Slashdot Mirror
One Day After iOS 9's Launch, Ad Blockers Top Apple's App Store
HughPickens.com writes: Sarah Perez reports at TechCrunch that only one day after the release of Apple's newly released version of Apple's mobile operating system, iOS 9, ad blockers are topping the charts in the App Store and it seems that new iOS 9 users are thrilled to have access to this added functionality. The Top Paid iOS app is the new ad-blocker Peace, a $2.99 download from Instapaper founder Marco Arment. Peace currently supports a number of exclusive features that aren't found in other blockers yet. Most notably, it uses Ghostery's more robust blocklist, which Arment licensed from the larger company by offering them a percentage of the app's revenue. "I can't believe how many trackers are on popular sites," says Arment. "I can't believe how fast the web is without them." Other ad blockers are also topping the paid app chart as of today, including the Purify Blocker (#3), Crystal (#6), Blockr (#12). (Ranks as of the time of writing.) With the arrival of these apps, publishers and advertisers are fretting about the immediate impact to their bottom lines and business, which means they'll likely soon try to find ways to sneak around the blockers. In that case, it should be interesting to see which of the apps will be able to maintain their high degree of ad blocking over time.
It's no surprise that advertisers and publishers who make their money from advertising aren't exactly fans of blockers. What is surprising is that no one seemed to disagree with the argument that online ads have gotten out of control. "I think if we don't acknowledge that, we'd be fools," says Scott Cunningham, "So does that mean ad blockers are good or right? Absolutely not. Do we have an accountability and responsibility to address these things? Absolutely — and there's a lot that we're doing now." Harry Kargman agrees that in many cases, online ads have created "a bad consumer experience — from an annoyance perspective, a privacy perspective, a usability perspective." At the same time, Kargman says that as the industry works to solve these problems, it also needs to convince people that when you use an ad blocker, "That's stealing. It's no different than ripping music. It's no different than pirating movies."
It's no surprise that advertisers and publishers who make their money from advertising aren't exactly fans of blockers. What is surprising is that no one seemed to disagree with the argument that online ads have gotten out of control. "I think if we don't acknowledge that, we'd be fools," says Scott Cunningham, "So does that mean ad blockers are good or right? Absolutely not. Do we have an accountability and responsibility to address these things? Absolutely — and there's a lot that we're doing now." Harry Kargman agrees that in many cases, online ads have created "a bad consumer experience — from an annoyance perspective, a privacy perspective, a usability perspective." At the same time, Kargman says that as the industry works to solve these problems, it also needs to convince people that when you use an ad blocker, "That's stealing. It's no different than ripping music. It's no different than pirating movies."
They're stealing my time, and electricity
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If they want to claim that as stealing then they should pay us for the bandwidth THEY are stealing.
on the main page! It's sad how slow and bloated /. has become.
The last three sentences. Good grief.
Crystal offered their product for free for literally less than a day but I snapped it up in time.
Holy shit. It's like the first time you discovered adblock+ on your desktop. Suddenly surfing is fast and, well, useful.
Fucking advertisers are especially aggressive on mobile because they know their audience is captive and less skilled. If, as a species, we spent half as much time as it took to research how to make predictive ad slide right the fuck under your thumb before you tap the screen in to medical research we'd have cured fucking cancer by now. (I'm looking right the fuck at you slashdot on mobile. In-line adds for fermium shitware skinnerbox games and hovering banners? Fuck this place has fallen since the 90s)
This is a real coup for apple. Think you'll ever see operating system supported ad blockers on the play store? Fat fucking chance!
I'm NOT buying your product because you advertised it. I'm buying it because a friend told me it was good.
By blocking your ads, I'm freeing myself from the annoyance of advertisements that I'm going to completely ignore anyway, and I'm recovering both bandwidth and electricity that YOU are stealing from me, because the application developer whose app I am using decided their app wasn't good enough to be a pay app, and decided instead to steal from me to get money from you (the advertiser).
You have to realize that you are spending your advertising dollars on very ineffective advertising. Worse, you are directly harming your brand by advertising in such a negative, intrusive, and annoying way.
It's stealing the same way that using the restroom when a TV show has a commercial break is stealing. Can they really blame people for defending themselves when they are constantly barraged with out-of-control ads that track users, install malware, block the actual content, and play difficult-to-stop audio that's not related to the actual content? I see them as no different than if the ads played before movies started showing up on the side walls of the theater while the movie is playing, and sometimes in the middle of the screen while the movie is still playing. And they send people into the theater to try and pick your pocket and leave ads in place of your wallet. Sure, the theater would make a good living taking money from those people for being allowed in - but they will still be driven out of business if all the customers stop showing up because of it.
If ad blocking is considered "stealing" then most of these "ads" should be considered "hacking" and ad companies and executives, especially the ones that end up serving exploits, should be prosecuted just as aggressively as Aaron Swartz and others.
I'm still not sure how they convinced sharing music where no one loses is stealing, but some people think it is stealing even though the distribution costs are basically 0. Anyway, if they can pull another fast one and convince people that not watching ads is stealing, they'll want to go the extra mile,"If you watch your content without buying stuff our sponsors promote, you're basically stealing free content.". Don't buy into their mind poison.
God spoke to me
"That's stealing. It's no different than ripping music. It's no different than pirating movies."
How the heck is decreasing your bandwith by selectively not downloading ads the same as transcoding a music CD you own or copyright infringing a movie from https://kat.cr/ ?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
If companies complain about ad-blocking, they should move to a pay wall. Let's see how that works out for them.
Here in the states, mobile bills mostly charge by the GB. The countless ads consume vast bandwidth, especially ones with video. F them and their free riding on MY dime!
Like all pathogenic vermin, advertisers will gradually become resistant to the drugs we use to treat ad infections.
I'm paying for bandwidth and adds force me to spend money to watch them.
I know who the thieves are ....
The problem is that publishers don't see the cost of delivery of their advertising. Like email spam there is little to no cost to throw in a few more lines of JavaScript to pull another ad from another ad delivery service.
But the consumers do see the cost. Download costs (especially for mobile) for the extra data. Longer time to load. Harder to read with ad's cluttering the page. Etc etc.
At the very least if this pushes publishers to convert 2nd and 3rd party ads to first party by (minimally proxying or caching) the delivery through their own site it will provide them with a better idea of the cost.
Moving more content to first party delivery allows protocols like SPDY to shine and optimize delivery. Faster and less bits (through compression.)
The message to publishers is take control of the data you want people to look at. Deliver it yourself.
The message to advertisers is to develop alternate mechanisms to ensure your ads are being delivered through first party sites. Ad blocking of crappy delivery mechanisms means that your choice is no ads or delivery as a first party ad.
1) They advertise to me. ....with the intention that after they've forced me to see something I definitely said that I didn't want to see - that somehow I'll want to buy their product?
2) I dislike their adverts sufficiently that I'm prepared to spend actual money to stop seeing them.
3) So they try very hard to force me to see their adverts anyway.
4)
Did I get that right?
They send me crap that I've very explicitly opted out of by installing an ad blocker...and they think that'll make me want to buy their stuff?
OK - I don't get it. I really don't.
-- Steve
www.sjbaker.org
Turn off javascript, and ads go away.
The iPhone doesn't just work...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Well said. Next they'll say I'm stealing the newspaper that I read, simply because I skip the sections marked "Paid Advertisement" and don't read the Classified Ads thoroughly each day.
Therefore, I'm doing my best to keep them off of my computer.
Ad blockers are pretty much a necessity on mobile networks.
Don't feel guilty about using them either. Ads cost real money on mobile networks because they eat into your quota. They also degrade your device's performance and track your behaviour. Don't dismiss that last point as the cost of free services. While the network is public, your device is private. You should have the right to control which network requests your device does and does not make, as well as control which code executes on it. All of this talk about ads funding websites and behaviour tracking being used to improve the relevance of ads is pure nonsense. If it was about funding websites with relevant ads, they would simply display ads based upon the content of the website.
Hey advertisers! Yeah we're "taking" website content for free, without paying for it, because that is precisely the nature of our contract and covenant with said website. Meanwhile your covenant with them is to pay them money and in return they'll place your ads. We have no covenant with you. We are not obligated to look at your ads.
But what if every ad-supported site fails? If web content were not totally optional and inessential in every way you might have a point there. But since it's plentiful, mostly stupid, and hardly costs anything to deliver(*) we're actually paying close to market value for it. And a web made up of enthusiasts and community-supported sites might actually be a hell of a lot better than the corporate-dominated one we have now that's so full of bloodsuckers who want something for nothing.
(*) Sure, starting from no web server or site, and going all the way to reaching user #1, takes a lot of effort. But users #2 through (thousands) take zero effort beyond that. (You webmasters are STEALING! SHRIEK!!! SHRIEK!!!)
since I don't read or click the ads, blocking them saves them from serving useless bytes. I am doing them a favor by blocking. besides, just because you sent me an URL doesn't mean I'm going to pull it. It is after all, MY computer. But I am sure the ad guys will be fine. They still put them into my broadcast and cable streams, but my DVR skips past them in clean 30 second increments, so again, it just costs them bandwidth, with no real upside in my case. /shrug
I am not sure how they convinced everyone that sneaking into a movie theater is stealing. The seat was empty and it doesn't cost them extra money.
I wonder as they keep mentioning "browser blocking" if it is as effective as the way a rooted android phone blocks ads. I dont have said phone, but as I understand it, the android adblocking will block ads in applications as well (some sort of host file block?) which by the sound of it, this does not do.
Anyone got any info? Has android lost the superiority wars in terms of adblocking?
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Just like with copyright, the public putting up with advertising in exchange for content is part of a social contract. We want to be informed or entertained and in exchange content producers deserve to be compensated. But the public never agreed to be tracked by advertisers and we never agreed to the advertising to be this in-your-face. Just as with copyright holders, advertisers were the ones who chose to break this social contract first. Since the contract is broken, I'm going to do whatever I want until we have a new contract we are both willing to sign. That's how negotiations work.
"That's stealing. It's no different than ripping music. It's no different than pirating movies."
True. It's my computer and those are my shiny discs full of bits. Using a blocker to customize the way I interact with web pages is no more wrong than moving my music from a CD to a more-convenient file. Since blu-rays I own refuse to play on my secondary TV (an old CRT), pirating those movies gives me no moral hesitation whatsoever. Nor does turning off flash, blocking ads, or doing any of the dozens of things I do with my browsers and my other software on my computers.
If somebody wants to call what I do "stealing", well, fine. I never put my monitor up for rent as a billboard, so I could say anyone who tries to use it as such is trespassing and vandalizing my property. :^) The fact that ads are so far out of control that people will use non-free (and non-Free) blockers to avoid them is pretty telling.
I'm not blocking ads. Blocking ads is impossible, because it is equivalent to the Halting Problem. If ad blocking == stealing, I'm not, because I'm prevented from doing so by the law of mathematics.
But on a case-by-case basis, I'm doing what the fuck I like to do with the data on the receiving end. Among them: choosing not to receive something because I don't see a point of doing so, or because I find them antagonizing to my faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or because I'm a robot and I find your act of catering to humans very racist and offensive. Interpreting this as "ad blocking", hence denouncing this as stealing, reflects your inability to handle the cognitive dissonance, which is your problem, not mine.
Now, not looking at your copyrighted material is piracy? Someone is very deluded. Let's go back to capitalism: You offer a product at a price I like. When I asked for your product (web-page) I didn't agree to the price of 80% of my time (and bandwidth) being consumed by adverts, so what can I do? I can download the level of advertising that I can tolerate and do so because you demonstrated that agreement is not required before consuming your product (web-page).
Just like television, I didn't agree to watch the adverts: It doesn't matter if I walk out of the room or fast-forward through the broadcast. You don't choose how I consume your product.
Wouldn't that be trespassing? Not sure how you trespass by downloading selective content.
You know it makes sense.
So when will Apple let us block in app ads?
Oh I see. This isn't about blocking ads for user's. It's about Apple trying to get more devs to make apps and use iAds which are not blocked so Apple can make more $$$
... without looking at or or mute an ad on television or alt-tab away from a youtube ad to ignore it, or perhaps just close my eyes, put my fingers in my ears and shout "lalalalalalala" does that mean I am a pirate or thief or ripper?
... it also needs to convince people that when you use an ad blocker, "That's stealing. It's no different than ripping music. It's no different than pirating movies."
So you're saying that you cannot show any actual loss from the use of ad-blockers?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, yes. You made a script that was moderately useful to a handful of people for a brief period in the 90's, before it was rendered irrelevant and obsolete. Now you're like Al Bundy constantly going on about that time you once made four touchdowns in a single game in high school...except your little script would be more accurately described as one field goal.
You will now prove me right.
Your app dates from the 90s and sucked shit even then.
You're on the record as BRAGGING about its amazing CPU-hogging qualities.
Now fuck off.
Stealing.... WTF.
How about the theft of my bandwidth which costs me a LOT more money than you earn from the ads
How about the theft of my privacy, no you DON"T have that right. You want that right, make your front page one that tells us exactly what information you gather and who you give/sell it to, and how you use information from other sources to add to the knowledge about the individual. The give them a page where they can see that information. Show it overtime, if I hit "agree", then you have that right, until then there is no implicit contract. Your current system is "here, sign this... yeah its a blank contract, we'll fill it in later, its all OK, trust us, but no you can NOT see the result".
Tell us how many companies are snooping on us, tracking us, are you scared that will put people off ?
Its NOT like a magazine or newspaper, I know there are ads printed, but those ads don't track me, report back about where I am in the article, how long I have been there, where my geolocation is, what other magazines I have bought, etc etc etc.
So, ALL my machines have ad blocking/anti-tracking software. I even have an extensive hosts list on all my computers.
So, theft.... not even close. What I have done is put locks on my door to stop unknown strangers from entering, thats security, not theft.
"So does that mean ad blockers are good or right? Absolutely not.
Do we have an accountability and responsibility to address these things? Absolutely"
Would we be having any kind of conversation about how out-of-control ads are if people weren't using ad blockers? HELL NO. It would be business as usual.
I just wish advertising didn't work and people would make up their own minds. If car companies took their advertising budget and put it into R&D or maybe bought the $2.00 part instead of the $0.50 part, we'd have better cars and less Mathew McConaughey navel gazing.
You know how some horror games have a Lovecraftian "sanity" meter?
Well when I get a full page popover, or I click on the screen randomly and am suddenly whisked to a page I did not expect - each of those events reduces my real life sanity meter. Out of control ad techniques are literally stealing my sanity.
A side effect is the support I once had for ads on websites has eroded to my not caring at all what the loss of ad revenue does to websites, to not caring at all if the web as a whole dies or is reduced to some pre-historic form.
My thought now is, if whatever ad you wanted to present was not in the initial HTML load it's fair game to be choosy about loading. I will whitelist sites I like a lot to help them out, but only if the ads there behave.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I assume it won't block iAd
Just like the grossly exaggerated claims that were made a few years ago by Edward Withacre (then CEO of SBC). Or so many other "industry heads" like the music execs who want to endlessly resell you different copies of music you've already purchased, whatever stands in their way of "maximizing shareholder dividends" is anathema, and should be destroyed at all cost. Consumers being nothing more than opportunities to fleece money from.
It's a pattern, a chronic need to do this; but a phenomenon which in no small part probably is also due to their need to posture for the home crowd in order to retain their cushy jobs. These people can't be that utterly dumb Rather, and whether we'd like to admit it or not, we'd do and say the same if we were in their position. Because to get to that position would have meant being capable of stepping over so many carcasses of dead rivals, and having burned so many bridges to get ahead that saying stuff like this is only a logical extension of this alpha-dog mindset.
TL;DR: meh nothing to see, business as usual, move along. No need to get worked up about another garden-variety troll comment.
Static ads? Not a big problem. Annoying ads? I'll get around those. Insecure ads? Sorry I've got to block your entire site but the bare bones now.
I use the Mercury browser on iOS. One of its features is adblocking, I haven't seen an ad in ages.
Mercury homepage
Trolling is a art,
I personally don't have anything against ads and unless they are overly annoying and get in the way of what i'm trying to do I don't even notice they are there. That being said the fact that ad blockers exist and have become so popular says something about the advertising methods currently in use. If you really think about it people block ads because they are annoying, which means they are not paying attention to them anyway. So how is those users blocking ads stealing.
I know what your going to say, "They may not buy it now but later when their in the store their subconcious will remember it and they'll buy it because the brand name sounds familiar".
To that I say that's probably true in same cases. But in my case I lookup specs and reviews on the product and compare it with competitors i've never heard of before buying and most often get the competitor. The only exception is for standard household items like food, cleaners, and such. And for those I just buy whatever is cheaper. I don't have much brand exclusivity either so your ad was not going to help you make any money from me anyway and there isn't much you can do about. I'm sure most people that block ads take a similar approach and equally ignored the ads even before they blocked them. Stop blaming your problems on everyone else and take it for what it is. A sign that your advertising approach is not acceptable and use that to motivate you to find something better. Of course about the only way to get business from people like me is to make a better and/or cheaper product without sacrificing on functionality so there's not much you can do to your advertising to win me over.
A sucker is born every minute
So I get ads are annoying and maybe $2.99 is not much to pay to block those ads if it works. But like the popup blocker which to me was the first way to block ads.
You know the ad developers will surely find away around all of this. Unfortunately all people end up with is a reprieve from ads for a while. It teaches nobody a lesson other then some web sites will lose revenue or even possible turn to a paid site or close down entirely. Too many anal people who can't just ignore them will just make a few ad blocker developers wealthier and drive ad developers into new territory. We are not addressing the problem only a temporary solution.
I don't use a ad blocker and never will, I won't pay someone for a app to block something that allows me to view a site for free. It won't end well down the road and these ad blocker people are simply short sighted in how they deal with ads. Be careful what you wish for because ad blockers might be the medicine but not the cure.
It's not stealing, it's refusing delivery. Big difference.
That's no mere script. I looked at that link. It's a full blown executable for Windows.
Seriously, this is hysterically funny BECAUSE it is so spot on. And I just realized government is really just another species of butt leech except not quite so harmless! :-)
Protecting my brain from images (and noise and video) I do not want to see is not 'stealing'. (copyright infringement is also not 'stealing' and building a clock is not terrorism, but that's another issue.) How can refusing to accept a pile of crap shoved into your face be considered anything besides self-defense?
I remember the web pre-advertising (pre-wordpress & pre-blogger, pre-google -- heck, pre-slashdot) before the first dot-com boom. There may have been fewer sites, and pretty much no 'old media' presence, but wow between AltaVista & Infoseek, useful information was much easier to find than it is now.
I could go on about how crap like javascript has ruined the usability of the web as well, but in short: Get off my lawn.
Their right to advertise ends at my right to block them. Surfing the web is not stealing. I FUCKING PAID AN ISP TO DO SO.
You feel it's stealing?
You feel it's not stealing?
It doesn't matter either way, because soon everyone (or nearly so) will be blocking ads (why they aren't already I've no idea) because it provides a much better experience on whatever device you're using.
So, regardless of how you feel about adblocking, if you want to make money off people visiting your site you'll either need to charge everyone to visit or serve up the ads yourself and burden the cost of the bandwidth, storage, and processing of doing so.
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
See subject line & that quote - want more? "Ask & ye SHALL receive"...
* :)
APK
P.S.=> You WISH you were me - lol! I don't blame you... apk
where the fuck have you been the last 20 years or so? adblocking is hardly a novel idea. it's how many of us survived the dialup era. junkbusters or webwasher, anyone?
Here's the argument as I see it.
The advertisers are saying that in order to get the information that I want from their servers, I need to accept and download onto my machine whatever they want. That's fine with me, but I think it needs to go both ways.
In order to get the information you want off of my computer (my personal data, give or take) you need to accept and run from my machine whatever I want you to run.
It's just fair, right? Otherwise you're just stealing from me.
I'm not using an ad blocker to steal from you, I'm using an ad blocker to keep you from stealing from me.
I think it is backwards to say "blocking ads is stealing". It is quite the other way around. When I want to watch a video online, or read an article, it is stealing from me to divert my attention to something I did not choose to see and which I have no interest in. That act of theft of my precious attention (I only have so much of it in my life, and it is MY attention that I have the right to direct as I choose) is an immoral act. We are so used to this immoral stealing of our attention that we have gotten numb to it. But that does not make it right. The immorality of advertising was a wake up call to me. I had never thought of it that way until I read a Slashdot article recently pointing this out: http://slashdot.org/story/15/0.... From that article: "Advertising is a natural resource extraction industry, like a fishery. Its business is the harvest and sale of human attention. We are the fish and we are not consulted." Touche, advertisers!!! You can pry my adblocker from my cold dead fingers!
go away, adblock needs it's cousin dickheadblock
I haven't seen a valid ad in quite some time on mobile. All I ever see are those fake battery apps and fake virus scanners. If only Google had the balls to do this for Android... Until then, I'm going to keep rooting my phone, or ditch smartphones all together.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
it also needs to convince people that when you use an ad blocker, "That's stealing. It's no different than ripping music. It's no different than pirating movies."
Go die in a fire, you asshole. It's not stealing. This prick reminds me of Jamie Kellner (chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting) who equated going to the bathroom during commercial breaks with stealing:
When asked if he considers people who go to the bathroom during a commercial to be thieves, he responded: "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom. But if you formalize it and you create a device that skips certain second increments, you've got that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for 30 seconds. They've done that just to make it easy for someone to skip a commercial."
By this 'reasoning', not looking at ads or not listening to commercials is 'stealing'. No. No no no. That's not what stealing is.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Dear Mr. Kargman,
> when you use an ad blocker, "That's stealing. It's no different than ripping music. It's no different than pirating movies."
Thank you for confirming my negative user experience.
Now excuse me while I gouge out Firefox's Javascript executing capability (know what? That's way more effective than any ad blocker and just a couple of clicks in about:config away).
Refusing to buy or be enticed is not "stealing." It is MY time you're wasting, MY bandwidth your consuming, and MY CPU that you're overloading.
Go fuck yourselves.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Are there no free ad blockers out there for iOS?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
As fall is upon us, if you feel like a good scare, do look at a modern web site's innards. Even the simplest web sites are now mashups of resources from dozens of domains. Even the most elementary components, without which the site doesn't work at all, are usually loaded from some other party's server. Self reliant web sites are no more, and it takes hundreds of individual requests to load a web page these days. Every ad loads tracking scripts, every site loads multiple "analytics" packages. Every one of them creates additional requests to report the findings. And the whole storm of requests and little programs that your computer has to process gives you nothing: In the middle of all that is "content" (often licensed click bait) that's only a couple of kilobytes and could be rendered by an anemic 20 year old computer before the user lets go of the mouse button.
Javascript in normal web pages needs to die. It's a worse scourge than Flash.
So if blocking ads is going to kill the internet, does that mean we'll return to the 90s era of the internet?
Back then, people discussed their interests and hobbies on the internet or just generally screwed around without interference from bad actors. Some of the bad actors that have made the internet nearly intolerable are big business shoving ads everywhere, think-of-the-children legislators trying to ban everything and spoiled kids who want to ram their extreme political opinions into every portion of the internet.
So what you're saying is, if we all block ads, we get rid of the monetization of the internet, and with its departure, we get rid of the idiots who are here just to shit around and fuck things up for people who want to use it as an exchange for the free flow of ideas and culture.
Sign me the fuck up.
You're welcome to send me all of the ads you want. I chose not to download them on my Internet connection. Fuck off.
"That's stealing. It's no different than ripping music. It's no different than pirating movies.". WTF ?
In that case trying to force me to watch ads for crap I have no interest in is like raping a helpless disabled child in the face with an angle grinder.
Moron.
Why do you think this was so successful for me -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... on the PC platform?
* Same reason as this article...
(I'm only giving folks what they want & need - more speed, security, reliability, + even added anonymity (to a lesser extent on the latter though)).
"I'm no gonna let 'em catch the midnight rider..." -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
APK
P.S.=> Mod me down & troll me like you did here 5x already:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...
http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...
http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...
http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...
http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...
Doesn't change a thing, lol... & you KNOW it!
(I truly get that "last laugh" @ you fools, every time... lol!)
... apk
Sneaking into a movie theater is at least taking a scarce resource without payment, even if the resource would be otherwise unused. Making illegal copies of music doesn't involve a scarce resource.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"Put it on plate, son, you'll enjoy it more."
"See that? Ordinary fucking people. I hate 'em."
I thought people didn't read classified ads because most people don't have a Secret or higher security clearance.
If you watch your content without buying stuff our sponsors promote, you're basically stealing free content.
Then let them sign up with cpalead or another cost-per-action ad network, and let them drop out of rankings on reputable web search engines.
I think it's time we, internet users take notice of all the advertising that is forced down our browsing devices. Who benefits? We see dozens or even hundreds of ads daily. Who pays for them. We do! If all of the advertising was required to pay for the time and data usage that we are currently paying, a lot of the advertising would go away. It's time we take back the internet. If some company, agency, conglomerate wants to advertise on our devices THEY need to pay for the time and down load bits, bytes, KB, MB and GB they force us to watch or be annoyed by. No this is not the same as TV, because on commercial TV the show we want to watch is the staple, and yes someone must pony up the expenses for that show. The advertising on the internet uses the bandwidth we pay for to inundate us with their garbage, not the same as TV. The advertisers must take note and pay for and allocate the data usage to those advertising not the users who really don't want to see or be charged for their display.
Browser addons are horrible on cpu, ram, messagepassing overuse http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... and they operate in slower usermode.