Slashdot Mirror


Consumer Groups Bemoan Google's "Deceptive" Ads for Kids In FTC Complaint

Mark Wilson writes A number of consumer groups have filed a complaint with the FTC suggesting that Google is targeting children with 'unfair and deceptive' ads in YouTube Kids for Android and iOS. A letter signed by Children Now, Consumer Watchdog, Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, and others says that ads are displayed in a way that would not be permitted on broadcast or cable television. The letter makes three main complaints about the app. The first suggests that Google mixes programming and ads, while another says that the relationship between Google and the manufacturers of advertised products is not clear. The groups ask for the FTC to take action to stop the advertisements. Also covered by The Verge and VentureBeat; here's the complaint letter.

92 comments

  1. Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These ads must be AWFUL indeed if they wouldn't be allowed on TV. Now, to be fair, I mostly skip ads on TV, but I do see some occasionally (such as when I can't pick up the TIVO remote in time, or a live sports event). Most of the ads I see on TV are blatant misrepresentations, disingenuous, or lies. OK mostly lies. Showing products working under conditions in which they cannot, doing thing they cannot, etc. If these are worse than those - wow, just wow. Of course they probably aren't worse.

    1. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's probably as awful as their "lets shove in reference's to 80s things for the milenial's" Google Play ad

    2. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not why such ads wouldn't be allowed on TV. All you really have to do to run afoul of FTC regulations is show commercials for, say, Power Rangers action figures during breaks in the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers TV broadcast.

    3. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      My first thought is: Why even use youtube for kids? Is content on youtube REALLY that damaging? I figure that at the worst, younger kids wouldn't understand what they're seeing, let alone somehow be damaged by it.

      Just use normal youtube with ad filtering.

    4. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet during breaks in the show seems like the most logical time to show ads for "spin-off" products related to that show.

    5. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Well, I mean it's only the Marlboro Man and some ads for liquor. There's nothing all that strange about those. Kids were seeing those all the time in the glory days of the 1950s.

    6. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is hardly any point in watching the stuff coming out of studio's production lines. Sometimes it gets mildly entertaining but the rest of it is juts outright boring or gets me angry at its stupidity. Ads on the other hand are sometimes really entertaining and they are relatively short. I mean there are some limits the broadcasters have for sending this shit out so the creators have certain constraints and this is where it gets interesting - the short stories with a point that I can watch many times and still enjoy and it only takes 30sec It reminds me of artists in bad dark days of communism where artists had to really think how to convey what they wanted to say because of censorship. This is not to say censorship is good but the flood of crap that they produce because they can and production is cheap is just overwhelming. Ads still have constraints built in which makes some actually a brilliant and brief piece of art (not the warhol way which got just tired after all these years).

    7. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by Joviex · · Score: 1

      I think you mean the 90s. Millennials were born in the 80s. What things would they reference? Stuff for 8 year olds?

    8. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, it sounds logical to show related advertisement, but the regulations say it's "unfair" since children will have trouble separating the commercials from the content.

    9. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      is this for real??? thats simple insane! how can you not advertize for X on a station airing X while X is on air??? that seems utterly insane

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    10. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by GNious · · Score: 1

      There is some content on YouTube, that many parents (me included) find inappropriate for children.

      Example was that my kid had found some Dora the Explorer cartoons on it, and afterwards YouTube suggested "related videos" that included very explicit adult content in non-official Dora cartoons.

    11. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by zlives · · Score: 1

      pretty sure thats not the case, i have seen ads for tv series that i am currently watching... new season dvd's blah blah. unless its a specific save the children rule.

    12. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's not being a parent and all, but I remember when I was 11 finding playboys and using swear words with my friends, and from what I understand this is basically normal for all kids of every generation, except in the older generations prior to pornography where the kids were more likely to engage in the real deal instead.

    13. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by GNious · · Score: 2

      Oh, definitely - I'd also seen my first "dirty magazine" by the time I was 11.

      But there's a difference between that, and a 5-yr old being subjected her favorite cartoon figure engaging in various acts, or hearing her talk about exterminating the native population while being a "potty-mouth".

      I'm kinda conscious of my kids learning the differences between nudity, affection and sexuality, and some of the stuff people are uploading on YouTube would undermine my efforts in that area.

    14. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      lets face it, the comments on any youtube video are inappropriate for anyone.

    15. Re:Wow, these ads must be AWFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if they realize that, because the Power Ranger dolls exist, the entire program is actually just one big commercial.

      I mean, what the hell was Pokemon if not a series of commercials designed to sell worthless playing cards?

  2. Not your grandpa's entertainment medium by pla · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ads are displayed in a way that would not be permitted on broadcast or cable television.

    Porn is not permitted on broadcast television either. Welcome to the internet.

    1. Re:Not your grandpa's entertainment medium by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're equating porn with advertising? Surely you are joking. One is filth-ridden trash, demeaning to women and men alike, imagined by sociopaths and enjoyable only to the sickest of perverts, the other is just people having fun in bed.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Not your grandpa's entertainment medium by Simulant · · Score: 1

      Childless Troll

    3. Re:Not your grandpa's entertainment medium by MitchDev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The internet isn't TV or radio, tough shit if the FCC doesn't like it.

      How much are parents paying to use YouTube Kids as a baby sitter?
      If anything, stop paying it and problem solved.
      Or even better, stop letting the computer/tablet/smartphone raise your kid for you.

    4. Re:Not your grandpa's entertainment medium by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

      The FCC's control of airwaves is predicated on them being limited. A few sentences of sophistry later, and presto! The Peple's wavelengths are controlled for content in violation of the first amendment.

      The same argument does not fly for Internet, as capacity can be expanded indefinitely, and is not based on a limited physical phenomenon.

      Still, the same could be said of phone lines, which were regulated using...wait for it...interstate commerce clause...by conservatives against porn and swearing. Well, that was pretty much all politicians back then.

      Some made feints to the newborn Internet in the late 1980s, that it could be controlled for content using the exact same argument.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Not your grandpa's entertainment medium by lgw · · Score: 1

      The internet isn't TV or radio, tough shit if the FCC doesn't like it.

      That bill with the name "Net Neutrality"? The fear of internet-aware conservatives was that it gave the FCC just such authority: to regulate content. Time will tell who was right, but vigilance is certainly required here if was want to keep the FCC out of it.

      Now, blanket bans on certain kinds of ads regardless of medium, that's different. The government certainly has an interest in fraud prevention that has nothing to do with how the ad is delivered.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re: Not your grandpa's entertainment medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTC not FCC ... Unsightful, not insightful.

  3. Wake up American's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hello, Google is all about targeted ads. Its how it makes most of its money. Gee, Parents, you have no problem buying your young kids smartphones. Then complain about everything that the kids are subjected too with them. From over buying apps, to content issues, and now ad's targeting them. All I can say is duh.
    Mobile is obviously the new format for ads and no matter what OS you are using Android, IOS or something else. The ad revenue stream is most important.
    No doubt this kind of litigation will be tied up in courts for years, wasting tons of money complaining rather then simply not participating in this kind of ad marketing. I question how many kids need a smartphone? In general I agree that some ads are not appropriate for some age groups. But I also question if many of these ads are simply placed within apps that are also inappropriate for that age group? Are the ads simply being targeted correctly and its the end user who should not have access to that app?

    1. Re:Wake up American's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody is saying Google should not display ads. They are saying the targeted ads are not kids friendly. Those are two different things. Kids watch TV and cable television too. Does not mean that ads that are NOT appropriate are broadcasted. I understand this Slashdot. Anybody complaining about their favorite company Google is not tolerated. But at least try to understand what they are complaining about. (by the way, I don't think this has any merit)

    2. Re:Wake up American's by thaylin · · Score: 0

      nice strawman there. The problem is come up with a reasonable complaint. Complaining about someone on the internet like this is ludacris, no matter who the company is.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    3. Re:Wake up American's by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Complaining about someone on the internet like this is ludacris

      What does rap have to do with this?

    4. Re:Wake up American's by thaylin · · Score: 1

      It has more to do with my poor spelling.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    5. Re:Wake up American's by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      Parents, just tell your kids "No, we aren't buying the advertised toy."
      Problem solved.
      It's called PARENTING

    6. Re:Wake up American's by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Oh like Toy Commercials, during the cartoons?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Wake up American's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hello anonymous non parent.

      You don't buy Suzy a phone like all the other kids have. Do you think Suzy thinks 1) Dad doesn't like Google 2) Dad doesn't like me.

      You know, those computer manufacturers do bad things to child slaves in Indonesia. You should totally not buy a computer for your child and cripple her chances at a productive adult life because you disagree with their policies. You should not bother to try to make them, oh, I don't know... Do no evil.

      I'm sure that will work... Dumb ass.

    8. Re:Wake up American's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, Google is all about targeted ads. Its how it makes most of its money. Gee, Parents, you have no problem buying your young kids smartphones.

      Hello, non parent. All the kids communicate with smartphones, not buying one for your kid is going to make him a social outcast, which real parents would recognize it is not going to work.

      And yes, I know Google is all about ads, so I do not buy Google-infested phones, and bought my kids iPhones. Obviously you do not know about how locked-down iOS can be. I can disable apps that I don't want my kids to use, include Safari and YouTube, and just leave them with Kindle, Whatsapp and Skype. They can communicate and read as much as they like on it, without worrying about ads from Google.

    9. Re:Wake up American's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All the other kids" do not have a fucking phone.

      Hello, non parent, obviously you do not have any kids.

      Kids do not need cell phones any more today than they did in 1930.

      Yeah right, you continue to imagine kids living in a world just like when you were a kid. We parents have to contend with our kids living in the present.

  4. i've heard this for years, move along by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Sponsors pay for content either in production or distribution and that's how they get their brand recognition to their targeted audience. It's been that way for decades and when it comes to kids shows, most of them are toy manufacturers or clothing or related products that get the kids to desire the things that are advertised. with targeted marketing on platforms like IOS or Android now content sponsors can drill in even further with ads that are identifying a specific child. "Hey Billy, buy this.."
    is it unfair? In some ways yes and in others it's not because there's no such thing as free content.

    In Kids programming that's what PBS did for kids with Sesame Street etc.

    If you want to fix this, fix how content production and distribution are funded but you're never going to outlaw Barbie.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  5. I personally think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that a certain other fruit company just wants to tarnish Google's image and is paying a "grassroots" looking movement to launch spurious lawsuits.

    I mean, seriously? Who complains about this stuff? Do people think that the ads they saw on their Samsung / LG TV with their Cable Provider are related to the manufacturer or cable service provider?

  6. If the service is free by funwithBSD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    then you are the product.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    1. Re:If the service is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      That's the most original statement I have heard in a long time. Let's mod this guy up insightful. Truly, I've never heard this before. It's definitely not been repeated on every single blog, verve thoughtpiece on Facebook/Google, slate thoughtpiece on Facebook/Google, medium thoughtpiece on Facebook/Google, younameitbuzzfeedcrapoloa.com Facebook/Google thoughtpiece. Endless wannabe important blogs pontificating about life. It's not been pontificated upon, praised, despised, repeated and repeated. I'm so glad you came here today to say this most original statement. There's no way that we can't just accept people who use Facebook or Google, they either care to be aware or they don't. Thank you again, for demonstrating you are capable of saying something unique and insightful and original. I think the world can't thank you enough for bringing yourself to Slashdot today. Thank you.

    2. Re:If the service is free by __aabppq7737 · · Score: 1

      A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realize that when an online service is free, you’re not the customer. You’re the product. But at [name goes here], we believe a great customer experience shouldn’t come at the expense of your privacy.

    3. Re:If the service is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a product? Something that is produced? Was gmail produced by developers? Is that a product of their work? Some ads team inside the company has their ads running in gmail, their own product. I get ads in exchange for free network resources and security. Is the security of gmail not a product of security people at Google? Is ad data they build on me not a product of their technology as much a product of my own being, personality. Certainly a product of all the actions of I have taken. Or forces that have influence me in my life, such as the products of others. If I don't want to be a product to advertisers, I can pay for network resources instead and then not receive ads. This has been a reality of the Internet / Web since its existence. It's like people wake up one morning realize this reality and then make it a reoccurring issue in news crap feeds like this one.

    4. Re:If the service is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too many IT people here make their money from a company like Google, or Doubleclick, etc., and want to blame the "stupid end user" for not knowing how the internet works.

      You won't get honesty on this subject from this site.

    5. Re:If the service is free by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      If people had heard it enough they would not have bothered to write the original article about a Consumer Group "bemoaning" the practice.

      OF COURSE they are doing that, that is the whole point of providing a free product, to monetize you. Don't like it? Don't use it.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    6. Re:If the service is free by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Soylent Green... it is MADE OF PEOPLE!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    7. Re:If the service is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true! Why do you think they moddown apk for here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... and here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... and here too http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... as well as over here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... and here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... and here also http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... and then yet again here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... and here also http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... and lastly here too http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... ? You said it as to why. They can't even justify their downmods (oh, they'll say "it's spam" and it's just apk reposting to spite the weasels you speak of) validly as to why on a technical computing level.

  7. "Singled out are unboxing videos" by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

    A while back our children discovered videos that are so called unboxing videos. It is unclear to me what the exact revenue source is, but there are videos that are nothing but a set of hands opening surprise eggs for an hour (not an exaggeration - we're talking about a literal hour long video of hands opening up a big pile of surprise eggs, and there are many like it). Now, is this disturbing? Yes, absolutely. What is even more disturbing is that the advertisement has become the content.

    That being said, I think the fact that many of these videos have 1 million plus views indicates that parents are ok with their children watching this.

    I think the moral of the story is that if you don't want your children watching ads, then don't let them watch youtube, or at least careful curate for them.

    I do not blame Youtube or Google for this though.

  8. YouTube has Ads by BobMcD · · Score: 0

    YouTube has ads, film at 11. Also, water found to be wet.

    I've read the articles, and I'm not finding how the content of the 'for kids' version of the site is WORSE for children than the vanilla experience.

    Can anyone shed light on this for me?

  9. no. Not the end user problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " in YouTube Kids for Android and iOS" end user is clearly kids.

  10. We restrict our kids' access to YouTube by rockmuelle · · Score: 2

    We cut the cord years ago and have used a mix of Hulu, Netflix, and the various network apps for content (PBS Kids, etc). YouTube has always been problematic, not just for the ads, but also for the content and the "next up" algorithm. As a result, we only let the kids use YouTube (and YouTube Kids) when we're in the room with them and have our finger on the remote.

    Here are the specific problems with YouTube:

    Ads: The ads are not targeted at all. If you've ever paid attention to ads, you already know the promise of targeted advertising is bunk. The problem with YouTube is that it's doubly bunk when it comes to kids programming on normal YouTube (and apparently on kids' YouTube as well). Completely inappropriate ads will pop up after kids shows. It's not rocket science to tweak your algorithm to play a kid appropriate add after a cartoon, even if it means the occasional adult will get the wrong ad.

    Content: This is trickier. A lot of the cartoon content on YouTube consists of collections of episodes bundled into a single video. The problem is, the bundles are created by fans and you have no idea what's in it until you watch it. Sometimes they're crappy screen captures. Sometimes they're dubbed in another language (without calling it out in the title). In those cases, you spend 10 minutes with the kids just trying to find one they can watch. The worst, however, are the ones that are "archival" and created by superfans. My best example is a compilation of Donald Duck cartoons that includes the WWII episode where Donald fights Hitler*. Great episode... for adults who understand the context. Terrible episode for kids. YouTube has no good way of warning parents about this.

    Next up: This is easy. The algorithm appears to randomly pick something that has the same word in the title as the previous or has been tagged to be similar. It's very easy to go from Donald Duck to Duck Hunting to Duck Dynasty to an unhinged Phil Robertson rant. Leave your kids alone with YouTube at your own risk!

    Look, Google has more money than God and a lot of smart engineers. If they cared about this, they could fix it. YouTube Kids isn't the solution.

    -Chris

    *does that count for Goodwin?

    1. Re:We restrict our kids' access to YouTube by stoned_ritual · · Score: 1

      Dude, youtube is a place for user created content, this means that youtube is not responsible for what it's users upload. That is your sign to keep the kids off.

    2. Re:We restrict our kids' access to YouTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Youtube has no good way of warning parents about this."

      It is neither Youtube's job nor place to make these parenting decisions, that is the parent's responsibility to review and be aware of what content the PARENT is presenting the child with.

    3. Re:We restrict our kids' access to YouTube by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I've found Google's targeted ads to reflect my own interests reasonably well. They don't *always* get it right, of course. But they do so the majority of time. The thing is, I share neither my computer nor youtube account with anyone else. so there's no chance of anyone else's browsing skewing the profile they have of my interests.

      So, if you're consistently finding that the delivered ads don't reflect your, or your kids', interests; you're better off making sure that the right person is logged into the right account than ranting about how google teh eviluz. If you ARE sure that the correct person is always logged into the correct account, and you're still seeing ads for furry hentai tentacle-porn, you might want to check into their non-youtube internet habits instead of ranting about how google teh eviluz.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    4. Re:We restrict our kids' access to YouTube by sjames · · Score: 1

      That was true right up to the point that they made an offering of something specifically claimed to be curated and appropriate for kids.

  11. Breeding Earth-Destroyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Breeding Earth-Destroyer.

  12. I don't have kids but by stoned_ritual · · Score: 1

    I was watching some music videos on youtube and was interrupted with an ad with 2 women drinking wine on a couch, and one of them says "THIS PLACE IS THE SHIT" what the fuck is that? commercials with swears? AWESOME

  13. TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those who can't read TFA:

    One complaint is that ads are played continuously with 'programming'. That's *precisely* how TV works. You don't get to choose when you watch ads and when you watch programming. At least on youtube you can pause it without an external recording device(TiVo).

    Another complaint is that ads come in two flavors - nonskippable 30 second ads, and skippable 60 second ads. The complaint states some ads are longer than 60 seconds, and provides no examples.

    The final is that YouTube is tracking children and giving them recommendations. The complaint letter asks if Google has asked parents for consent in tracking their children. I can't say for sure, but I assume the answer is yes. Google's entire business is based on tracking people in order to serve up ads, and tracking consent is little more than boilerplate legalese to them.

    None of the complaints have been taken to Google prior to this notice to the FTC.

    1. Re:TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apk chooses not to see ads http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... so I just tried his program I can now too so Google's outta luck. So is YouTube. His program's resulting hosts file blocks their ads too.

  14. Be free of ads/tracking/malware/dns issues etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    (Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack))

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  15. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  16. I asked AdBlock's creator those questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Result? W. Palant RAN after he wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google & Others Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  17. Don't BE "the product": How?... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    (Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack))

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk/b

  18. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  19. I asked AdBlock's creator those questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Result? W. Palant RAN after he wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google & Others Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  20. Vs. ads/tracking/malware/DNS issues & more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    (Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack))

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  21. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  22. I asked AdBlock's creator those questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Result? W. Palant RAN after he wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google & Others Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  23. I've blown webweasel wannabe coders away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Many times on hosts they don't DARE *try* take me on anymore directly by their "registered 'luser'" accounts here (or I'll just toss when I've done so before right back @ them on their fails which I bookmark faithfully in order to do so).

    Yes folks:

    All they have is their effete "downmods" which I simply bypass reposting them to spite them (showing them how little they know when I can do that too, lol), and most posts WILL still be seen EITHER downmodded OR not, since most here browse well below the default "moderation system" threshold anyways!

    (Anyone can cheat the stupid "so-called 'moderation system'" here too - just use multiple email accounts and it's sockpuppet city - for downmodding those who get the better of you, OR upset your "personal agenda" as in this case advertisers + webchumps (lol), and to upmod your own BULLSHIT posts that are either lies as was stated by those just before you to whom you replied, or utter technically inaccurate inefficient crap).

    APK

    P.S.=> It just just kill them, lol, knowing that I've DUSTED THEM SO BADLY, so many times, that all they have is unjustifiable "downmods", OR trolling me by ac after (they don't dare use their "registered 'luser'" accounts, since I've torched probably EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM @ one time or another on hosts, OR other "things technical" also)... apk

  24. Fix it easily (w/ something you have already) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    (Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack))

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  25. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  26. I asked AdBlock's creator those questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Result? W. Palant RAN after he wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google & Others Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk