and put up with whatever consequences there are. Advertisers are wise to not push me or those that think similarly.
Or, you could just use Lynx.
Or you could just stop using the web.
Or you could disable all images and javascript.
Pretty much anything is less work and less annoying than having to screw with all the times those tools screw up and you have to fix or whitelist a website. Just look at all the mental energy in this comment thread wasted trying to put together 5, 6, or 7 tools in the right combination like alchemists.
Or, you could just not give a damn so long as it's not flashing or covering the content, and avoid sites that do, because you don't feel like running 10 more unnecessary browser hacks/addons/extensions forever slowing down page loads rather than shrugging your shoulders and never giving it a second thought.
Or yeah, keep fighting the good fight, and Free Tibet... everyone needs a cause, I suppose. ;)
I8-D
It would seem I've profiled you very accurately. It's not voluntary for you, is it? It's some kind of compulsion you can't stop. Too bad.
It helped divert attention to privacy issues to a dead end for 5 years!
It's as dumb of an idea as thinking a "do not mug me" shirt would be worthwhile in a high-crime area, and (by measure) it's probably less effective than a rock that keeps tigers away.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
That line does not even make sense. How does a user set that flag "by default" ?
DNT was dead to the user when companies demanded, and got the right to ignore it.
Everything after it was just circus, beating a dead horse while telling everyone that the slapping sound was the indication many people where working hard on it.
And pardon me, but believing DNT could work would be as stupid as leaving your wallet in a public place with a note attached to it "please do not take, im retrieving it shortly" and than being surprised when, when you come back, its gone.
No, the only way to be sure that noone would take that wallet would be to make sure you are always in control of it, and not depend upon the honesty of your fellow man. And what-do-you-know, that is called "common sense".
Not so for DNT. You just send trackable data to everyone, and than trust them not to do what brings them the most profit. Does that sound like "common sense" to you ? It surely doesn't to me ...
AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
AbBlock Plus sold out, not AdBlock. Several things call themselves "AdBlock", but as far as I know none of them have sold out. The AdBlock Plus sellout resulted in a fork called AdBlock Edge, which is equivalent to AdBlock Plus, but without the "acceptable" ads "feature".
Do you suffer from deep-seated identity issues as well as mania?
Why would anyone want to use a system that you promote? It could be the best in the world but with you as a spokesman it becomes badly tainted.
You want to be treated like a peer? Use a registered login like one. Otherwise you can remain a second-class netizen.
Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want.
Tell me which ads I do want, I dare you.
It's not difficult. Hint: One word.
Yes, that's right. That word is "none".
If I want something, I know how to search. If I'm looking for inspiration, I know how to search. I watch movie trailers for fun, for example, and then write down which movies I like. There is exactly zero need to shove a trailer down my throat, and more likely than not if you try to, I'll not watch the movie because I don't like your attitude.
Here's how to get customers like me: Put your advertisement budget into making your product better.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising.
[citation required]
No, wait, I'll up the ante: Challenge: Find me someone who WANTS pop-up ads. I mean as a victim, not as someone selling them for a living. I'm quite sure that a gay jewish nazi is easier to find.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I don't use such - and I don't bother moderating A/C comments because I see them all at -1. I don't post A/C because I'm not ashamed of who I am.
While it's true I've made mistakes in the past, I (unlike you) own up to them. I also don't try to hide as an A/C.
Poor child. Were you abandoned by one or both of your parents, or did you just never feel that you'd lived up to their expectations?
Do you really think that anybody here believes what you say? I notice that nobody but you is defending your posts. Do you believe posting A/C actually hides or confuses anything?
We shouldn't lose sight of the small victory here. Regardless of how it's handled, it's important that the end user can go on record as having requested more a tiny millibob of actual respect.
We also need a companion flags: YESISETITMYSELF and IFYOUBLOWMEOFFYOUREANASSHOLE.
"If you continue to post this comment, all moderations done to this discussion will be undone! Are you sure you want to post?"
Yes. Modding your posts down isn't going to help. As others have already suggested, get help. Take your meds. Dive down a flight of stairs. Whatever it takes for you to stop ruining everyone's time.
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
Ruminant self-castigation concerning my previous post.
Fingers and foghorn were clearly operating at different stages of rubbing the sand out of their eyes. Waking up is hard to do. Harrumph. Nothing burnishes one's wit like mucking up one's determiners twice in two sentences.
I blame it all on eliding the apostrophe from the all-caps. That small joke went against the soul of my being. It was like The Scream welling up inside me.
It just struck me that we should change the name of the apostrophe as used in contractions to "the zipper mark". Do up your zippers boys and girls. First lesson on the first day of middle school every year through grade seven, eight, nine, and ten.
Then this brief public service announcement concludes with the disclaimer that surfaces sometimes deceive: the zipper mark and the dangling participle have nothing in common, but if you'd like a good example of the DP to think about until we get there, consider this:
Flitting gaily from flower to flower, the football player watched the bee.
Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?
You must be a youngun'. Back in the pre-web days there were magazines that were pretty much 100% ads.
Seriously?!? This gets modded "insightful" when you just regurgitated what I said in my post?!
Let me refresh your memory, since you obviously have trouble with reading comprehension. Here's what I said:
As for magazines, there are some which clearly seem to be able [sic, "about"] the ads -- particularly style magazines and such. Mostly it's something to allow people to drool over clothes and other luxury fashion items they can't afford (or could barely afford). But yeah -- SOME magazines seem to be bought for the ads. [snip] In some cases, like trade magazines or foodie magazines, the ads can be targeted better, so I can see how some people want that.
I'm not a "youngun'." I remember these things well, and they still exist in various areas, as I point out (though the ones that have survived seem more targeted to "style" conscious groups these days and such).
I have bought many, many newspapers/magazines "just for the ads".
No -- you just said you bought many MAGAZINES for the ads. You said this after quoting the sentence where I asked who buys a NEWSPAPER for the ads. I realize the boundary between these concepts is not exact, but I'd say the percentage of people who buy NEWSpapers for ads is much smaller than the number of people who buy MAGAZINES for ads...
And I explicitly said that in my previous post.
Before going around insulting people, please take a minimum amount of time to read what they've actually said. If you can't be bothered, don't insult people -- you can still state your opinion, but arguing that an OP is ignorant of something when it was explicitly addressed in the post is just nonsense.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I've feeling frisky...
No -- that's certainly not why people buy newspapers, except for those people who just want the coupon section (which is generally segregated from the rest of the paper). Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?
People buy the sunday paper because of the ads. The big coupon supplement is the whole reason to buy it.
Wow, is there an echo in this room?
Not just some, MOST magazines that have a growth business model exist because people buy them for the ads.
I acknowledged about five different types of magazines that people buy for ads.
But here's the difference between magazines and most web advertising: when I buy a magazine for the ads, I'm buying a magazine for the ads. I know what I'm getting, and I'm making a conscious decision to have contact with something that will give me a lot of ads.
There's nothing wrong with that. I made the choice to buy the magazine.
On the internet, things are different. Ads come flying at you, popping up at you, etc., regardless of whether you're at some sort of consumer site where you might want ads, or whether you're actually trying to get something else done.
I acknowledge that I'm not like most people in what I do online, but even all the "non-geeks" and "non-nerds" out there periodically are trying to get some other task done on the internet, like writing or reading a message, or learning about something, or reading news. Say you wanted to write an old-fashioned letter. Would you seriously buy a pack of paper that would shove things in your face as you were trying to write? Or would you buy a set of encyclopedias that required you to click three times to get rid of images that popped up before you could read the next paragraph?
I know what your response is: "But the internet is free! You would pay for those things." Yeah, well -- people are willing to TOLERATE inconveniences for free things. It doesn't mean they want them disrupting whatever else they are trying to do. If you want to buy the newspaper for the coupons or the classified section, sure -- lots of people do that. But if you actually want to read the news, the advertisements get in the way... and lots of people actually want to do that SOMETIMES too, but they tolerate the ads interspersed with the news. And apparently they're willing to tolerate all sorts of crap popping up at them when they're trying to do other things online, as long as they get stuff "free."
You're not in the target market for the ads you see, then.
I wasn't talking about myself. I was talking in the sentence you quoted about other people. I've heard many, many, many people -- "non-geeks" -- complain about excessive ads online. I have NEVER heard anyone say they want more -- certainly not on random sites they are visiting and trying to get some other important task done.
You really should study how people in the real world respond to advertising... they fucking love it. A fashion shopper goes apeshit when they see their favorite Miu Miu shoes go on sale at Net-a-porter. They get so excited that they email their friends about telling them to buy it.
Yep -- which is the reason fashion magazines exist, which I explicitly mentioned. Great. We agree.
It is only the narcissist libertarian geek that tries to avoid ads. "I'm so important, look at me, I hate advertising because i am more important than advertisers. I am so important that I don't want ads on the website I don't pay to visit! Look at me! WEEE!"
I'd HAPPILY pay for websites without ads, if they delivered quality content. I already do so in some cases. Why does this make me narcissistic? Because I want to pay for quality content rather than have idiotic nonsense shouting at me that I don't want to see? That's "narcissi
But, you got to select the ads you wanted to see, and paid for the printing.
I buy something online, and I get adverts for the exact same thing. Just bought a computer, now I get computer ads in my mailbox. Bought a car, now I get "now's the time to buy a car" adverts. Sure customer loyalty is big, and even a .01% chance of selling another car is worth the spend. But you're just pissing me off.
Worse, I click on something, decide I don't want it at all, and I get ads for the same or similar things. That's valuable space being wasted on something I not just am not interested in.
Your point works in a perfect world, where we can give feedback on which ads we want to see, in your case by paying for it. And where advertisers consider what we truly are interested in, and won't promote something unrelated just because it has a larger payment per click.
There is a very, very small part of the business that will truly work this way, until everyone realizes that we have to work together. Don't annoy me, show me what I want, hide what I don't want. And don't be intrusive.
Don't sell to facets I haven't revealed - such as identifying when I'm pregnant or gay. How do you know what's safe to sell me? You're going to have to be really good at figuring out what to detect, and what to ignore.
Otherwise, you're going to creep out the next generation of lawmakers.
APK, you're insane. Your crazy incoherent ramblings and random use of bold and capital letters are not helping your cause.
You sound like a cross between the Unabomber and a 9/11 Truther. Even if your software does what it claims to do, I would not trust it, simply on the basis of how you conduct yourself in discussions online.
Eat the rich.
I'm not sure if you're into the "big lie", or if you're just so emotionally stunted that this is the only form of gratification left to you. Probably the latter - you don't strike me as intelligent enough to pull off the big lie.
P.S.=> You spoke of how I conduct myself? Heh - I use facts that you dorks can't overcome, & your results? See above - reduced to LIBELING me like worms you all are (and you KNOW it, worm)... apk
I think this pretty much speaks for itself.
Weird and inconsistent use of punctuation (comma followed by ampersand, really?), excessive use of ellipsis, random ALL-CAPS and bold text, defending arguments with spurious insults, obsessively cataloguing perceived slights and list of enemies, and so on and so forth.
These are all hallmarks of a crazed conspiracy theorist or a person with severe mental instability, or both, which is often the case.
I don't know how you got the idea that I'm a mmell sock puppet. Look at our user IDs, my account is significnatly older than mmell's. Besides that, I don't care much for his aggressive tone, but at least he manages to communicate in writing without coming off as a rambling paranoid delusional conspiracy nut case.
Seek help. You seem to desperately need it. Seek help now.
Eat the rich.