Slashdot Mirror
Google, Amazon, Microsoft Reportedly Paid AdBlock Plus To Unblock
RoccamOccam writes with the following news from The Register: Internet giants Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Taboola have reportedly paid AdBlock Plus to allow their ads to pass through its filter software. The confidential deals were confirmed by the Financial Times, the paper reported today [Paywalled].
From the Register's article: Eyeo GmbH, the German startup behind Adblock Plus, said it did not wish to comment. So far more than 300 million users have downloaded its software, it said. The add-on is free to download, with Eyeo generating revenue through its "whitelisting" programme. Companies can request their ads to be unblocked as long as they comply with AdBlock's "acceptable ads" policy. Large companies pay a fee for the service.
'nough said.
"Companies can request their ads to be unblocked as long as they comply with AdBlock's "acceptable ads" policy. Large companies pay a fee for the service."
How is this news? Seriously, how?
Some people get AdBlock to avoid intrusive adverts. I don't see this being a problem for them.
However some, such as myself, use AdBlock as part of an anti-tracking solution. This concerns me more.
AdBlock - good. AdBlock Plus - crap.
I'd assume (without further info) that this is about the "allow some non-intrusive advertising" checkbox you get in the filter options. It's on by default, but when you install adblock (as I did a few days ago) it one of the things you go through when the configuration dialog pops up.
It links to: https://adblockplus.org/en/acc...
It's not perfect in that it's on by default, but it's easy enough to disable. Perhaps they could improve it by tying this checkbox to your "do not track" preference?
Everyone running ad blocking software is not sustainable, since ads pay for a lot of stuff. People also don't want to have to directly pay for things (plus, could you imagine if every website was paywalled?)
Seems to me that the best solution is to just run unintrusive ads. People don't really mind ads all that much, they just hate it when they're noisy (literally and metaphorically) and get in the way
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
Its the ones that cover the whole screen, have someone who talks over the speakers, or force me to find a tiny hide button that I want blocked. So far, i have not found that Google, Microsoft, or Amazon do this. (SO FAR.....) Also, i run a site that uses Google Doubleclick for Publishing that houses some ads as part of the site's content. They are not obtrusive and you would mistake it for the site's content. Adblock will block them though, even though they are just in-house ads for my own content on the same site.
The whole scheme just smacks of extortion. The vendors have already paid the ad companies. I use such software in the good faith that it's going to block the ads.
If it stops blocking the ads, I'll switch to a different ad-blocker. I'm not interested in seeing ANY ads, regardless of whether the product vendor has been paid off for them or not. *I* wasn't paid for *my* time!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Basic blocking: https://github.com/gorhill/uBl...
More extensive blocking: https://github.com/gorhill/uMa...
Extensions are available for Chrome/Chromium. It seems Firefox is (getting) supported as well.
I've been using it for years - from very early states - and I know within seconds if adblock is not installed on chrome, firefox and opera and android via adaway.
If adblock leaks an ad, we get the ad and block it manually, and also there are lists that are not directly under adblock plus , adblock chrome's control. The lists are pulled from and maintained separately than the blockers so Im not sure how this can go on for very long. It would be glaringly obvious over time if ads get through and the lists will be updated.
If any one of the adblockers "betrays" the community with exceptions in the code, we have plenty of places to defect to.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
Adblock block ads.
Adblock whitelists ads when companies pay. (and that is known)
Some companies took them up on the offer and payed Adblock so they were whitelisted.
So what makes this newsworthy again?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
They are upfront about this and right when you install it they give you the link to uncheck to block unobtrusive advertising. The fact that people pay to be on the "unobtrusive" list isn't exactly surprising. Nonstory.
So long as the above companies are complying with the acceptable ad policy, meant to keep ads from being obtrusive, does it really matter?
I know some people are like "No ads, no compromise". If that's the case, get Greasemonkey and go to town.
But, on a more realistic note, this company is putting out this product for free to end-users.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Things like this bring to light a few issues that need addressing. if this action by ABP is in fact happening, a fork of the project should most certainly be considered as this 'whitelisting' violates an expected feature or function of the application by its community of users (and possibly developers.) Second, a layered approach that views advertisements/spam as part of an overarching security issue, not just nuisance patrol, should be adopted. Adblock, noscript, and null routes for known advertising servers should all be applied
its controversial to say it on slashdot (full disclosure, I consider myself a socialist) but i think advertising on the internet has gone from unintrusive to a bombastic affront to basic privacy and functional user experience. applications like ad blockers actually help to un-break the web of automatic videos barking product placement and resource sucking overly high definition adverts. ABP gives users a tool to fight back against what for many is a roary-boomy experience that requires a new laptop every year to keep up.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I'm also a Firefox user, with AdBlock. I disabled the acceptable ads checkbox so I don't see any ad (I would have noticed). If AdBlock makes any money out of the ads companies, good for them. If they force acceptable ads to everybody, I'll move to something else. uBlock seems to be as good. There will always be something to block all ads. At worst the hosts file.
Faster, better, hackable and free. https://github.com/gorhill/uBl...
there's no place like ~
I use Adblock Edge. Used to use Adblock Plus before they started accepting bribes to cripple their own filters.
I use ad blockers because I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ADS. Period. I hate ads. To me there is NO SUCH THING as an acceptable ad.
Corporatism != Free Market
This would be a case where the Federal Trade Commission should have stepped in.
Until then, I hope people ask for their money back, before they sue.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Correct me if I am wrong, but if someone creates a product that interferes with someone else’s business and then charges them a fee to stop interfering, isn’t that extortion?
So Google wants a free and open internet, and doesn't want to pay for fast lanes for their data, but has no problem with same kind of payola for their advertising.
Heckuva business model.
If this were easy, they wouldn't need us to do it!
I would not mind my browser sending out some kind of headers to specify my ad acceptance policy and even a few key words of goods and services I am interested in. But *I* should be the one who controls it. And the controls should be fine grained.
Something like:
(browser-ad-acceptance-policy) animation=no; flash=no; sounds=no; ad_to_payload_ratio looking_for=camcorder,auto_insurance,galapagos_island_tour;
(/browser-ad-acceptance-policy )
The add on or extension should enforce the policy on browser end when it can, without expecting good faith compliance from the web sites.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
No it doesn't. They've openly admitted their position from the beginning. There's a checkbox that enables the whitelist. If you don't like it, turn it off. If you want to block social media tracking just add the 'fanboy' social media blocklist subscription.
There is a setting in the main options screen that says "Allow non-intrusive advertising." It is checked by default. These advertisements that whitelisted are only whitelisted when this option is turned on. If you uncheck it, you see no adverts.
Now, there are some obscure adverts that aren't tracked or blocked by the default EasyList, but there are plugins for adblock that let you block divs by name by clicking on them, which is IMO way more useful than the default functionality. Often, all advertisements (regardless of source) will be displayed in div called something like "main-screen-left-nav-banner" or something similar. You block that div (plus suitable wildcards if necessary) on that site and you never see that portion of the page on that site again... Which means you never see whatever is in that div. This is exceptionally cool because it doesn't just block adverts but also clickbait and other ways to get you to keep looking at pages on that site.
And this approach will trump nearly any whitelist because the adverts (even when whitelisted) are contained in the div. If the div gets filtered out, the child elements never load or display. In fact, if you're lucky, the unremoved content of the page may expand to fill the now empty space where the advertisements went. It's quite beautiful.
Bluhell has no options and no menus. It just blocks everything on Easylist. I stopped using Adblock a long time ago. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
from when adblock plus did. Use it instead.
Your host file junk pretty much blocked me access to the internet, had to go in safe mode to get rid of it, so screw you.
Craziness in the ad space has all the feel of being a ginormous bubble. Companies who have a business model of selling banner ads via an app and have no other revenue sources seem especially precarious to the perception of advertising effectiveness. If at some point studies come out showing banner ads are as ineffective as I think they are (I think they are a net negative to most companies who use them) the rug could get pulled out from the whole mess.
People are getting trained to filter this stuff out left and right. I find myself avoiding google when I look for certain things because I know that if they are common I will have to wade through a page or more of paid up links that are mostly only tangentially related to what I am looking for. I can't recall the contents of any recent banner ads, and there are a number of sites I just don't visit on my ipad because they are so awful without AdBlock running.
How about a new Kickstarter campaign where we pool our money to buy up highway billboard space and put up pretty murals instead of ads?
this is the truth. Anyone who was using adblock plus before the sell out knows this and uses the fork, Adblock Edge, instead.
"said it did not wish to comment"
Thus, I infer that you did indeed sell out, because why else wouldn't you comment if the accusation was wrong.
Additionally, people use ad-block software so that they don't have to see ads. To then take money to make those people see ads is the antithesis of your existence.
Good luck clawing your customer base back.
I wouldn't touch you from this point onwards (and to be honest, how did people not notice it wasn't blocking those ads?). But, hey, I'm an Opera user moving to Vivaldi soon as Opera sold-out in a similar fashion and got rid of all their interesting features (including built-in adblock before AdBlock even existed).
Abusive spam does not trustworthy make.
years ago. Please explain how uBlock is better.
I *NEVER* see ads (or get the malware from them) on the machines that use Adblock Edge in Firefox, how does it get better than that?
Can hosts files block inline content? No.
I await your usual torrent of abuse from you and your many sock-puppets, joking between yourselves. Is that what the inside of your head is like?
Get rid of Firefox and use Palemoon http://www.palemoon.org/ and then install AdBlock Latitude https://addons.palemoon.org/ex... You'll wonder what all the fuss is about after you wrestle your old UI back from Firefox and have all your ads blocked by a reputable organization (Palemoon) that won't sell out to the dark side like AdBlock Plus did. These two greedy companies need more people to jump ship and make a statement. Do your part. You'll be glad you did.
Nice to see you're still pushing that.
The ad companies have already realized that they can set up *.adserver.com and dish out ads from an infinite number of hostnames. Some of them have even started setting up CDN networks using IP Anycast: pull a tiny file from the closest server by IP with the IP of the ad server to pull the final ad from, no hostnames at all. After all, it's not like a human is ever going to intentionally visit your adserver so why bother with a human readable hostname?
Hosts had its heyday, and there are still a lot of hidebound ad companies too big'n'slow'n'stupid to change that you can block so there's certainly merit in continuing it for now, but it's going the way of the buggy whip.
Maybe you should get a job writing a new hosts file driver for Microsoft that can handle wildcards and IP blocks.
So you create a hosts-file-based ad blocking system, then proceed to shower Slashdot with adverts it can not block, but your competitors can, and don't see the joke?
fortunately its GPL, so put a fork in it, and be done.
I don't inherently have a problem with ads, not even with ads tailored to my personal preferences (which I would actually prefer over random ads). I'd even be willing to check a few boxes to mark my interests.
However, that's just not good enough for the marketing companies. They want flashy ads that distract from the page I'm reading, they want to track my every move, they want to sell my data, they want to run scripts on my computer, they want popups, popunders, redirects, accidental clicks, they would cheerfully ruin the user experience if it would get them one more click. And they don't want to check whether the ads their showing are links to scams, frauds, malware, or even if the ads themselves contain malware. They'll cheerfully commit outright fraud while pretending to be advertisers (eg "virus detected on your computer" style ads). And some websites have changed their design to have a little bit of text with mountains of ads, sometimes with a load-the-ads-first system, sometimes splitting a page's worth of content into 10 pages to show more ads, and generally treating advertizing companies as their customer and users as their product.
And so for my sanity I have to use AdBlock.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Can't the editors do anything about that imbecile who is posting all that spam?
0.17% is the click thru for pop up ads. And it is not much different than the click thru for normal banner (a bit less than 0.1%)... Are you telling is this is a success ?
Yes, it is. Pop-up ads don't cost nearly as much money to "air" as video ads; the cost-per-viewing is ridiculously low. It only takes a few morons clicking on them to make them profitable.
Ask yourself: why did advertisers use them for so long (until the browsers finally made blocking standard)? Companies generally only do things if they're profitable. No one is going to continue to pour money into something for years on end that's costing them money and not making a return on the investment.
You must be a complete idiot. He doesn't mention anything about adblock vs hosts file. He doesn't care if you are wrong or right. What all of us care about about is that you are spamming the same crap over and over, and its even more annoying then seeing advertisements on webpages.
You have become exactly what you are trying to block, annoying crap. You are nothing but annoying crap now.
True, ABP is not being even remotely deceptive. I don't like the practice, but they aren't doing anything wrong here. For the record, I react to not liking it in an even more effective way than using their checkbox: I avoid using ABP.
This sounds completely consistent with 21st century business practices. Offer a service to do X, then accept money not to do X = without telling the people who are relying on it.
Suckers!
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
OK, so I'm visiting a free site that provides resources to die for (Nexusmods), and I notice a strange pix with an unhappy emoticon on it. Always wondered how the site paid for itself, and looking more closely, saw it was a 'begging' message asking visitors to switch off adblock on this site. Well I love these people, so how could I say "no".
Click-click and adblock is off. Ads are two discrete active rectangles of modest size- great- although I do not like the nasty dishonest British companies that are promoting their wares- but so be it.
Scroll down the page. STUTTER, STUTTER, STUTTER. Hmmm... Ctrl-Alt-Del and there's the task manager. I almost fall off my chair. Memory and CPU are being burned AT MAX. Well, there a a million UNACTIVE tabs on my browser, so maybe it is something else. But I switch of the ads again, check the resource monitor, and watch as CPU and memory use return to normal.
F**k the online ad companies, and the sites that use them without demanding responsible behaviour. Those ads on Nexusmods are already the type that illegally track you from site to site (I've had experience with them before). And that they are coded so maliciously, they think my computer resources are theirs is the last straw!
And here's the thing. It is TRIVIAL to develop back-end server systems that incorporate SIMPLE ads as part of the 'editorial' content of a website, so they cannot be automatically blocked. If these sites hate adblock they answer is in their own hands- make the ads a TRUE part of their own site content- yeah that might require a bit of effort, but newspapers had to learn how to do this from the very beginning.
Online advertising is MALICIOUS and LAZY. And ads that max burn your CPU should be ILLEGAL- think how much wasted power they are responsible for across the planet. An adblock enabled browser can be safely left on most pages with the CPU idling. Without adblock, the browser is burning 5-50 watts more. And you Betas are told by your government masters that they care about 'green' issues. Where's the 'green' thinking with online ads. When did you Betas EVER hear your politician masters proclaim the need to regulate online ads- oh that's right, your masters are in the pockets of those that make the ads so it doesn't matter.
Slashdot has (partially) stopped honoring their own ad opt-out. (You can opt-out of ads if you account is more than n old or something.) It still opts-out banner ads. But now they have added AdSense, and it does not block that. Since I opt-out of targeted AdSense, all I get is ads for removing dark spots. Ewwwww! Please report these ads to Google, since SlashDot is not honoring their own opt-out policy. That can't be consistent with AdSense rules. Opt-out means: "opt-out". And, of course, that goes for AdBlock as well. You are PAYING for a service that removes ads. If advertisers can pay to get around that, it is a fraud.
privoxy does ad blocking and reduces tracking. A different approach.
years ago. Please explain how uBlock is better.
I *NEVER* see ads (or get the malware from them) on the machines that use Adblock Edge in Firefox, how does it get better than that?
Well, he DID explain it to you, if only you'd take the time to click the provided link that is.
how does it get better than that?
Quite a few ways, actually, all of which would have been apparent had you just clicked the link, but if you need it spelled out for you...
1) uBlock is available for multiple browsers and is available via official stores/sites for at least some of them (with plans to get into the others). Doesn't matter to you, perhaps, but it does matter to some of us, especially if we're looking for something to recommend to non-techie friends and family.
2) uBlock actually leads to a reduced memory footprint for your browser, whereas AdBlock Plus (on which Edge is based), increases the browser's memory footprint.
3) uBlock has SIGNIFICANTLY better CPU performance than ABP and its competitors. Nearly an order of magnitude.
4) uBlock is slightly better at blocking unnecessary server hits. About twice as good as ABP, and just a shade worse than Ghostery.
All of which is to say, by nearly every measurable metric, it's better than the thing that you think is the best.
Can hosts block DNS amplification attacks? NO.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Blocking ads is like blocking the revenue stream for those providing free content and services. I know I'll get flak for saying this. Fact is that it's the little guys that get hurt the most by this ad blocking service.
One could say that maybe their method of advertising is not efficient (compared to in video ads on Youtube) but it's what they have right now and it's not right for a company to be able to strip out what the site intended the viewer to see.
For those who will say that it ruins the user experience I say this to you: "Find another service for free"
For those complaining about Adblock plus selling out... Have you actually looked at the requirements for Ad's that adblock will allow (even paid for?). Personally, I'm in full support of Adblock Plus campaign to pressure ad companies into returning to non-intrusive and non-annoying ads. Advertising *can* be a positive thing if the money helps sponsor content on web pages *and* potentialy provides useful information to people who might benefit from learning about a product or service.
Google used to be on the forfront of promising a clean and non-annoying ad network. They built their whole search engine reputation on it. Unfortunately, they since sold out and became the biggest pedler and annoying ads currently in business. A firm hand is needed to bring the entire ad industry to heel and hold them to a standard that will control public annoyance and malware both. If Adblock Plus can achieve this, while getting paid for their own work in the process, all the power to them. I think Firefox should partner with Adblock Plus to include the plugin by default with new installs, while getting a cut of the sponsered acceptibe ads.
The hypocrisy from the ad industry is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
I remember the days before advertising was big on the web, when content was provided by universities and hobbyists.
I purchased an expensive "Yellow Page" directory for the Internet back in the geek's glory days, annotating web pages, FTP sites, USENET and so on ---- and it made for pretty for dull reading even then.
There was no way the university and the hobbyist would be able to keep up with the demand for content, easier access and better presentation ignited by the launch of Windows 95, affordable PCs with integrated "high speed" modems, the free web browser, dial-up AOL at a flat monthly rate and so on.
when I was in my early teens playing with my ti99/4a I would never have thought that I would have to deal with BS like this( advertising on my computer , programs that block the advertisers, companies pay said programs to advertise on my computer) on my computer. That and a production on call support schedule
Cloud-based distributed search engines - technically feasible with user-donated CPU time, memory and storage.
And trust?
Facebook - people can very well migrate to diaspora.
But who will host Diaspora servers to meet Facebook's volume?
Twitter - that's not really that computing-intensive, is it?
You'd be surprised. There's a lot of RAM-intensive indexing to keep Twitter showing tweets and not fail whales.
Should be pretty easily replaceable.
It's replaceable with Pump.io servers, but who will host them?
How does using hosts prevent you from the flood of traffic coming from the internet that is completely unrelated to any action you do? This is DDOS, not DNS
If you never ever in your life setup a DNS server, you can still be knocked offline by DNS amplification attacks. If you never ever in your life setup NTP, you can still get knocked offline by a NTP amplification attacks.
I linked to you very descriptive articles, and explained the mechanics. Hosts won't save you. It doesn't matter if you never make a request to DNS, DNS amplification will still take you offline.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Of course. Now if there are hidden whitelists, that's another story.
ad block has had the option to allow non annoying ads for a few years now with the option to block those as well.
obtrusive (adj.): noticeable or prominent in an unwelcome or intrusive way.
advertisement (noun): a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.
oxymoron (noun): a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction
You misunderstand the definition of one of the words you are using.
What does that have to do with my valid point that hosts can't stop DNS amplification? I never claimed anything about hosts vs adblock. I also didn't claim hosts could do magical things that are technically impossible for it to do.
I have never downmodded an APK post, I would rather poke him until he fixes an obvious mistake in his cut and paste.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Yeah but is Malware bytes WEBSCALE??
http://saveie6.com/
hosts files cannot block DNS amplification attacks. Remove the line from your cut and paste because it isn't true. No matter how many times you try to redirect, it won't change this fact. This is my last response to you, so you can feel free to continue foaming at the mouth, but it doesn't change facts about how TCP/IP work.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
APK always sees red
When people point out the '90s are dead
To him, spamming his HOSTS file
Is really not at all that vile,
Use it or you're dead!
Eventually it'll even be
A replacement for systemd
But don't you fret
'Cuz you can bet
It'll replace Windows registry
So sad, too bad, that those who boast
How good it is, they anonymous post
Because those "others" are just he
Hiding behind anonymity
Otherwise "they" would be toast.
And he attacks anyone
Who criticizes spamming he as done
He posts crap-floods filled with hate
Trying to intimidate
So now critics post anon.
Alexander P Kowalski
Do your worst, you will see
You're still a fool,
A royal tool,
You're hurting yourself, not me,
Burma Shave
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If they did we'd certainly use them to block his crap-floods :-)
But he's SO predictable ... and it takes him SO long to wind down ... maybe we can use his spinning around to power a dynamo and solve the energy problem?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Nice to see you're still pushing that.
The ad companies have already realized that they can set up *.adserver.com and dish out ads from an infinite number of hostnames. Some of them have even started setting up CDN networks using IP Anycast: pull a tiny file from the closest server by IP with the IP of the ad server to pull the final ad from, no hostnames at all. After all, it's not like a human is ever going to intentionally visit your adserver so why bother with a human readable hostname?
Hosts had its heyday, and there are still a lot of hidebound ad companies too big'n'slow'n'stupid to change that you can block so there's certainly merit in continuing it for now, but it's going the way of the buggy whip.
Maybe you should get a job writing a new hosts file driver for Microsoft that can handle wildcards and IP blocks.
Maybe a few of them. Maybe on the particular porn or torrent sites you frequent.
A relatively stale HOSTS file I use is still QUITE effective at blocking ads.
The next step, will be to set some static DNS settings up in HOST and then install and use a DNS server on which, I run authoritative zones for places I don't want to see. While more of a pain, it'll be more effective.
And when they register domains, it'll be blocks of IP addresses. They'll spend more money trying to get ads to my network than just taking the revenue hit of the three users ON my network will ever cost them.
Can ghostery/adblock do 17 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability: [...]
The BEST in the antiviruses (MalwareBytes) http://www.av-test.org/en/news... recommend [...]
Does anyone know of an ad-blocking plugin that will block this particularly large, obnoxious and insanely repetitive ad?
I'm seriously thinking about writing one.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
For those too lazy to click on the link, (because this is Slashdot), I'll reproduce it below: as a public service:
APK always sees red
When people point out the '90s are dead
To him, spamming his HOSTS file
Is really not at all that vile,
Use it or you're dead!
Eventually it'll even be
A replacement for systemd
But don't you fret
'Cuz you can bet
It'll replace Windows registry
So sad, too bad, that those who boast
How good it is, they anonymous post
Because those "others" are just he
Hiding behind anonymity
Otherwise "they" would be toast.
And he attacks anyone
Who criticizes spamming he as done
He posts crap-floods filled with hate
Trying to intimidate
So now critics post anon.
Alexander P Kowalski
Do your worst, you will see
You're still a fool,
A royal tool,
You're hurting yourself, not me,
Burma Shave
I guess I can expect another 500 to 1000 anonymous personal attacks from you again, just like the last time. So have fun going through my posting history for the next few days - all you're doing is showing that you have to hide behind anonymity because you're a spammer, not just here, but in other forums.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I've used http://www.privoxy.org/ this for years. No external lists, doesn't look at hosts, works at system, not browser, level and is open source. For desktop only, though.
Better a more generic regexp-based one. But with an APK preset, that's for sure.
Yeah, definitely would need to be regexp-based. Perhaps with crowdsourced updates, to quickly respond to any changes APK makes in his screed.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I downmodded you, and I'm not a sockpuppet. I'm just sick of hearing your crap. Slashdot comments are not the place for advertisements, go give money to Dice if you want to use Slashdot for ads.
I'm sick of you attacking people who disagree with you, you are showing serious signs of being mentally unstable. Stop your stalking.
Only a fucking retard would on one hand point out (rightfully) that people are stupid enough to buy dousing rods and horoscope reading, but then try to claim that all computer users are smart enough to never (intentionally) click on a pop-up ad and then buy whatever crap they're selling.
It's the same reason spam exists. The costs are tiny (per customer-view), and it only takes a few morons to buy it to make it profitable. Yes, some of this is scammy ad-men inflating the effectiveness of ads to their customers, but it wouldn't have gone on this long if zero people actually bought anything; the customers would have gone out of business from not having any sales.
Look, if an ad isn't invasive then I don't mind seeing it and won't block it.
Slashdot still offers me a "disable ad" option that I leave unchecked. Why? Because I don't mind the kind of ads I see here, and recognise that such sites need to pay their way somehow.
Ad blockers wouldn't need to exist if ad companies didn't put out obnoxious, inappropriate and just downright dishonest ads in the first place.
Now excuse me while I claim my prize for being the 10,000,000th visitor to this site...
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
you should be using noscript to block third party content.
ABP is really just to block inline youtube ads.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
You should see what happens when I show APK my DNS solutions are better. He can go on for weeks.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Yeh I've enjoyed baiting him and watching him go berserk occasionally, but he is so repetitive and boring it's no fun any more. Poor deluded fool even thinks he wins arguments. :)
As someone else wrote, "his hosts file whispers to him while he sleeps." It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Does this "acceptable ads" policy include a requirement that the ad servers in question not be serving malware alongside the ads?
Because that is by far the biggest reason I run an ad blocker.
Hehe, In APK's world, one can fail at something one didn't do.
I don't care whether APK is "right" about his hosts file thing, I just know for a fact that he's a flooder/spammer, and that's what's totally wrong about him. He just makes reading Slashdot at a low comment threshold much worse for people who aren't interested in his project or product. (And for those who are - I guess, one or two posts under an on-topic article is quite enough for them, too.)
OTOH, he seems to normally use subject line, so that's probably one way to spot and avoid his spam when reading at a higher threshold.
I see another possible benefit to Eyeo's "acceptable ads" policy: training advertisers that unobstrusive ads are more useful than attention-grabbing monstrosities. (Perhaps I'm being too optimistic?)
You've clearly failed at proving apk wrong here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
I didn't try to prove APK wrong. I actually have no interest in arguing with him/her/it. I just find the posts incredibly annoying. I also strongly suspect they're actually paid ads, being compensated for the bit at the end about the "best AV".
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Funny, cause what you replied to pretty well refuted one of APKs points. DNS amplification will not be stopped by the hosts file. You cannot stop a DDOS technique by using a hosts file, it is not logical, and is silly on every level. So, APK can continue spreading misinformation, and you can contnue trying to be his knight, and trolling Slashdot, at least as long as someone isn't using DNS amplification against you.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
In DNS amplification attacks, party A sends packet to DNS server B which causes a huge amount (70x) traffic to flow to party C. The connection being DDoSed (party C, not server B) receives the traffic reguardless of how their name resolution is setup. This isn't server side, this is your connection being flooded. This has no effect on the DNS server as they have far better pipes than you do. This causes your router to be a smoking crater, hosts file or not.
I am looking at this from a client perspective, the one who is getting DDoSed by a DNS amplification attack. You seem to be looking at it from the uninterested party perspective of person D, where it generally won't matter anyways as you will notice DNS being slow and switch to another one.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by port, https://technet.microsoft.com/... the TCP sessions happen from source port 53 to any port. When doing a DNS amplification attack, the DNS server is being spoofed into sending massive amounts of traffic to a third party, these servers usually have very large connections as they are the lifeblood of the Internet, so they don't go offline during an attack, but the victim is the one that has issues due to DNS amplification, my 75Mbit connection won't hold up against 7Gbit of traffic from a DNS amplification attack
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Why are you singling this person out for being a transsexual?
Is 'weirdo' directed at at their character or is this is a form of transphobia?
Do you think argumentum ad hominem proves your points better and makes your character look justified?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I didn't attempt, I was sharing my experiences. What surprised me is the idea that you've got some sort of transphobia. I'm guessing you do since you won't answer some simple questions.
I'm not trolling. I asked very simple questions that can be answered just 'yes' or 'no' answers, but you can't seem to manage that even.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I was reading a poem
one line
per sign
(like downloading
with a modem!)
but after 5
I noticed 'twas broken
he wrote a sonnet--
not a token:
far too long
to be spoken.
it ended in Burma Shave
a bad omen!
(for shaving the scrotum)
with 'ads in the middle
amazon paid
to block the riddle
Google Amazon Microsoft
Nah, he just has a "thing" for me :-)
Seriously, he has nothing else to live for except his hosts file. It's what gives meaning to his existence, and he uses it as both a lever and an excuse to browbeat others. It's why most people who reply to him do so anonymously nowadays - and why he keeps thinking that many of those anonymous posts are from me (none of them are).
However, he does serve a purpose - he gives an insight into why "haters gotta hate". Some people just can't accept change. Before the internet, he'd just sit there and grumble under his breath. The internet gives him a platform and a sense of empowerment, that if he posts long enough, loud enough, he'll "win".
And lets face it - he's good for comic relief, as well as practice in not letting spamming trolls get under your skin :-)
Of course, I could be wrong, and it's due to him eating too many paint chips as a kid.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
LOL.
No, I was right the first time. I simply don't care about hosts vs Adblock or whatever. I just want to stop the crapflooding.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I'm sharing my experience, if that berates you, that was a side affect of the original intent. There was no 'trying'.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Honestly, he's quite fascinating and quite quick to declare victory, make threats etc. One of my favourite instances of this, is this article someone wrote about someone doing Internet threats to sue them, when who should appear, but APK. He then discovers the existence of this article and continues on in the comments.
I think he's really differen, I have not seen people as passionate about this sort of thing in IT. The only passionate reactions to continue with such longevity is things I see from groups like the Taliban/ISIS - Which really leaves a question about his psyche and motivations.
Yes, he's definately good at making use of argumentum ad nauseum.
I did get some amusement from him. I was fascinated by someone who remembered that years ago I responded to one of his posts with just 'cool story, bro' when he made this massive post that was far overdone and had various fallacies that I had completely forgotten. I later interacted with him and he linked that comment (that I honestly couldn't remember) and went on a rant that I am troll (most of my posts weren't trolling towards him).
It's unfortunate that he won't entertain the idea of talking to me about other subjects. I'm curious about him, I wonder if he really is prejudiced against trans-sexuals. I wonder why he lives with a room mate (he's told me as such) and not alone or with a wife etc.
Oh yeah, I've seen him do that to a few people previously.
I honestly think he just doesn't like losing arguments and has no mental issues.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
He's threatened to sue me for libel for "damaging his good name". I pointed out that he's known all over the net as the Hosts File Troll, so it's simply impossible for me to damage his name or reputation. I also said to feel free to have his lawyer contact me and I'll tell him where to serve me. Nothing happened except more empty threats.
I've also repeatedly pointed out that the spamming and the personal attacks are what got him such a low reputation to begin with.
So now I don't bother replying to him any more. Problem solved. And when I log in and see there's 120 replies to my posts, and over 100 are anonymous, I know he's lost it again :-)
His animosity towards me in particular is probably from when I organized a campaign to troll the troll, complete with instructions. Things like logging in anonymously to pretend you're him, and watch him fight as to who the real APK is. The solution, of course, would be to get an account, but he can't. Banned.
Of course, he makes the same claim about me "being banned for a year." Simply not true - I couldn't use a computer (or read a book, or a lot of other stuff) due to bleeding retinas. I did once receive the "pink page of death" for 3 days due to someone mod-bombing me, but that just gave me an excuse to take a break :-)
He's some strange brew ...
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I will violate my rule of not engaging directly with APK on this one.
The challenge
1. You threatened to sue me for libel on several occasions.
2. I told you to have your lawyer contact me and I will arrange to receive service.
3. **crickets**
You keep threatening to sue people for libel, people keep saying "Ok, see you in court", and you ALWAYS back down. Coward. And then you wonder why people don't take you seriously? So, the challenge is simple - show us ONE example of where you've successfully sued somebody - anybody - for libel.
But you're good for a laugh. *POKE* *POKE*.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Nobody actually needs to prove APK wrong. Spamming is wrong - that's a given and doesn't require any proof.
Where it comes to modding, I personally rarely do it if at all, because it's too much hassle. (Though one of the Troll, Redundant, and Offtopic ratings is always justified for APK, depending on the situation.) I can maybe report spam, because that's what APK's posts are. But now I don't need to do that, either, because... I have to thank APK for one thing: I've recently discovered the joy of reading at a higher compound threshold. This optimal mode allows me to skip his multi-line drivel easily and readily see if some low-scored post is potentially interesting for me.
So have a nice day!
At least the Troll, Redundant, and Offtopic ratings have nothing to do with whether your points are right or wrong per se. So your spam gets rightly downmodded for what it is. I guess it's indeed hard to stop within the existing rules when somebody has no life and devotes all his time to spamming the comments with the same shit in the same obnoxious manner. But, as I said, I don't even need that now - you can feel free to continue your heroic but pointless fight, and it won't inconvenience me as all I'll ever see will be a single line with a small grey-colored bit of your boring diatribe. Still a waste of a line, of course, but the world is not perfect. Which apparently you have trouble getting over.
Cederic's highly amused that several days later someone's come in and flamebait spammed his post.
Guess someone can't take the criticism.