Slashdot Mirror


In Battle With Ad Blockers, Ad Industry Fesses Up To Alienating Users (iab.com)

itwbennett writes: In a post on the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) website Thursday, Scott Cunningham, senior vice president of technology of IAB and general manager of its Tech Lab, issued what amounts to an apology for "[losing] track of the user experience" and called on advertisers "to do better." But it may be a case of too little, too late as "a report (PDF) released in August forecasted that U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers," writes Jeremy Kirk.

398 comments

  1. Thanks, Scott! by Bovius · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank goodness you speak for every advertising agency and website operator in the world. I guess we can expect a more balanced approach from here on out.

    1. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Ken_g6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From what I can tell, most website operators are at the mercy of advertising agencies. Basically it's a case of let the advertising agency have their way with the site, or don't get any ad revenue. Or get another advertising agency, but there don't seem to be many of those that pay well.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    2. Re:Thanks, Scott! by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's from the IAB, which actually is an important organizing group of advertising. They set standards for various protocols, etc.
      So if he's saying it, it's not because users are thinking it; he's saying it because advertisers are thinking it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Lendrick · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is absolutely true, and it's why I don't run ads on my site. No ad agencies that I'm aware of allow you to screen ads in advance, and I'm not prepared to put something on my site if I don't know what it is, particularly since ads are frequently a vector for malware. Also, accepting donations in return for not running ads has been more profitable than running ads ever was.

    4. Re:Thanks, Scott! by WaffleMonster · · Score: 0

      He's from the IAB, which actually is an important organizing group of advertising. They set standards for various protocols, etc. So if he's saying it, it's not because users are thinking it; he's saying it because advertisers are thinking it.

      These asshats need to pick a new TLA... IAB is already taken.

    5. Re:Thanks, Scott! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      They do a certain amount of voluntary-standardization(both things like standardizing banner ad sizes and more PR-driven exercises like their "Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising"; but it is worth never forgetting that one of the sections of the 'About us' page is as follows: They do some lightweight standards work; but are mostly just another industry pressure group; for an atypically odious industry. "Through the work of its public policy office in Washington, D.C., the IAB advocates for its members and promotes the value of the interactive advertising industry to legislators and policymakers."

    6. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if he's saying it, it's not because users are thinking it; he's saying it because advertisers are thinking it.

      No. He is saying it because they (advertisers) are seeing so much effective pushback that it is having a real affect on their numbers. The arguments against advertisers haven't changed in the last 5 years, the amount of ad-blocking has.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try "Project Wonderful" you have the option to screen all ads and all ad modifications.

      Also the other thing you can do is create a media kit (google it) you can deal directly with the advertised and host the ad yourself if you so chose.

    8. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      By what? Which one were you thinking of? The Internet Architecture Board, the McConnell AFB in Wichita, Individual Address Block, the International Assn. of Book-keepers, the International Assn. of Bryologists, the UK's International Accounting Bulletin, the Israel Assn. of Baseball, IAB meteorites, or the Interactive Advertising Bureau (an online advertising trade group, different from the UK's Internet Advertising Bureau, which this guy is part of)?

      I do agree, it's pretty stupid that there's two trade groups for online advertisers, and they're both called "IAB".

    9. Re:Thanks, Scott! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The IAB is a group that the ad industry takes seriously. Its made up of companies in the ad industry. It's a good way to measure what people in the ad industry are thinking.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Thanks, Scott! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, most website operators are at the mercy of advertising agencies.

      They're only at the mercy of the adverting agencies if their site's primary focus is financial and they create a site that requires that kind of revenue to operate.
      Remember when people used to host websites because they wanted to?

    11. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >He's from the IAB, which actually is an important organizing group of advertising. They set standards for various protocols, etc.

      Standards? Citations please. What standards would we actually want anyone in the ad business to set?
      Let's not forget about the data mining and stalking. There's more to this issue than just seeing ads.

    12. Re:Thanks, Scott! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Standards? Citations please.

      Things like VAST and VPAID. Seriously, you can look these things up.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Thanks, Scott! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yes, but while I don't consider his reaction to be too late, I consider it to be so insufficient as to be an additional insult.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, you could decide to put up ads for money yourself but hey, who wants to put in the time/effort to do so when someone else will do it for you.

      Captcha: GREEDily

    15. Re:Thanks, Scott! by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      If he were saying this privately to advertisers, you would be right. But since he is saying this in public, it is because the advertisers want the users to think that the advertisers are thinking this.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    16. Re: Thanks, Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I really give a flying flip what advertising agencies are thinking? Nope, block all ads, end of story.

    17. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You jest, but IAB does actually represent 89% of North American advertisers. That's not all of them, but it's not nothing.

    18. Re:Thanks, Scott! by SirLordGodfrey · · Score: 2

      Project Wonderful is the only ad network I've whitelisted across the board.

      Mainly because on the sites I see it, they usually have ads for other things I'm interested in, like other webcomics.

      --
      "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
    19. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like the radio DJ who ripped the MLB and FS1 for having a woman covering the ALDS - he apologized after he caught flak.

      It didn't change the way he thinks, and he's certainly not sorry he feels that way. He's just sorry he got fired. Same with these fine folks. They don't care about the user experience, but they are sorry they're losing money. Let 'em go down, I say.

    20. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank goodness you speak for every advertising agency and website operator in the world. I guess we can expect a more balanced approach from here on out.

      Is this the plan to take back the internet? To say, with our ISP fees, we have a right to not be bombarded with unsolicited advertisements and to eliminate the tease for impulse buying?

    21. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      There are 3 real ways to pay for your efforts:
      - Subscription
      - Donations
      - Advertising

      Some service don't cater to subscription or donations. That leaves advertising. It's a valid approach to getting paid for the efforts and cost of operations.

      and I'm not prepared to put something on my site if I don't know what it is,

      That's perfectly reasonable depending on what your objectives and target audience are.

      particularly since ads are frequently a vector for malware

      Sure it is but so is just going on any web site. As you said, make sure you pick the right ad provider. There are plenty with a solid reputation.

      but there don't seem to be many of those that pay well

      That is true. The good agencies that keep malware issues under control and content clean don't pay as much. At least it's a good choice for getting some revenue. If the services you provide aren't worth a full time salary, chances are you won't make a full time salary out if it anyway.

  2. Or put another way... by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers

    Advertisers saved US$21.8 billion by not advertising to unreceptive customers

    1. Re:Or put another way... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      I was going to say, they didn't lose a dime on me. I never click on ads (except by mistake) so they wouldn't get any real ad revenue from me whether I use an ad blocker or not.

    2. Re: Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the way I look at it. Regardless of whether they're charged PPC or PPM, either way they're not getting charged. The website operators on the other hand lose.

    3. Re:Or put another way... by cfalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Advertisements work on you. Unless you aren't human, or are a retard or something. If your brain functions, ads work on you.

      Period.

      Wanna argue? You personally never X or Y? Bullshit. Not only would you be very likely to lie to yourself about that, you don't have an objective observer to verify. And lets be real- they wouldn't spend billions advertising if the effects weren't both real and immediate. It's a massive industry for a reason.

      May as well claim cars don't work because you didn't drive one this morning.

    4. Re:Or put another way... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't expect you to click on ads in every case. They expect you to remember WXY Corp when you're about to buy a widget or service they offer. Which is why they want their ads to be so obnoxious, so you will remember.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Or put another way... by guruevi · · Score: 2

      They get paid by both views and clicks. The ad industry believes that even if you subliminally suggest brands at someone, even by being obnoxious, you will later on remember that brand and choose it. And even if you don't choose it, if it's obnoxious enough, you might talk about it with other people about how obnoxious they are and then those people have been suggested that brand.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:Or put another way... by Rix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

      People give churches billions of dollars a year, too. That doesn't mean prayer works.

    7. Re:Or put another way... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 0

      You talk shit. Doesn't work on me.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    8. Re:Or put another way... by pesho · · Score: 2
      Advertisers saved US$21.8 billion by not alienating their customers.

      There, fixed that for you. And the adblockers have the right to claim 10% on these savings, so according to my calculations advertisers owe 2.18 billion to Eyeo and the likes.

    9. Re:Or put another way... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      I was not aware of that. I guess they do lose a little money by me blocking the ads.

    10. Re:Or put another way... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fair point. Though in many cases it backfires when it comes to people like me. If I remember a company because of their obnoxious ads, I'm actually less likely to buy from that company, even if they have a superior product or a lower price. For me, it's a matter of principle.

    11. Re:Or put another way... by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 1

      ... and mobile users saved a multiple of that amount in reduced bandwidth costs.

    12. Re:Or put another way... by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      For being remembered, just static images and plain text would be enough, but too many advertisements online have scripts, links and other things that make them treacherous.


      (By the way, I talk about links because of that one time I saw an ad that pointed to ashleyrnadison.com in a portal that is quite popular in my country, and that offered no means to report malicious ads.)

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    13. Re:Or put another way... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I was going to say, they didn't lose a dime on me. I never click on ads (except by mistake) so they wouldn't get any real ad revenue from me whether I use an ad blocker or not.

      The statistics on ad click through suggests that the vast majority of the time its accidental.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    14. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was going to say, they didn't lose a dime on me. I never click on ads (except by mistake) so they wouldn't get any real ad revenue from me whether I use an ad blocker or not.

      They get revenue for simply displaying the ads, they get more revenue on click-through.

    15. Re:Or put another way... by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      They expect you to remember WXY Corp when you're about to buy a widget or service they offer.

      And it works! On the rare occasions that I see ads, I definitely remember the company the ad is for. And I avoid buying anything from that company as much as possible.

    16. Re:Or put another way... by PRMan · · Score: 1, Funny

      Carl's Jr keeps on showing me misogynistic ads. I keep not going there anymore.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    17. Re:Or put another way... by The-Ixian · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Yeah. I absolutely hate when people say this stuff.

      I mean, how can you "lose" something before you ever had it?

      You are predicting the future and then saying its a loss when it doesn't come true...

      I mean, if I went around saying that I lost a billion dollars that I never had in the first place, people would think I was insane.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    18. Re:Or put another way... by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      And by them being obnoxious we remember who NOT to buy from. I, like the guy above, have never clicked an ad but i have refused to do business or buy products from many obnoxious advertised products. And yes Ive seen plenty of storys about poor click through also. so ya they cry about everything. whatever happened to that camera/webcam obnoxious ad years ago? Poof gone no longer in business.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    19. Re:Or put another way... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      How are they misogynistic? I'm not disputing it, I just haven't seen a Carl's Jr ad in a long time.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    20. Re:Or put another way... by Technician · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Targeted ads have mostly missed the mark by a mile.

      I tell advertisers to be present when I search for your product and be competitive. Flooding me with ads for a product just after I have made my purchase is futile. How many cases of toner do they think I want to buy after I bought a year's supply?

      Your best advertising is by having an easy to navigate website with real content. If I am troubleshooting a laptop and need to find the hidden latch holding the keyboard in, brands that bury the info are not brands I would buy for myself.

      When selecting lighting equipment for my church, I only bought equipment with operator and programming info readily available so we could see how it would be useful.

      When selecting an ocilioscope, searching for minimum requirements often reveals additional features that used to cost lots of dollars for the propritory value added software. I am done with batteries not included features. Only products with fully functioning features are ever considered. Been down that road before. Bought a scope with a communications module. The software to simply transfer the screen shot to the PC was bundled in a mathlab type application for 1/2 the price of the scope as an option. That is a super fast way to loose sales. If a scope has a communications module, it should work without additonal purchase for basic functions such as a screen capture.

      Too little info is often the reason for lost sales. Cripple ware hardware is useless.

      Be clear in your sepecs. My old inkjet died and needed a replacement. Carts were specified for about 700 pages at 10% page coverage.
      The salesman wanted to upgrade me to the printer that would do 900 pages per cart. Checked online. Cart was almost double the cost and the 900 pages was at 5% page coverage. In short the ink was almost 4X the cost. Salesman didn't bother to tell me the apples and oranges in page coverage. He probably didn't know. I did inform him and got another brand.

      Consumers have noticed the cost of operation of many items such as Ink Jet printers and have opted for lower TCO options such as Laser printers instead, or using the cell phone and not printing at all. If you go though an $80 set of cartridges a month, it is very much noitced and use is evaluated.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    21. Re:Or put another way... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And by them being obnoxious we remember who NOT to buy from. I, like the guy above, have never clicked an ad but i have refused to do business or buy products from many obnoxious advertised products. And yes Ive seen plenty of storys about poor click through also. so ya they cry about everything. whatever happened to that camera/webcam obnoxious ad years ago? Poof gone no longer in business.

      I've clicked on ads many times. Not because I wanted to, but because the ad resized during the page load and I was trying to click on something else, but it jumped under my mouse. IBM, take note.. I only clicked on Ken Jennings twice this week on the Slashdot as because it resized after loading. Consequently I harbour negative attitudes towards Ken Jennings, Watson and IBM.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    22. Re:Or put another way... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      They don't expect you to click on ads in every case. They expect you to remember WXY Corp when you're about to buy a widget or service they offer. Which is why they want their ads to be so obnoxious, so you will remember.

      Web ads are not the only ones that work that way.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    23. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Busty Babes in Bikinis playing volleyball decrying one another if their latest Texmex burger is "Tex" or "Mex" with two guys in the stand watching hungrily, monster burgers in their hands, saying "You going to tell them that it's both?" "Nope," says the other as he takes the kind of bite you might while still trying to watch TV while eating.

      Sounds pretty misogynistic to me...

    24. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Attractive women with skimpy clothing == misogynistic.

    25. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sssshhhhh! You'll wake the marketing people! The last thing that they want to hear is the truth: 99.9% of advertising is ignored - both on the Internet as well as on TV, billboards, movie placements, etc. It gives the marketing people a chance to say "Look! I did something! See! There is my brand name!". But seriously, does anyone pay attention to them?

      On TV these days everyone uses a DVR or similar device and skips over the ads (hence not even seeing them at all).
      On Web Browsers, the ads are either ignored or out-right blocked. The only difference being that the blocking is detectable and is therefore setting off alarms in the marketing world.
      On apps, they just annoy people and constitute a serious threat to the security of one's phone and one's personal information.
      Movie placements? Seriously? When I see a product conspicuously placed into a movie or TV show, frankly, it makes me want to turn the thing off because it is just too stupid for words.

      The people selling ads make claims that the ads have a subconscious impact on the buyers when they go to buy a product, but I am highly skeptical of the validity of those claims and the numbers that they try to cite to back up those claims.

      But, as long as the people selling ads can continue to convince the marketing people that it works, we will continue to have mountains of mediocre content on TV and the 'Net, we will continue to see people who play make-believe as a job (e.g. actors) and people who play games (e.g. athletes) get paid more money than 100 people put together who actually make things that do something as a job and we will continue to see ad companies have conniptions over ad blockers and DVRs (remember the hubbub when Tivo first came out?).

    26. Re:Or put another way... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Where do you see those? On television? Who still watches that? I think the last time I saw a Carl's Jr. ad was probably at least 10 years ago, back when I still had a TV.

    27. Re:Or put another way... by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      They don't expect you to click on ads in every case. They expect you to remember WXY Corp when you're about to buy a widget or service they offer. Which is why they want their ads to be so obnoxious, so you will remember never, ever buy something from them

      There, much better now!

    28. Re:Or put another way... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Carl's Jr keeps on showing me misogynistic ads. I keep not going there anymore.

      So...would the same ad featuring buff guys in skimpy briefs be misandrist?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    29. Re:Or put another way... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's basically the old saying, "there's no such thing as bad publicity."

    30. Re:Or put another way... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

      People give churches billions of dollars a year, too. That doesn't mean prayer works.

      Stop making sense, there's no place for that here. Slashdot has standards, and we expect you not to meet them.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    31. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except some of us are so advertising-adverse that we do remember the brand and product--as ones to actively avoid.

      I have a serious hatred of forced advertising online. The times that I use Youtube on devices without an adblocker are particularly enraging to me. I will never buy a fucking Kindle for example.

    32. Re:Or put another way... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Welcome to modern business. "Lose" has a very different meaning today than it did in the past.

    33. Re:Or put another way... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      You mean to remember NOT to call WXY for that service/product because of their annoying ad.

    34. Re:Or put another way... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      No, it's called "Advertising to their target audience" Hungry males.

    35. Re:Or put another way... by lgw · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Busty Babes in Bikinis playing volleyball decrying one another if their latest Texmex burger is "Tex" or "Mex" with two guys in the stand watching hungrily, monster burgers in their hands, saying "You going to tell them that it's both?" "Nope," says the other as he takes the kind of bite you might while still trying to watch TV while eating.

      Sounds pretty misogynistic to me...

      Sounds awesome to me. People having fun and generally enjoying themselves - the thing the neo-puritans hate the most.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    36. Re:Or put another way... by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Fair point. Though in many cases it backfires when it comes to people like me. If I remember a company because of their obnoxious ads, I'm actually less likely to buy from that company, even if they have a superior product or a lower price. For me, it's a matter of principle.

      No kidding! Remember 'Lowermybills(dot)com'?? I HATED their stupid GIF ads that were everywhere!

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    37. Re:Or put another way... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      " I guess they do lose a little money by me blocking the ads."

      And my response to them? So fucking what, boo hoo, go die in a fire

    38. Re:Or put another way... by MitchDev · · Score: 0

      Keep telling yourself that, advertising scumbag. Or better yet, admit everyone hates you and kill yourself already,

    39. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what about the ads with attractive men not fully dressed?

      You do not get to tell me that males are doing something wrong when females do the same damn thing. You want to call males out on something, stop doing that something first.

      Its kinda like looking at the bank robber and telling him thats not nice while you reach over the counter and grab a handful of fifties.

    40. Re:Or put another way... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      Yep. I'm not going to let you get one thin dime until you stop serving malware.

    41. Re:Or put another way... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers

      Advertisers saved US$21.8 billion by not advertising to unreceptive customers

      Advertisers lost US$21.8 billion because people like you stubbornly refuse to be receptive customers!!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    42. Re:Or put another way... by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      They don't expect you to click on ads in every case. They expect you to remember WXY Corp when you're about to buy a widget or service they offer. Which is why they want their ads to be so obnoxious, so you will remember.

      I do remember, but not in the way that obnoxious advertisers want me to. I'll go out of my way to avoid their products.

    43. Re:Or put another way... by DarkTempes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the point is that it sexually objectifies the women. Aka it says the burgers are the objects to sate your hunger just like these attractive women are the objects to sate your horniness (ardor?)

      Granted, the guys are being stereotyped as well. And then we're making assumptions about gender all over the place because who really knows?

      I don't know that I'd call it misogyny. I get that the modern definition equates sexual objectification with hatred/dislike but that seems a little illogical to me. Certainly it's still negative because people are more than their sexual characteristics.

      And why not call out all of western culture with regards to women then? Shoes, clothing, jewelry, makeup, etc are almost all aimed at enhancing women as sexual objects...

    44. Re:Or put another way... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      It does work if the goal is to get billions of dollars a year.

    45. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can also put that in yet another way.

      There's a mighty good chance that online marketing doesn't return the advertised results.

      In other words, there's a pretty good chance that Google and Facebook are hugely overrated.

    46. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They backfire on me in many cases, especially where margins are tight. I'd sooner go with the competition who spent their money making a quality product, instead of the company that made their product somehow cheaper so they could afford advertising.

    47. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's yet another case of people misusing the verb "lose". In order to lose something you must have it first.

    48. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. When the ad men imagine the success of their campaign are they picturing me in the store going, "Oh, here's that widget with the ads that were making me want to fucking murder somebody. I better buy one."?

    49. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a TPP provision - suing for the 'loss' of expected profit.

    50. Re:Or put another way... by lgw · · Score: 0

      I think the point is that it sexually objectifies the women.

      Yes, that's the obvious progressive nonsense. Ignoring that nonsense is the only road to happiness. People should have fun, and focus on interpretations of unimportant things that contribute to joy. Everything about that ad, to me, is something to be (a little) joyful about. Sexy women, good food, humor, all good stuff.

      The opposite approach simply makes you perpetually unhappy. Finding an interpretation of every insignificant thing that you can be outraged about, that you find #problematic, seems to be the essence of modern progressivism, and it's deeply psychologically unhealthy! Seek joy in life, not outrage. Save the outrage for the big stuff that materially harms you - in any case no one will ever care to hear about the 100th thing you're outraged about.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    51. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People give churches billions of dollars a year, too. That doesn't mean prayer works.

      going to church is basically entertainment and social interaction, don't you pay to go to a pro sport stadium and watch your team play while interacting with the other fans?

    52. Re:Or put another way... by Macdude · · Score: 1

      How a company who has an ad campaign with the tag line, "without us, some guys would starve" can be considered misogynistic is beyond me.

      --
      "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    53. Re:Or put another way... by hierofalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much - Jas. 5:16b

      God's promises are conditional. If you haven't had your prayers answered, look to yourself first. If you're sure you are upstanding, then examine what you are asking for.

      Jas 4:1-3 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. James is a really good book to read sometime and sadly, he was writing to Hebrew Christians.

      People do donate a great deal of money to various religious organizations each year. There are some who do so in the hope they can buy God off. It doesn't work that way and church leaders are in error if they imply that.

      The vast majority of us donate to charities, and particularly religious based charities because it is both the right thing to do and a means of helping others with far less overhead than when the government is involved. That isn't a blanket endorsement of all charities, but there are some very good ones run by religious orders with very low administrative overhead costs.

    54. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that Advertising for Coke & Pepsi has simply been wasted. I purchase the cola with the lowest price tag. Charging twice as much to cover your advertising doesn't get the sale.

    55. Re:Or put another way... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Set your read bit to true, then GOTO 10. Good grief.

    56. Re:Or put another way... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Did you do a study? I bet you did not. If you can carry on a meaningful conversation about Coca Cola, rest assured the advertisers have done their job. Because think of all the brands that you can't hold a conversation about. Assuming you know about any that don't advertise.

    57. Re:Or put another way... by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, if I pray for something and don't get it, it's my fault, either because I'm not a sufficiently good human being, or because there's something wrong with what I prayed for? You do realize that that is precisely the sort of thing someone would say when they strongly believed in something that didn't work, don't you? And that this attitude can hurt people?

      When religious people talk about religion in ways that can't be tested by objective observations, they might be telling the truth. When they say that religion provides certain objectively verifiable benefits, they're on scientific ground. When they then cover up their lack of success with blaming the unlucky for their bad luck, it sounds like said religious person is rationalizing like crazy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    58. Re:Or put another way... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2

      "Advertisements work on you. Unless you aren't human"

      See my nickname :-D

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    59. Re:Or put another way... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Well said. And I would add that normally advertisers hide the specifications because they want you to buy crap for the price of decent or the only thing they have to sell is junk. As in a normal situation no one would buy the garbage they produce then they have to disguise that fact with propaganda and lack of information.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    60. Re:Or put another way... by meerling · · Score: 1

      I do remember them if they were annoying or circumvented my ad-blocker, and then I make sure I NEVER BUY THEIR PRODUCT!

    61. Re:Or put another way... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Don't recognize that one. If it's referring to women as the "us" in that statement, you might be right, if on the other hand it's referring to some food related product or company, it's definitely not, though it is rather disparaging towards males.

    62. Re:Or put another way... by cfalcon · · Score: 2

      > People give churches billions of dollars a year, too. That doesn't mean prayer works.

      Lets go over how wrong you are.

      Level 1 - "The False Equivalence" - A church is an organization that may or may not be headed by people. We'll assume it is. The people in charge of the church would be the equivalent of the people in charge of a company that purchases ads. The people in charge of a church aren't buying anything, but the people in charge of Hoozle Brand Mooshledooshles sure are. This is a false equivalence. The church members are the ones who support the church, and the consumers of Hoozle Brand Mooshledooshles support Hoozle. You cannot compare people with expert knowledge (the board of Hoozle, or those running the church) with people who do not have that, and are seeking a result (the purchasers of Hoozle, or the church goers).

      Level 2 - "Another one" - In the first case, we are discussing advertisements, a product of one company (the ad agency) purchased by another (Hoozle!). In the second case, you are discussing prayer- not the only "product" of a church by any means. In order for this to make sense (and forgetting entirely that top level error), you would have to show that CHURCHES don't work. Not just the prayer part. But churches DO work- they provide a sense of comfort to many church members, the church often helps members who fall into trouble, etc. I'm certain that these things aren't true in all places, but overall these are absolutely things that churches do to help their members. And this is entirely outside of churches that help non-members (thereby helping members who want to help others). Even if you don't like churches for whatever fedora babble reason, the point is that *churches are not just prayer*. You can't correlate the two- they are different things.

      Level 3 - "Just incorrect" - Prayer absolutely works. It may not make some sky fairy grant your wishes, but if you take away the supernatural claim and look at people who pray, you find a great deal in common with those who meditate. If the prayer brings comfort to the one praying, or really benefits them in any way, then it "works"- it is worth that person's time. It may not get godbro to hook your team up with the superbowl, but is that explicitly the claim of prayer anyway?

      At every level your thing falls apart.

      In fact, the fact that people give churches billions of dollars a year means that the people map to the CONSUMERS who are paying for a PRODUCT (in this case, not much of one) based on ADVERTISING (in this case, word of mouth). Advertisers looked at the religious scam model and were like "Hrm, how can we get in on this?"

      The mapping go much deeper in western society. Advertisers try to create insecurities. You aren't interested in a whiter smile unless I tell you that somehow the whiter teeth are better, and that your teeth aren't white enough. So I have to find someone with really white teeth who is attractive, or just fucking paint their teeth, or just repaint whatever images I have of them, and then show that's part of a thing. You'd never know you were incomplete, made imperfect, in need of forgiveness, for your original sin of having vaguely yellow teeth.... You can aspire to have perfectly white teeth, but without this simple product, you will never be saved...

    63. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geico has a great example of this. They had this super annoying screaming pig commercial driving down the street, and it was the most obnoxiously annoying crap I've ever heard in my life.

      Geico now has 100% instant brand recognition from me, but not in the way they want. I will never, ever, ever in my entire life give Geico a single dollar. They could offer me free insurance for life and I would literally beat the shit out of the salesperson trying to offer it to me. I hear of family, friends, colleagues, etc that are Geico customers and I do my very, very best to help them find alternative and likely cheaper options out there.

      Yes, Geico has me remembering their brand. As a brand I will never do business with again, and I actively work to subvert and destroy. Great job you clueless marketing SOBs. You will NEVER live that commercial down in my eyes.

    64. Re:Or put another way... by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      They're actually playing volleyball across the U.S./Mexico border fence. One girl is a Texan, the other Mexican, as are the two guys. They've deemphasized this aspect of it, but if you watch closely, it's there.
      We have Hardee's here, but the commercial is the same.

    65. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because the original poster was obviously against fun and enjoyment.

    66. Re:Or put another way... by firewood · · Score: 1

      U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers

      Advertisers saved US$21.8 billion by not advertising to unreceptive customers

      It's likely that some percentage of these customers are receptive, whether they think they are or not, or there wouldn't be any payback for the advertising cost that shows up in analytic or A/B market test data.

    67. Re:Or put another way... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the original poster was obviously against fun and enjoyment.

      "Did you hear the joke about the feminist?"
      "That's not funny!"

      You know, when I was a teen, the conservative Christians around me were quick to assure me that they weren't against fun and enjoyment. They just happened to find something objectionable in every activity we found fun and enjoyable - pure coincidence, I'm sure. This new crowd of non-religious puritans seems about the same to me. I suspect they, too, lie awake in bed worrying that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time. Also, this.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    68. Re:Or put another way... by dpidcoe · · Score: 2

      iirc radio stations used to (and maybe they still do, I haven't kept up with it) have a guy in charge of advertising. One of his main jobs was vetting the things and making sure obnoxious stuff didn't get through. The problem was that if an ad spot was too annoying, people just flip the station and now you've lost a listener for the rest of the commercial break.

      The fact that the radio stations were allowed to vet ads basically forced the advertisers to walk a line between annoying and something that the radio stations would actually air. Unfortunately with websites, the owners aren't able to vet ads that go on their sites and so one of the natural limits is removed from the equation.

    69. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, ads probably hurt advertisers. That's why they have billions of dollars. It's a sign of their failure.

    70. Re:Or put another way... by amiga3D · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I find it amusing to hear women complaining about the objectification of women as sex objects and then watch how many walk around with mid-thigh length skirts and shoes with 6" or more spiked heel shoes. Not to mention the bags of silicon they've had implanted. I find it especially amusing since the thing I find most attractive is a happy attitude and a love of fun. As long as they aren't 100 pounds overweight I can deal with almost anything else if they like life and aren't bitches. Hell, I don't really mind the weight that much.

    71. Re:Or put another way... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I doubt too many people had a problem with this one, or if they did, I can't remember.

      I think if more advertisers focused on either being respectful to viewers, or tried to engage them in a creative, entertaining fashion, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now. Consider the Super Bowl, and how one of the things people talk about is the interesting and funny ads debuted there. Sure, you can't spend money on ads like that all the time, but I think it shows that most people are not intrinsically opposed to ads... just annoying ads, or too many ads.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    72. Re:Or put another way... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      They don't expect you to click on ads in every case. They expect you to remember WXY Corp when you're about to buy a widget or service they offer. Which is why they want their ads to be so obnoxious, so you will remember.

      I have a horrible memory for details like that. I can remember that the catchy television ad was for some sort of insurance company, but couldn't tell you which one.
      On the other hand, if they make it truly obnoxious and in your face, then yes, I will remember it, and avoid that company like the plague when it comes time to buy that type of product.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    73. Re:Or put another way... by TWX · · Score: 2

      Normally I'd agree, but the whole thing with the slow-motion of the sauces from the burger gratuitously landing on the heaving bosom thing sort of takes it a little too far. It stops being about attractive people having fun while eating the product and becomes about the tits and ass. It's tacky even by today's standards.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    74. Re:Or put another way... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I never click on ads (except by mistake) so they wouldn't get any real ad revenue from me whether I use an ad blocker or not.

      Not just by mistake, I'm sure you click on them by deception as well. At least once, until you learn that particular deceptive technique, and then have to come up with another one. It must be extremely costly for ad agencies to have to keep coming up with new ways to deceive the public into clicking on their unwanted ads. It must cost the companies they are advertising for many, many times more than it ever brings in in additional sales and also in lost sales due to people being deceived into clicking intentionally not buying their products and telling their friends not to as well.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    75. Re:Or put another way... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I think the point is that it sexually objectifies the women.

      Yes, we should find the guy (or woman) that put a gun to their head and forced them to do this commercial and throw them in jail.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    76. Re: Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how can I know which God is the real God? This answer seems to depend on your emotional status, where and when you live, and also which religion has power over the government you "enjoy." Your viewpoint is too domestic and lacks any comprehension of how non Christians pray to non Christian God(s) and yet still have some of their prayers answered. A good exercise for religious persons is to count the number of governments in this era and past where religion did not drive the laws, taxation, and subjudgation of the population. I pray you will then see what toolbox religion is in.

    77. Re:Or put another way... by sjames · · Score: 1

      If they really believed in the value of the subliminal, they'd be more careful choosing music for their commercials. Unless, of course, ad agencies secretly hate their clients.

    78. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I don't really mind the weight that much.

      Well, aren't you a saint.

    79. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attractive women with skimpy clothing == misogynistic.

      You forgot to add "when a man is watching". When a lesbian likes to watch shows with scantily clad, nubile women, is that just fine and dandy?

    80. Re:Or put another way... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I like tits, ass, and tacky, so I don't see the issue. Taste is subjective, no? I remember when you'd get in trouble with the FCC for even the slightest hint of sexual innuendo - those were not better days! I stand firmly against any puritans, new flavor or old, who want censorship of sexual innuendo.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    81. Re:Or put another way... by DarkTempes · · Score: 2

      Of course no one forced anyone to do this. We've been conditioned and then raised our kids in the same way.
      Sweatshop workers aren't (always) forced to work there but if they want a job so that they can eat then they put up with it anyway. All of the other sweatshop workers do.

      Obviously objectification isn't as bad as that hyperbole. I honestly don't think we as a society should do anything other than strive to be more self-aware and teach our kids to be better people than we are.

      People have kids and then pierce their kid's ears before the kid is even old enough to make a choice and dress the little girls in frilly dresses and tell the boys that "girly" things are "gay". Then all of the media the kid sees reinforces that gender stereotyping.

      I'm fine with sexy and impractical clothing. I just wish people wore it out of rational choice or from experimenting with what they like and not because it's a conditioned response and what they think other people expect them to do.

      I'd also love to see men's ties burn in hell. Also, maybe we'll stop performing surgery on babies for no statistically significant reason. At least let them make the choice as a teenager or adult...

      And it's possible that in 100 years we'll figure out that we're just hyper sexual primates and that trying to prevent objectification is a form of denial.

    82. Re:Or put another way... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but being attracted to "Attractive women with skimpy clothing" is the opposite of misogynistic. It may well be sexist, but that's a very different concept. Misogynistic is like professor 'enry 'iggens in My Fair Lady. (I bet the original in Pygmalion would be a better example, but nobody would know it.)

      And I quote (excepts from his soliloquies):
      "Women are irrational, that's all there is to that!..."
      and
      "Why can't a woman, be more like a man?..."
      and
      "I'd be equally as willing for a dentist to be drilling as to ever let a woman in my life!"

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    83. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post something original.

    84. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you believe that prayer to god is supposed to be a magical incantation that works according to the rules of mathematics? Religious people have a different idea about prayer than you do.

    85. Re:Or put another way... by Panoptes · · Score: 0

      "Sounds pretty misogynistic to me..."

      Sounds l ike you didn't get beyond grade school.

    86. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why I use an ad blocker without feeling one bit of guilt.

    87. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet they got those numbers from the same place the RIAA always gets theirs. ;)

    88. Re:Or put another way... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Not at all....more like a devil. Horns and all.

    89. Re:Or put another way... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      And it's a turn-off for me when there's too much focus on asses. Makes me hate the shit they try to push. Asses are usually NOT SEXY.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    90. Re:Or put another way... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      To realy mess up things - have the adblocker do fake clickings on the ads. Each click cost the advertiser additional money and possibly bandwidth. Of vourse - you will need to fetch the data for the ads too then, but it will mess up the statistics pretty much.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    91. Re:Or put another way... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Imaginary friends don't do the job for you.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    92. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get that the modern definition equates sexual objectification with hatred/dislike but that seems a little illogical to me.

      It's a little more nuanced than that. There is a popular view espoused loudly and often on the internet that women are good for nothing EXCEPT sexual objectification, and that is rightly considered and called out as misogyny.

      MOST people (men and women) want to be objectified SOME of the time. NOBODY wants to be objectified ALL of the time.

    93. Re:Or put another way... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Who are you talking to?

    94. Re: Or put another way... by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      The Bible is hardly domestic.

      The Bible doesn't declare that Jehovah is the only one who answers prayers. But any miracle that is done by a lower power is only done at the forbearance of Jehovah. In Exodus, for example, the court magicians are able to do some of the first miracles that Moses does, but eventually even they declare to Pharoah that they he is fighting the hand of God. In Revelation it is made clear that many will be deceived by an earthly false prophet who does miracles. So it is clear there are many forces outside of our realm of being that are more powerful than us and can affect the natural realms that we live in. These have the power to deceive and have done so through time.

      As you said, each person must make a choice as to which of the God's to follow. It's a free choice. Your conscience will guide you in the way - if you haven't seared it already. It would be nice if it was always as easy as the people had it when Elijah took on the followers of Baal on Mt. Carmel

      And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.

      but it isn't usually that obvious to most people anymore.

      From God's point of view, Christ has come and walked the pages of history doing mighty miracles and showing God's love for His creation to man. His followers have walked the pages of history since also doing miracles to promote His kingdom. None of us are as perfect as Christ was. Some are worse than others. But the example to look at is Christ and not Christians. After His example, what point is there for special effects.

      Given the choice, I'll pick the one who lowered Himself to mankind's position, lived as one of us for a time, and died to make a pure sacrifice between ourselves and God. That's unique among the various religions out there. There will always be debate until He returns to set up rule on Earth as to which God is "the" God. In the end, all the false religions that Satan has spread to destroy the humanity that he hates will be wiped away. Unfortunately, by then it will be too late for their followers.

    95. Re:Or put another way... by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      They expect you to remember WXY Corp when you're about to buy a widget or service they offer. Which is why they want their ads to be so obnoxious, so you will remember.

      It works for The Donald.

    96. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is something quite amusing about the irony of people complaining about something they're active participants in creating--having tried everything in that list but the bags of silicon (mine are, annoyingly, entirely natural) I can't really figure out why to do it except for the sexual objectification. I'll do it for social engineering purposes, with full awareness of what buttons I'm hitting, but if you think it's a problem stop being part of it.

    97. Re: Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They work on certain personalities, similar to how certain personalities are receptive to religious dogma and others arnt. The determining factor is education and self awareness...all humans don't just magically fall under he spell of shitty advertising, to the contrary it often has the opposite of the intended effect.

    98. Re: Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% agree, and couldn't say it better myself. I've taken a screen shot. You rock!

    99. Re: Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been reading Slashdot for about 12 years, and never created an account. But this post is so accurate I'm very tempted to do just to mod your post up.

    100. Re: Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's at the bottom of this sexism issue - should we be telling other people how to behave? Is your definition of 'proper' the one the society should adopt?

      Frankly, I don't care what you think. And don't tell me how I should think.

    101. Re:Or put another way... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

      Post something original.

      "Fuck off" ...is that original enough for you?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    102. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When they say that religion provides certain objectively verifiable benefits"

      Which almost entirely revolve around the social networking of being in that "club" with people who are more inclined to do business with others who are in that club.

      Every sleazy car salesman across the USA bible belt can confirm it too.

    103. Re:Or put another way... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      When selecting an ocilioscope, searching for minimum requirements often reveals additional features that used to cost lots of dollars for the propritory value added software. I am done with batteries not included features. Only products with fully functioning features are ever considered. Been down that road before. Bought a scope with a communications module. The software to simply transfer the screen shot to the PC was bundled in a mathlab type application for 1/2 the price of the scope as an option. That is a super fast way to loose sales. If a scope has a communications module, it should work without additonal purchase for basic functions such as a screen capture.

      Well said. And I would add that normally advertisers hide the specifications because they want you to buy crap for the price of decent or the only thing they have to sell is junk. As in a normal situation no one would buy the garbage they produce then they have to disguise that fact with propaganda and lack of information.

      It is even worse when they outright lie.

      I was hunting for a new digital storage oscilloscope not long ago and ran across "low noise front end" in marketing literature. That sounds useful since noise is often a limiting factor but I wondered how they could do that since it would break the laws of physics. Testing revealed that they achieved low noise by generating a false trace when the input coupling was set to ground. Set it to AC or DC and short the input or set the coupling to 50 ohms and the noise was right where it should be for a 1 megohm 20 picofarad input given the bandwidth. It was *no* improvement on the 30 year old oscilloscope I was looking to replace. My old Tektronix DSO does processing to reduce noise during peak detection but at least it documents it and even allows it to be disabled.

      Then they leave out specifications like overload recovery and aberrations which probably makes sense since the performance of modern DSOs has gotten worse in these respects. All of the free fancy measurement functions are useless when the oscilloscope cannot even acquire the waveform without error.

      Get off my lawn! *shakes fist*

    104. Re:Or put another way... by Reeznarch · · Score: 1

      It's also the reason I'm never ever ever getting Geico. EVER EVER

    105. Re:Or put another way... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Porn is, by this definition ( sexually objectifies the women), misogynist. It is one of those rare battles where Liberals should be hating other liberals, but sex wins over Political Correctness, in cases like this.

      Women (in general) are desired by men (in general) (Homosexuals not withstanding), and that is simple biology. Without it, our species would have died out long ago.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    106. Re:Or put another way... by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      They expect you to remember WXY Corp when you're about to buy a widget or service they offer.

      And it works! On the rare occasions that I see ads, I definitely remember the company the ad is for. And I avoid buying anything from that company as much as possible.

      I agree with you. Unfortunatly, psychologists have discovered that people tend to remember the name -without- remembering to -not- buy from them. And end up buying!

      You want to meet some psychologists that get actual concrete result? Contact the advertising agencies! 8-)

    107. Re:Or put another way... by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      That's like the democrats saying that the republicans "cut money for widows and orphans", when they actually just reduced the amount it was -increased-!

      Some people think it is part of their jobs to lie. 8-)

    108. Re:Or put another way... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 0

      There is no 'meaningful conversation' about coca cola. Are you just a moron or what?

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    109. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traded it in on a single-gear bike and some beard wax, I expect.

    110. Re:Or put another way... by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Marketing 101 states otherwise. The ones you remember are the ones you lookup when you need something quick. No all users are the same but the strategy works for the masses. The fact that there's a show called "The Kardashian" is living proof that poor quality content and presentation doesn't make it unpopular.

    111. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've clicked on ads many times. Not because I wanted to, but because the ad resized during the page load and I was trying to click on something else, but it jumped under my mouse.

      Yeah, even top tier sites like Youtube are massively guilty of this. It is not a compromise between revenue and user annoyance, or short term and long term. This is just businesses screwing each other over: basically, publishers screwing over advertisers. Either that, or incompetence.

      A third explanation is that these advertisers are not being charged per click. Some display ads are charged per "impression", so the jumpyness may get the ad more attention even when people don't accidentally click on it, and the accidental clicks are irrelevant.

      Charging per "impression," incidentally, is the excuse for the most egregious tracking: you can't judge the ad's ROI unless you can track changes in the much-later behaviour of users who saw the ad. Judging ROI is more important than targeting.

      I don't know, though. I thought everything charged for a click.

  3. Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by grahamsz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Talk about missing the root cause. Ad blockers are only used because publishers have gone so ridiculously over the top in creating annoying, high bandwidth, high cpu-usage ads.

    1. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by jcadam · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This. I only recently started using ad blockers. I truly didn't mind a reasonable amount of non-obtrusive advertising, but the recent trend toward throwing 42 javascript-heavy ads in your face on each page load and freezing your browser for 30 seconds (or crashing it), turned me into a uBlock user. I'm not going back.

    2. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Funny
      In conversations that I've had with marketing people, they insisted that consumers want to see advertisements, if those advertisements are relevant. They showed me surveys where consumers were asked if they would want to see ads on web pages, provided those ads weren't intrusive and had relevant content. The results were more in the "yes" category than not.

      .
      How the ad industry got from the results of those surveys to disaster they are doing on web pages is a mystery to me.

    3. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Lendrick · · Score: 2

      I hate it when I use a web browser that doesn't have an ad blocker installed. I don't know how people put up with it. Browsing the web without ad blocking is a miserable experience.

    4. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that some ads are now a vehicle for malware; ad hosters never vet their content much anymore.

    5. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      And on top of that, because their ad networks introduced massive security holes that malware/crime gangs regularly take advantage of.

    6. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by iriecolorado · · Score: 1

      Not to mention one of the top vectors for malware attacks.

    7. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      A few months ago, AdBlock Plus started getting into a state where there was no blocklist loaded on one machine I use. (Something about my configuration was preventing it from upating, and the old version was having issues with newer browser version I think...)

      Did I notice the problem because I started seeing ads all over the place?

      Nope. I noticed it because I was wondering why my machine was suddenly crawling to a halt.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    8. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually I think he has hit the root cause. The best adverts are the ones that benefit the user. Take Amazon's reviews. They are often quite useful because they are largely uncensored and written by buyers. I often end up buying stuff from Amazon instead of eBay, even if it is a few quid more, because it has user reviews.

      Advertisers are starting to realize this. Rather than the traditional paid reviews (be it money or freebies or after-event parties or whatever) they see that consumers value really independent reviewers who will call a product crap if it is.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by PRMan · · Score: 1

      I don't mind relevant ads if they are low-key and don't take over the browser experience. If you get in my way and block me I will make a note and give you a one-year ban.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    10. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In conversations that I've had with marketing people, they insisted that consumers want to see advertisements, if those advertisements are relevant. They showed me surveys where consumers were asked if they would want to see ads on web pages, provided those ads weren't intrusive and had relevant content. The results were more in the "yes" category than not.

      .

      How the ad industry got from the results of those surveys to disaster they are doing on web pages is a mystery to me.

      The same way any other industry does: they see only the part of the question they want to see or they invert a category of responses to get the answer they want.

      For the first, from your example, a majority of people want to see ads IF they weren't intrusive AND had relevant ads. They advertisers go "Ah see a majority want relevant ads," and completely forget or skim right past the "weren't intrusive" part.

      For the second, "Would you block ads in all situations?" 45% say "yes," 40% say "No," 15% Don't know / no indication. In that made up example, it is easy to say "60% would block ads in all situations, monsters." But, the industry could also use those made up numbers to say, "see 55% want to see ads."

    11. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by PRMan · · Score: 2

      I've switched to Privacy Badger. It blocks the most obnoxious and dangerous ads, while leaving some of the low key less obnoxious ones. And it's automated and improving every day. I really like it.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    12. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Also, Amazon's return policy is terrific. eBay's is non-existent if the seller is a lying scumbag.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    13. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In conversations that I've had with marketing people, they insisted that consumers want to see advertisements, if those advertisements are relevant. They showed me surveys where consumers were asked if they would want to see ads on web pages, provided those ads weren't intrusive and had relevant content. The results were more in the "yes" category than not.

      .

      How the ad industry got from the results of those surveys to disaster they are doing on web pages is a mystery to me.

      It's 100% Bullshit.

      There is no such thing as "relevant" advertising. If there is something I want or need to buy, I go find it and buy it. Since you can't read my mind, you have no idea what I want to buy right now, so there's no way that you can show me "relevant" advertising. Even if you track me all over the Internet and log everything I do, you will guess wrong when you try to show me "relevant" advertising.

    14. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      the recent trend toward throwing 42 javascript-heavy ads in your face

      There's a reason to off JS before heading to certain sites.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    15. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by taustin · · Score: 1

      "Would you rather see ads on a web page or have a 1,000,000 volt cattle prod shoved up your ass? Those are the only two options."

      Survey data is completely useless in all cases.

    16. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't forget that some ads are now a vehicle for malware; ad hosters never vet their content much anymore.

      The possibility of ads being infectious malware is the primary reason I block them now.
      Reducing page load times is the second reason I block them.
      Being able to find the actual content buried in an ad-laden page is the third reason I block ads.

      Make ads less weighty, less intrusive, and less likely to fuck up my PC and I'll think about allowing them again. Maybe.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    17. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      I would love to learn about something that I actually needed, but I didn't know existed - or a more economical alternative to something I use regularly. However, I've never seen either in a web ad. Instead, ads are commonly used to try to get people to part with money against their better judgment. That's why advertisers are our enemy, not our friends.

    18. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Also, Amazon's return policy is terrific. eBay's is non-existent if the seller is a lying scumbag.

      Yep, Amazon "gets it" when it comes to returns.

      I've never a problem with returning something, it's always "Okay, here's your pre-printed shipping label, sorry you weren't happy with it, and please let us know if there's anything else we can do." They get it. It makes me much, much more likely to buy from them because I know if anything goes wrong, it's super easy to return it.

      In addition, shipping is usually very quick and the prices are generally competitive.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    19. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very much this.

      What I would give for us to go back to the times of simpler ads, text ads, static images. The good ol' days of advertising.
      These days, ads will abuse the shit out of your connection, rape your CPU at least 7 times, and prevent your pages from loading fully until they are done in some awfully designed websites. (a lot of them)

      I don't hate advertising myself. I've found MANY useful things through advertising.
      But I will not even deny that I block all those abusive forms of advertising. Any JS ads, plugin ads, flashy GIFs, GONE.
      No plugins, no eye-stealing crap, no malware, none of it.

      Please, advertising industry and webmasters, for the love of god, go back to text and static images!
      As for videos in the case of video sites, stop showing the same damn ads all the time, if an ad has been seen at least once in a 6 hour period, there is NO need to show it again! Looking at you, Youtube and Twitch!

      Hell, without advertising, modern society wouldn't even function.
      Everybody here, even though they might hate advertising outright and think they have locked themselves away from it, you haven't.
      You are just an indirect customer to the advertising industry on some level.
      Without advertising, everything in the world would be considerably more expensive.
      You are influenced by that advertising at some point. The things you purchase were advertised. Even that fresh fruit you bought at the farmers market, that store-sign is still advertising.
      I don't even think it would be possible to fully outlaw advertising since even word-of-mouth is a form of advertising, it is that which leads to a large number of indirect sales through friends of friends hanging out with each other.

      I just wish the webs advertisers would realize that you don't need to run around SHOUTING IN PEOPLES FACES to get their attention.
      Web advertising today, the abusive kinds, is like going up to random walkers in the street throwing strobe lights in their faces with loud music and probably even stealing their wallet in some cases.
      Start using real life metaphors for what you are doing, guys. It isn't pretty.
      Go back to text, static ads and video ads only on video sites
      And demand webmasters stop being abusive with their advertising as well, they need your money as much as you need their views!

    20. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by jittles · · Score: 1

      In conversations that I've had with marketing people, they insisted that consumers want to see advertisements, if those advertisements are relevant. They showed me surveys where consumers were asked if they would want to see ads on web pages, provided those ads weren't intrusive and had relevant content. The results were more in the "yes" category than not.

      .

      Whoever typed up the report forgot three important keystrokes from the original survey and the ad executives read "Provided those ads were intrusive and had relevant content.

    21. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Its not the voltage, its the amperage.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    22. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit. Amazon picks up my return from my porch. I don't even have to find tape to close the box. Contrast that with repackaging, driving to a shipping center, and then paying for the privilege of returning a defective product. No thanks. Even brick and mortar stores are starting to get stingy with their returns (Target). I avoid them too.

    23. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, blocking ads costs the advertising company money, but it saves their customers money. They're not wasting money on someone who won't be favorably swayed by their advertising anyway--and who quite possibly could be swayed negatively by it.

    24. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      How the ad industry got from the results of those surveys to disaster they are doing on web pages is a mystery to me.

      Easy. The conversation probably went like this:

      Underling: "Sir, this study says that people want to see advertisements if.."
      Ad Exec: "That's what I thought, let's put every ad everywhere."

      The IAB author actually seems to have a fairly decent grasp on the situation though, which I'm sure is partly due to the fact that he helped create it as the head of the advertising "tech labs" (imagine the shit that goes on there). This paragraph contains some pretty hefty market-speak, and was partially quoted in the summary, but he seems to have a grasp on the problem:

      Through our pursuit of further automation and maximization of margins during the industrial age of media technology, we built advertising technology to optimize publishers’ yield of marketing budgets that had eroded after the last recession. Looking back now, our scraping of dimes may have cost us dollars in consumer loyalty. The fast, scalable systems of targeting users with ever-heftier advertisements have slowed down the public internet and drained more than a few batteries. We were so clever and so good at it that we over-engineered the capabilities of the plumbing laid down by, well, ourselves. This steamrolled the users, depleted their devices, and tried their patience.

      Basically, they weaponized online advertising and then got surprised when people complained about being shot at. They thought, oh, there's a couple cents there, we could put an ad there. We can do some interstitial ads (a few more cents), a few auto-play videos on the sidebars (cents!), some in the header and footer (cents, cents), let's do this one on an overlay over the page (cent), and after you close that another overlay opens (another cent), and let's serve all of these from the same organization so that we can track which users visit which sites and see which ads, so we can show them a different 10 ads on every site (or the same 10 ads on every site!), figure out what they're searching for, what they're shopping for, what they're watching, what they drive, who their friends are, what their friends like, their income level, gender, age, race, profession, pre-existing medical conditions, sexual fantasies, and they'll just love these targeted ads. Then let's take all that data and sell it to everyone else. Cents cents cents!

      Now that everything we do is tracked online and ads are available on any platform imaginable, they're stopping to notice that no one ever asked for or wanted this, and now we're actively blocking it. Notice also (especially when people talk about ditching cable for online viewing) how many people express a willingness to pay real dollars (not just cents) in order to consume content the way the want, which includes no advertising. Like he said, the advertisers were so worried about scraping up all the cents that it cost them dollars in loyalty.

      This calls for that one Jurassic Park quote.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    25. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the question was, "Would you rather have an ad on this free page, or would you rather pay to view the page?"

    26. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      -1 Stupid.

      Look at Google ads in the past before they started all this tracking and spyware crap. When you googled for some terms, Google showed you ads (small, text-only ads on the right side, separate from the regular search results) which pertained directly to what you were searching for. *That* is "relevant" advertising.

      It's too bad it's such a rarity these days, but it does exist.

      Another (non-internet) example is many magazine ads. For instance, if I pick up a woodworking magazine and leaf through it, and I see an advertisement for a table saw, that's fairly relevant. It's pretty hard to do any decent woodworking without a table saw, so if you want to advertise your table saw to an audience that's most likely to want one, placing an ad in a woodworking magazine is a pretty good bet.

    27. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's weird; the only reason I shop on Ebay is because I'm looking at things which are either used, or on a close-out sale of some kind. Also, some weird niche things from very small sellers are frequently sold there. For mass-market, brand-new stuff, Ebay is the last place I look, unless I'm hoping to score a bargain from someone who bought one, and either didn't use it or barely used it (which goes back to the "used" criterion) and decided they didn't want it.

    28. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by taustin · · Score: 1

      So it's OK if the cattle prod they shove up your butt is only 100,000 volts?

    29. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No, not really. I've been blocking ads for years and years and years. I blocked them way back when they were just static images. I hate ads. It hasn't anything to do with the other reasons. I just hate them. I don't like people trying to get me to do things I'd not normally do. Thanks.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    30. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      It actually took a lot of pushing to make me install an ad-blocker. I had previously just been using noscript because of the danger. One of the final straws, oddly enough, was Amazon's listing of "sponsored results" along with other search results, not to mention the increasing prevalence of malware being delivered, even through prominent sites. Really, Amazon? Fine... uBlock Origin + a few lines of script, and they're gone. And I'm not going to bother changing the other default settings, so nearly all ads are gone along with them.

      Now, I'm being tracked less, my web pages are less cluttered and load faster, and I'm much safer while surfing. Tell me, why exactly should I switch the ad-blocker off again? The advertisers will have to do a hell of a lot to get me to turn off ad-blocking at this point.

      The blog post mention using "encryption" in ads, but I'm not exactly sure how encryption is supposed to prevent malware. They're still allowing their customers to run arbitrary scripting and arbitrary content (like Flash), which can contain exploits, even if it's served via encrypted connections. The real problem is that they're allowing potentially untrusted content in the first place, not that the connection or content is being hijacked. Flash-based ads and arbitrary scripting have both got to go.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    31. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the other way atound as well, if the buyer is a crook the seller suffers.

    32. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Served via secure link like https may even be worse for you since some browsers and plugins relaxes their security for 'well-known' sites with a valid certificate.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    33. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      The survey was served as an ad so only people not doing adblocking participated. Talk about skewed results.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    34. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      For a nanosecond I'd take any voltage.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    35. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while troubleshooting a friend's bad kb/mouse, installed abp in his firefox, too..

      him: 'omg this is soo fast! did you upgrade my pc?'

      me: 'nahh, i just upgraded the whole fucking internet instead.'

    36. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to refusing to use a product?
      Why not look for an alternative?

      If you didn't have an Ad blocker option would you just keep going to the web site anyway?

  4. Bullshit ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a report (PDF) released in August forecasted that U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers

    Not making the ridiculously over-inflated revenue you feel entitled to, and which is based on bullshit assumptions is not "losing revenue".

    Acting like you deserved or earned that money in any way shape or form is your damned problem. Having reality bit you in the ass is also your damned problem.

    Sorry, but pulling a number out of your ass and saying you feel entitled to $21 billion dollars has nothing at all to do with reality. Get a real business model and earn your money, don't just decree that you being a parasite embedded on a web page entitles you to a damned thing.

    Digital advertising became the foundation of an economic engine that, still now, sustains the free and democratic World Wide Web.

    No, no it didn't. A bunch of sleazy assholes selling ads is nothing of the sort.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Bullshit ... by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

      Amen brother Stoddart! Regrettably no mod points to give.

      I'd also like to add that this is also one of several reasons why I no longer watch television in favor of ad-free video models. I'm old enough to remember when there was only about 7-10 minutes of advertising per 1 hour of content, and commercials only happened at the top, bottom, and mid-point of the program. That's now about 18 minutes or more throughout the program.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    2. Re:Bullshit ... by AES84 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100%. This is the most lucid response I can imagine myself writing in response to that hogwash. They have little to nothing to do with being a "foundation" for freedom or democracy and aren't losing jack shit.

    3. Re:Bullshit ... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The cherry on top of this shitcake is that nothing would be lost if they didn't first of all drive people into blocking their ads.

      I mean, let's be honest here. Yes, there have always been the ones that block "on principle". But they were very few and far between. They didn't matter anyway, being the "oh I don't get influenced by ads" crowd anyway, they didn't click them. No loss there.

      Where they are now losing is with the masses. The Joe Randomsurfers that have now begun to use ad blocking. And there is NOBODY to blame, NOBODY at all, but the advertisers themselves.

      Anyone who has ever done any computer work for Mr. Joe R. knows one thing: They put up with a lot. And I mean a DAMN LOT. Usually, when you get called with a description like "Yeah, well, my computer's kinda getting slow and acting funny, could you take a look?" you can't even SEE the damn browser window underneath all those "helper" bars anymore, and starting the computer takes ages because you have to click away like a billion "please buy our software" windows. Yes, they put up with ALL of this.

      Can you even remotely imagine just HOW much you, dear advertisers, had to piss them off to even consider thinking about finding out whether it is maybe possible to get rid of the ads? Do you have a faint idea just how obnoxious you must have been for them to, you know, DO something with their computer?

      And that ship has sailed. You got them to do something, and just like they put up with a lot of crap before they went and installed blocker software, they will put up with a lot of inconvenience and "sorry, this page is not available if you block our ads" before removing it again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your points that a lack of revenue is their own problem.

      But, very few people will actually pay for web services, when push comes to shove. I know if Slashdot started charging for access, we'd start talking about "paywalls" and go somewhere else. What should it do? It's either have ads or charge for the service and lose most users. Perhaps that's a false dichotomy, but I'm unaware of any alternatives at this time.

    5. Re:Bullshit ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly. I remember when Google first came out with their ads and they seemed innovative because they were simple text ads. At the time, the "common knowledge" was that you needed blinking Flash ads that played sound, triggered full screen video if the mouse cursor went anywhere near the ad, and spawed a dozen pop-up ads. Anything less and users would ignore the ads. And, of course, as users tuned out your garish ads (even without using ad blockers), you needed to go even more garish to force them to pay attention.

      The advertisers dug themselves into this hole with the types of ads they tried pushing on users and now they're acting surprised that users view ads in a negative manner and try to block them.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:Bullshit ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know if Slashdot started charging for access, we'd start talking about "paywalls" and go somewhere else

      Well, here's the other problem with that: we're the product.

      See, Slashdot doesn't author any new content. Their value, whether they realize it or not, is in the people who comment.

      Slashdot without the comments is a rather pathetic news aggregator. It certainly wouldn't generate nearly as much money as a pay-walled site which just links to other sites. Because nobody would give a damn.

      Sites whose primary selling feature is an abundance of crowd-sourced/user contributed data who suddenly think the value is intrinsically independent of those users can get a nasty shock when they start to demand money for the privilege of participating. Experts exchange, being a prime example.

      So, Slashdot can sell ads. People may or may not block them. They can also sell subscriptions so we can see "articles in the future" and whatever else that gets you. But, really, the value in a site like Slashdot is its users -- even the crazy ones like the "you're all cows" guy.

      But the front-page of Slashdot with no comments and discussions merely linking to other web sites and the odd puff piece from Bennet Haselton or the articles Nerval's Lobster shills for Dice? Yeah, good luck making a business model out of that.

      Charging to get links to other people's content? Not so good as a business model if you ask me.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Bullshit ... by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      Ads are the easiest way to monetize.

      Other ways are to target the users or groups that ARE willing to pay and serve them an "enhanced" product.

      You could also ask for donations or use a service like Google contributor.

      Other than that, it may just require a radical shift in the way things are done... maybe an "Internet tax" that is built into your (or your ISPs) bill for the pipe whose proceeds would go toward funding free public infrastructure where anyone can host anything and can monetize in any way they want up to a certain, pre-defined limit at which point they would have to fund it themselves... Shooting from the hip here...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    8. Re:Bullshit ... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You got them to do something, and just like they put up with a lot of crap before they went and installed blocker software, they will put up with a lot of inconvenience and "sorry, this page is not available if you block our ads" before removing it again.

      I think you're incorrect - they'll just move on to a different website. The age of advertisers having free reign over ads on webpages is shutting down fast. They only have themselves to blame. I wonder if they'll try to invoke some clause in the DMCA or TTP to force people to watch their ads.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:Bullshit ... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Sorry if that didn't get across: Yes, that's basically what I meant. They will not remove their ad-blocker when facing a "no content for you, damn moocher". They will close the tab and check if it's available somewhere else.

      And you may rest assured that they will try to abuse the law. They've done everything else, the only thing left that could prop up their failed business model and keep it from being subjected to the laws of capitalism is the laws you can buy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re: Bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much. The networks turn a 2 hour movie into a 2 hour and 45 minute movie. And guess what they do with that last 15 minutes before a new show or movie starts, you got it, show ads. So basically an hour of ads for a 2 hour movie. Sickening.

    11. Re:Bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU, don't give them ideas.

    12. Re:Bullshit ... by doconnor · · Score: 1

      Slashdot does recognize its commenters. People who post uprated comments check a check box to disable ads. I have it checked off right now.

    13. Re:Bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever since the Beta fiasco I've been frequenting https://soylentnews.org/ more and more. No shilling there.

      The comments, while fewer, have a much higher signal:noise ratio.

      Go Soylent!

    14. Re:Bullshit ... by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, Slashdot can sell ads. People may or may not block them. They can also sell subscriptions so we can see "articles in the future" and whatever else that gets you. But, really, the value in a site like Slashdot is its users -- even the crazy ones like the "you're all cows" guy.

      Seriously, it wouldn't be Slashdot without the trolls - it would be a bland, boring place. My early reaction to the comments to this story was actually "where's APK? I hope he's OK". There's a real sense of community here that keeps people coming back (no, not the "we're all friends" nonsense, no real community is like that either). Mess with it and the community dies.

      But fortunately Dice seemed to get that - heck, I should probably change my sig now.

      That's the problem with paywalls - people are only going to pay for original content, not news aggregation, and a lot of what news sites do is just aggregation of AP stories and stories from other sources. How sure can you be that yor produce enough original content to survive a paywall? Maybe the paywall easy to bypass hedges your bet.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Bullshit ... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I could see a network that websites partner with to provide single sign-on authentication. Anyone logged into the network would be able to access the various partner sites, and people would subscribe to the network as a whole. The network would take in all of the subscriber money and dish it out to the partner sites based on things like how many individual users go to each site, how long they spend, etc (obviously some anti-fraud is necessary there). People going to the site who aren't logged in would see a paywall, or a bunch of ads, or whatever.

      I don't know if that would work, but there are most certainly options other than "remove your ad-blocker or pay a subscription to each website". It's a fact that many people only see a small handful of pages on each site they visit, without going through the home page even, and no one is willing to pay $1 to read a single story on a site. But, people might be willing to pay $5 or $10 per month in order to access 1,000 different sites. There just needs to be that central network to take all of the payments and hand it out to the participating sites, and provide authentication and metrics to figure out things like how many unique users use each site.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    16. Re:Bullshit ... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Completely wrong.

      For instance, I just lost one trillion Dollars. My coworker failed to give me 1T dollars, so that money is lost, and I've been unfairly denied that money that I'm entitled to. It doesn't matter if there's no possible way my coworker would even have access to $1T. I demand justice!

    17. Re:Bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your whole rant hangs on one casually chosen word "lose".
      You seriously have to get over yourself.

    18. Re:Bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also forgot that the content that gets linked more times than not has been on that other site for days or longer and already viewed by the community here before we get a chance to comment on it. It's not like the stuff being aggregated is even that current to try to make a biz model out of! Yes, we, the community at /. are the product. These comments are what they make money off of, not their already been headlined elsewhere "news".

    19. Re:Bullshit ... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I know if Slashdot started charging for access, we'd start talking about "paywalls" and go somewhere else. What should it do? It's either have ads or charge for the service and lose most users. Perhaps that's a false dichotomy, but I'm unaware of any alternatives at this time.

      Since people are probably only willing to pay a fraction of dollar to use any particular site, then sites need to group up, similar to cable packages. I wouldn't pay just for Slashdot, but I would pay $5/month or whatever for Slashdot plus 100 or 1000 other sites that I would find useful. There could be a news package that includes sites like Slashdot, Reddit, Fark, etc, plus most of the sites they would typically link to (various tech news sites, maybe some tech blogs, etc). There could be an entertainment package that people who go to TMZ would go for, etc. It's a large undertaking to set that kind of thing up and distribute all of the subscription payments fairly among the sites, but I don't believe at all that there's no other way. Just like advertising pays site operators fractions of a cent for every ad they show, the site network could also pay by traffic or some similar metric. Tracking their own users would be easy enough because the sites would all authenticate users with a central service to make sure they have a subscription, and then the service knows that the user was on that site. In exchange, the partner sites could still even be allowed to show ads, but they would not be allowed to refuse service to subscribers blocking ads.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    20. Re:Bullshit ... by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      I remember when Google first came out with their ads and they seemed innovative because they were simple text ads. At the time, the "common knowledge" was that you needed blinking Flash ads that played sound, triggered full screen video if the mouse cursor went anywhere near the ad, and spawed a dozen pop-up ads.

      Google is lucky that their ads are nearly as interesting as their content (organic search results), and that their users are often in a buying mode. Contrast this with websites that offer quality content that is much more interesting than the (often irrelevant) ads around it. It's here that ads need to be garish to draw people away from the content. That's why I don't think "acceptable ads" would work for many websites. They have to learn how to earn more from their content rather than the spin around it.

    21. Re:Bullshit ... by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      See, Slashdot doesn't author any new content. Their value, whether they realize it or not, is in the people who comment.

      Slashdot without the comments is a rather pathetic news aggregator.

      Aggregators still provide value through their summaries and editorial selection, although this value should be shared with the original sources (even if TFA isn't visited). Slashdot also has some original interviews.

      There is an ad-free, paywall-free way for Slashdot to get paid for this article value, as well as from the value of user comments (which Slashdot can choose to share with comment authors).

    22. Re:Bullshit ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That would actually be easier than you probably think. Take your average news page. All it takes is a little research and a hint of empathy. Depending on the news presented, the ads could be fitted. News about a catastrophe are probably something where an ad from a relief fund asking for donations is better suited than one for new accessoires from Dolce and Gabbana. An ad for that would probably be a lot more topical in a news article about the latest fashion week or a catwalk presentation from some famous designer.

      Know your audience. What is the big miracle around this truth for content creators since times immemorial also applying to advertisement?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:Bullshit ... by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      Some ads on most news sites, such as Google ads, would already be matched to the article content. They would be reluctant to get rid of the rest, including direct campaigns by big brands that pay very well. My angle was that, contextual or not, people are less interested in ads when they're absorbed by the content, forcing those ads to be flashy (and Flash-y).

    24. Re:Bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Websites like youtube, vimeo, reddit, slashdot etc. Simply wouldn't exist at all if that is the common attitude to have

      They also wouldn't exist without user generated content. For each of the websites the lion's share of the website's worth is not created by the website operator, it's created by the users.

    25. Re:Bullshit ... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      They didn't matter anyway, being the "oh I don't get influenced by ads" crowd anyway,

      This crowd doesn't block ads because they believe they dont need to.

      Advertisers love this crowd because their false sense of security makes them the most susceptible. Advertising affects their decisions, they'll be stratigh down to McDonalds(TM) to get a refreshing Coke(R) as fast as anyone. Advertising affects everyone and to believe you're immune to it is foolish.

      I block ads because they DO affect me. This ranges from annoyance to ways I cant consciously perceive (at least easily) and I simply do not like it.

      That being said, I agree with the rest of your post. Advertisers have dug their own graves. They were too used to having a captive audience that couldn't do anything like they did with traditional media (print, radio and television). They thought they could get away with anything when we went online but failed to realise that now the recipient now has the ability to control what they see and the advertising industry is not in a hurry to adapt.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  5. Get what they deserved by hsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Users: hey can you give us less intrusive and annoying ads
    Advertisers: fuck you here is your ad

    Now
    advertisers: hey please don't block our ads thanks
    Users: fuck you

    1. Re:Get what they deserved by MagickalMyst · · Score: 2

      +1 Funny

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    2. Re:Get what they deserved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly! Advertising on the internet has become self defeating.
      Advertisers: Too many people are ignoring our ads...make them more visible and harder to ignore!

      Users: These ads are a pain and are giving me a headache! Time to start blocking them!

      Advertisers: They are blocking our ads! They can't do that!

      Users: Its my computer, I pay for the bandwidth that your ads were wasting so GO TAKE A FLYING FUCK AT A ROLLING DOUGHNUT!

    3. Re:Get what they deserved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, AdBlock+ forever!

  6. Biggest problem is malware by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The biggest problem with ads is malware. The article suggested a plan to avoid malware: encrypt the connection.

    I don't see how that will fix any problem related to malware......the problem is that malicious people are allowed to buy ads. That is the problem they need to fix.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Biggest problem is malware by cfalcon · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem with ads is ads.

      The malware is just because they figured out how to infect your firmware AND your wetware

    2. Re:Biggest problem is malware by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that they don't want to do anything substantial to vet the people buying the ads. All they care about is the money.

      It seems to me like there needs to be some sort of significant penalty for any ad network found to have let something malicious slip through, otherwise they have very little incentive to clean their act up. They'll just go "oops, well, we won't sell ad space to CyberMafiaMan2000@gmail anymore", and turn right around and sell it to CyberMafiaMan2001@gmail instead.

    3. Re:Biggest problem is malware by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      How do you propose to solve that problem? It's akin to a server not wanting to accept a connection from anyone that would hack it, but that's not something that can be known with 100% accuracy.

      You'd have to employ someone to look at any of the content they intend to serve (and hope that don't just change it later) and manually inspect it for nefarious code, which isn't always possible to detect if it's obfuscated sufficiently well or exploits a previously unknown attack vector. That's already more work than anyone is willing to put up with just to serve some ads, so no one will bother doing it.

    4. Re:Biggest problem is malware by g01d4 · · Score: 1

      Malvertising is only part of the bigger problem of remote ad servers. As has been stated here before, why should users not only expose themselves but also deal with the overhead to access remote 3rd party servers which the site they're visiting has no control over.

    5. Re:Biggest problem is malware by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      How do you propose to solve that problem [of malware in ads]?

      There are a couple ways:
      1) Screen people who want to buy ads. Right now it's easy to do with no human interaction.
      2) Text-only content (still have to worry about xss and validation mistakes, but that's a more tractable problem).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Biggest problem is malware by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you propose to solve that problem? It's akin to a server not wanting to accept a connection from anyone that would hack it, but that's not something that can be known with 100% accuracy.

      Hold sites and ad networks accountable for the shit they serve. If they're serving malware, penalize them.

      You'd have to employ someone to look at any of the content they intend to serve

      Yes, exactly.

      That's already more work than anyone is willing to put up with just to serve some ads, so no one will bother doing it.

      Then we have no choice but to conclude they're a bunch of greedy, self-serving bastards who don't give a damn about our security, privcy, or the perception they're part of the problem.

      Which is what we've done, and why we run ad-blockers.

      Are you suggesting we should be giving the benefit of the doubt or saying they didn't meant to do it and it isn't their fault if sleazy players delivered malware? Why the hell would we do that?

      Sorry, I'm sticking with the conclusion I've already made: I simply refuse to trust the integrity or security of an ad network, and I owe them no obligation to do otherwise, and I don't give a crap about their business model or revenue stream.

      If the ad companies won't take responsibility, then they cannot be trusted even a little. And that becomes their own damned problem.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Biggest problem is malware by taustin · · Score: 1

      I rarely get malware from ads or otherwise. The biggest problem is my web browser locking up for several minutes processing the 10 or 15 meg of shit ads for a page with, at most, a couple of hundred words of content.

      Turns out, with a decent ad blocker, IE is a pretty stable, usable, and fairly responsive browser. More table than either Chrome or Firefox, in fact. Saying that out loud makes me want to drink bleach, but there it is.

    8. Re:Biggest problem is malware by taustin · · Score: 1

      If your business model won't work unless you allow criminals to use your services to commit crimes, then your business model is parasitic, and criminal in its own right, and you should be put in prison.

      We don't allow drug deals to shoot people because they'd be out of business without shooting people. If ad companies can't stay in business without enabling malware from organized crime, then they should be put out of business.

    9. Re:Biggest problem is malware by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with ads is malware.

      Personally, I think the biggest problem isn't malware. It's that on average advertising works.

      The industry exists specifically and solely to manipulate buyer perception. While yes, sometimes advertising connects a buyer with a product at just the right time, more often advertising is about selling you stuff you don't know you need in quantities you don't know you want. Witness the American drug advertisements. "Does your skin feel things? Do you sometimes have the sense that gravity exists? Do you have symptoms that suggest you are a human being? Well, go ask your doctor if Ambitrexo is right for you. If your doctor says 'no', ask another doctor. Ambitrexo may cause dizziness, nausea, anal bleeding, spontaneous limb loss, blindness, or gender inversion. Do not take Ambitrexo if you are pregnant, know anyone who is pregnant, or if you live within 50 miles of a pizzeria."

      I will happily live in a world without innocent "FYI our product exists" ads if that's what it takes to get rid of "on sale now, limit X per customer". That limit X statement is literally designed to perform successful psychological manipulation to encourage you to buy more of the product than you wanted. It's called the Availability Heuristic. Advertising uses a large number of psychological manipulations and that's what I think is the real problem.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    10. Re:Biggest problem is malware by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I rarely get malware from ads or otherwise.

      I don't know about you, but I don't even want to get malware "rarely"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Biggest problem is malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does an ad need any code behind it anyway?

    12. Re:Biggest problem is malware by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      How do you propose to solve that problem? It's akin to a server not wanting to accept a connection from anyone that would hack it, but that's not something that can be known with 100% accuracy.

      No, it's not like that, it's like a walled-garden. Turns out there are other examples of that right now.

      You'd have to employ someone to look at any of the content they intend to serve (and hope that don't just change it later) and manually inspect it for nefarious code, which isn't always possible to detect if it's obfuscated sufficiently well or exploits a previously unknown attack vector.

      That's right, part of that $21.8 billion in lost revenue needs to go towards people vetting all content. Ads should not be served from the advertiser's server, they should be served from the ad network server so that they can be vetted and not changed at whim. Any ads with Javascript code should be submitted unpacked and not obfuscated, and have the ad network responsible for packaging the ad to be delivered. And anyone submitted a malicious ad doesn't get to submit ads any more. Go and submit a malicious app to Apple and see what happens.

      The problem has a solution. Whether or not they are willing to do that in order to gain back people's trust is another issue. They aren't going to gain back trust by not doing it though.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    13. Re:Biggest problem is malware by taustin · · Score: 1

      Nobody wants to, but the only guarantee that you won't is to not have a computer. Because these days, some of them come pre-infected from the factory.

    14. Re:Biggest problem is malware by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      There isn't a secure way to access fifteen different content providers and freely run scripts provided by all of them every time you visit a page and with zero knowledge of what content or what provider will be accessed when you open a page.

      I don't avoid adds because they are annoying. I avoid them because when I visit a website I'm saying a trust that website enough to interact with it. I have no such trust in blindly accepting all advertiser interaction. When the website I'm accessing brings the ads in house and takes complete ethical and legal responsibility for the safety and privacy implications of ad content then, I may be happy to allow their ads to load. My security trumps their ad revenue.

    15. Re:Biggest problem is malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree strongly... The malware is MUCH better than the ads... I friggin' hate those things...

    16. Re:Biggest problem is malware by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      The only thing an ad company will fear is a company-wide execution of wipedisk to clear out all possible infections they may serve. Includes a burning of all their tapes.

      Anything else is just a reasonable risk.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    17. Re:Biggest problem is malware by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      If we could just apply that same rule to other business offenders. It is factually correct that a vast swath of our economy is run by companies with a "business model (that) is parasitic, and criminal".

      Wall Street and the 2008 crash, BP and the Gulf oil spill, fracking and poisoning aquifers and air, pharmaceutical companies jacking prices up and killing people who can't pay, Ford committing mass murder via faulty ignition switches (125 killed and counting), the music industry stealing from artists, patent trolls stealing from everybody, standards bodies imposing de facto taxes on users (HDMI cables), Microsoft (their entire business model), Oracle (their billing and audit practices), all EULAs, the H1B visa scams, antibiotic feed for livestock leading to ineffective antibiotics for humans, Monsanto genetically modified crops cross pollinating seed lines and then farmers being sued by Monsanto, the pharmaceutical industry opioid drug epidemic, the worldwide automobile industry cheating on emissions (only VW has been caught, but just wait), aging oil and chemical plants that explode and kill workers every four or five years (expect the rate to go up, the plants are all past their end-of-life date), overuse of insecticides destroying ecosystems (this goes for US agribusiness and import agribusiness).

      And those are just the ones that I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure that you can come up with a lot of others.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    18. Re:Biggest problem is malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: "... that's not something that can be known with 100% accuracy."

      You see that right there is part of the problem. We don't need 100% accuracy and we never did. You're setting up preconditions that can never be met and if anyone accepts that, "oh well then, there's nothing we can do". Except that it's BS and we certainly can do stuff.

      Hold the ad networks accountable for any malware they serve up. Oh I know, they didn't make the malware, they only host. But so what? That's their excuse but they are complicit in hurting consumers. Start penalizing them and you know what? Suddenly those irresponsible ad networks are going to start vetting their customers, something which isn't happening now, either enough or at all.

      And if an ad network ever gets unjustly accused/fined/banned? That's what an appeals system is for. Expect lots of BS appeals though.

      That's not to say that you don't prosecute those how actually make the malware. However the ad networks are the choke point and a key vector in distributing malware. Hold them responsible for hosting it and not doing enough to stop it. They deserve to sweat under bright lights for a while.

  7. Wow, I'll turn off all my blockers right now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh, wait. No, I won't. Because it is indeed too late. I could, and did, put up with advertisements when they didn't take too much bandwidth and weren't too offensive. That time ended years ago. I now adblock on every device / every browser, and install those features for all my clients as a default. I'll never go back. You screwed yourselves and have nobody else to blame.

  8. Here is a thought.. by governorx · · Score: 1

    Maybe companies could try to make money selling goods or services instead of ramming ads down peoples throats.

    1. Re:Here is a thought.. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      So a subscription or pay-per-use then?

    2. Re:Here is a thought.. by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Ad blockers are helping us move towards this, and no other thing.

    3. Re:Here is a thought.. by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Maybe companies could try to make money selling goods or services instead of ramming ads down peoples throats.

      For god's sake, man, stop with the CRAZY talk!!!!

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    4. Re:Here is a thought.. by taustin · · Score: 1

      That would involve providing goods and services worth paying for. Which is another matter entirely, but equally beyond the ability of the parasites who run most web sites.

  9. Wrong! by MagickalMyst · · Score: 4, Informative

    "U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers"

    No, U.S. websites won't make an additional $21.8 billion in ad revenue due to ad blockers.

    You can't lose what you don't already have. This sounds like entertainment industry economics.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re:Wrong! by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      "U.S. websites won't be able to injure people to the tune of 22 billion dollars, due to the fact that people own their own machines that they paid for themselves, maintain themselves, and house in their own homes, with their own dollars."

      Great news.

    2. Re:Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When the government lowers taxes, they're giving money back."

    3. Re:Wrong! by renderhead · · Score: 1

      It's the same logic that gives us headlines like "Some tech company [usually Apple] misses projections in earnings call". No, they didn't miss a damn thing. If a projection fails to match what actually ends up happening, that's the fault of the projection.

      --
      I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.

      -RenderHead

    4. Re:Wrong! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      That's just what it sounded like to me too. Years back, the music industry was posting record profits. Year after year, they were making more and more money. Then, one year, their profits slipped a bit. Suddenly, they were declaring that "piracy" cost them $X (where $X was the difference between what they made and some value larger than their previous year's record). The concept of the market naturally shrinking seemed foreign to them. It just HAD to be piracy!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't lose what you don't already have. This sounds like entertainment industry economics.

      Except for the fact that serving you a website cost money to operate, most likely not 21.8 billion dollars but I'd wager at least half that assuming an extremely generous 50% profit margin.

    6. Re:Wrong! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's nothing new, it's the same as proprietary software economics going back to the early 90s or before. Remember "Don't Copy that Floppy" from the BSA? They've been complaining about how much money software makers have "lost" for *decades* now. Basically, every time some flat-broke 15-year-old living with his parents pirates a copy of some $10,000 CAD program or whatever, that company just "lost" $10k.... sure.

    7. Re:Wrong! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It could be that those ads would have done more than 22 billion dollars in damage to people if they'd gotten through. Consider bandwidth, time lost waiting for ads to load, malicious content...it could add up.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but take Walmart's diving share price to earnings ratio.
      People aren't buying their shit because of ad-blockers. Its because there are 100 million American on under 19K of income, but this time free and easy credit is not available, and their disposable income is NOT rising. OK the other half have money, but most of em have all the gadgets and gizmos they don't need and less time to slack off at work, and too tired to chase condition laden specials after The premium income earners dont want distractions - they are now educated and wise - bang goes that channel.

      Now I have found pawnshops, AliExpress and Mega Outlet malls its sure going to be hard to flog me overpriced value added crap. As said elsewhere an Independent reviews make brand name recollection, less and less. NoName is my favorite brand.

  10. Advertising is DEAD. Find another business model by Dr.+Crash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The unfortunate truth is that once someone experiences the speed and cleanliness of adblocking, they simply won't go back. Not ever.

    And, as explained in a previous post, the second thing they do is show their friends. And their relatives. And their social contacts.

    And so it expands, like neutrons in a nuclear warhead; the chain-reaction gain is greater than 1 and the constraint of business models
    ("we don't take your word for the claim that the ad was shown") will either have to break down, or the whole business is "game over".

    My advice to webvertizers: update your resume and find another line of work.

  11. Re: If he were really serious... by jovius · · Score: 2

    That doesn't make any ad sense.

  12. Why would ad revenue suffer? by WerewolfOfVulcan · · Score: 1

    The only reason that websites know that the ads aren't reaching the intended target is because they're using javascript to test to see if the ad makes it into the page. The solution is to stop checking. As long as you're making a good faith effort to display the ads, it's not your job to be sure that they made it to the target. If I'm the publisher of a print magazine and I put ads in the magazine, I bill the vendors for the ad space. I have no way of knowing whether the reader actually reads the ad and it's not my job to know. The same principle applies to websites. Bill the vendors for the ads you attempted to insert and you're not losing money.

    1. Re:Why would ad revenue suffer? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Bill the vendors for the ads you attempted to insert and you're not losing money.

      Great idea! Now, who's going to be the first to tell their clients they're going to be billed this way?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Why would ad revenue suffer? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Presumably because people want evidence what they're paying for works. They want to know so many people saw it, so many people clicked on it, and some percentage actually bought it.

      Digital advertising pretends like it is their "right" to know these things, and to track all the places you go so they can better know what to sell you.

      The rest of us have decided "no, really, fuck you, where I go and what I do isn't your damned business". Which means we'll block the hell out of these analytics companies as much as possible, because we don't agree with the premise that we've consented to be part of their business model.

      So, if a website serves ads, which don't run scripts, and which are served up with their own bandwidth? I might not take extraordinary steps to block them. Start pulling in god knows what from a dozen other sites who all want to set cookies, run scripts, and track me everywhere I go? I'll block that crap all day long.

      If your business model is predicated on my participation, you should not be surprised that my participation is neither mandatory, nor beneficial to me.

      The problem is the ad companies feel entitled to this information. People are now starting to tell them that's not true.

      There's at least 10 external sites on Slashdot. The business model of none of these companies concerns me. The children of the employees of Scorecard Research can starve alone in the streets for all I care; it's not my problem to supply Scorecard Research with any information or be the basis for their revenue stream.

      To the people they advertise to, these companies are nothing but parasites on the internet. And that's their damned problem.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Why would ad revenue suffer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's at least 10 external sites on Slashdot.

      There are external sites on Slashdot?? Do i need to disable my ad-blocker to see this extra 'content' ?

    4. Re:Why would ad revenue suffer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is the way publishers (be they newspaper, billboard, TV, radio, WWW) have ALWAYS billed advertisers.

      Publishers are the ones with the eyeballs that the advertisers so desperately need to stay in business. Publishers are the ones who can dictate terms to advertisers, not the other way round.

    5. Re:Why would ad revenue suffer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if a website serves ads, which don't run scripts, and which are served up with their own bandwidth?

      They don't need to use their own bandwidth.
      All they need is to switch to add an img-tag with a src to the ad-networks server. The ad-network can then pay for the bandwidth needed to provide their jpg or gif-based ad and they can track connections all they want.
      But I guess they don't trust the page owner to not have a script running that accesses that image 24/7. There is no trust established between the content provider and the ad-provider, but they still expect the end user to trust them both.
       

    6. Re:Why would ad revenue suffer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They shouldn't exist in the first place to even have clients.

      Marketers are scum.

  13. Please make it stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where / how do they come up with these figures? 21.8 billion - please!

  14. We accept your apology by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Yes, we really do. Thank you.

    Huh? No, we're not going to deactivate our adblockers. What does one have to do with the other?

    Seriously, the whole thing smacks of someone who tried to dick over his business partner, simply because he was used to getting away with it. Then, noticing that he cannot this time, tried to use more invasive, brutal action against him and finally, noticing that even that doesn't work this time, resorts to whining and begging.

    I'm fully expecting getting sued next.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:We accept your apology by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They'll go after the ad block authors, first with incentives, then with threats. They'll try to get laws passed, they'll try to hook into existing property rights violations like DMCA. They'll fight and fight to shit up your life because they've been able to get paid for it up until this point.

      We'd better have a plan for all of these points!

    2. Re:We accept your apology by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Make it a malware filter instead of an adblocker. Freely configurable, of course, so "the cloud" can add malware as it is found.

      Unfortunately some nefarious elements might add benign, wholesome advertising sites...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:We accept your apology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > they'll try to hook into existing property rights violations like DMCA

      They already do. On one of the pro-ad websites, there's a listing of why ads are the most ethical endeavor after capitalism. After that, pleadings which basically says every time you block an ad, God kills a kitten. Think of the kittens! And the final presentation, after all previous ones fail to convince you, is the threat of DMCA -- essentially they can redefine advertising as digital rights protection: If you don't see the ads, you're not allowed to see the content. If you try to block ads so you can access the content, you're using DRM-circumvention, and this act is punishable under DMCA.

      As they say, patriotism is overrated. DMCA is really the last resort of scoundrels.

      I somehow lost the link to that site. I'd be grateful if someone could find it.

    4. Re:We accept your apology by maharvey · · Score: 1

      Stop using the web. Seriously, there are plenty of pages that (if I can't block the ads) just aren't worth visiting. There are sites I have blocked to avoid accidentally clicking a link and ending up there. Not because I'll get infected, but because I don't want to have to see the obnoxious ads. Really, I can find other things to do than surf the web. I have more hobbies that I have time for, and there are always errands and chores if I get tired of slacking. (har har)

      Poop in my brownies and I'll just stop eating them. Who watches TV with ads anymore? Who buys magazines that are 90% ads and 10% content? About the only place the advertisers still have a captive audience is radio, because drivers have little alternative and playing the same CD over and over again during an hour long commute gets stale. But even here, now I can stream Pandora to my stereo through Bluetooth so my life is almost 100% ad free!

      You know, this is what happened with music. The RIAA morons tried to lock down their distribution, tried to sue their customers. MPAA? They copy protect their disks and make me sit through previews and ads. Too many hassles, too many dick moves, too much annoyance. So no more buying CDs, no more buying movie DVDs. And you know what? I don't miss them! As it turns out there are lots of creative entrepreneurial folks who still offer me music and movies in a more pleasant form, tailored to my needs instead of theirs. But even if there weren't, I can get along without them. My life is not so shallow, dull, and meaningless that I have to suck on a sewer pipe for entertainment.

      So go ahead and pass laws. Dig your own grave, pound the nails into your own coffin. The more you grasp, the more success will elude you, and the harder I'll laugh.

    5. Re:We accept your apology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they'll just try to buy ad block companies in order to destroy them from within.

    6. Re:We accept your apology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really miss being able to buy movies on tape or DVD. When I first saw the add in a DVD I was insulted. I never got over it, never got used to it. I just am very careful now and only get the DVDs without that crap.

      Also favorite: when I learned that DVD players could be told to ignore user input, unlike VCRs. I never bought another full DVD player because I could never know if it was going to obey me or some jackass- from that point forward it was only the stuff that was part of computers, where I could override all that behavior.

    7. Re:We accept your apology by ewhenn · · Score: 1

      I've got you covered.

      1. Install and run your own privoxy and configure HTTP, install HTTPS filtering certificates
      2. Install custom ad filters (it's easy to do - I know, I've done it)
      3. Assuming you are on your own private network, which I usually am, use NAT to redirect all HTTP/HTTPS traffic blind to your privoxy.
      4. Profit!
      5. There is no ??? step, just profit.

      Side note, I've had built in ad blocking on iOS and Android for years this way. No addon's required. If you use my network, you're automatically protected.

    8. Re:We accept your apology by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

      They'll go after the ad block authors, first with incentives, then with threats. They'll try to get laws passed, they'll try to hook into existing property rights violations like DMCA.

      Courts around the world have ruled that ad blocking and ad skipping is not illegal. Plenty of legal precedent to null any attempt to pass favorable legislation. Courts have even ruled that state regulation of commercial speech is not illegal.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    9. Re:We accept your apology by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      I'm fully expecting getting sued next.

      The way things are going, I'm quite sure you're absolutely right.. But let me be the first to say this: "They'll pry my adblocker from my cold, dead fingers"....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    10. Re:We accept your apology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll go after the ad block authors, first with incentives, then with threats. They'll try to get laws passed, they'll try to hook into existing property rights violations like DMCA. They'll fight and fight to shit up your life because they've been able to get paid for it up until this point.

      We'd better have a plan for all of these points!

      I don't know how that might work as once it's open source and out there, game over. There are still plenty of CD, DVD and Blu-ray rippers out there that aren't getting shut down, so I don't see this as being any different. You can't stop a social movement once it's gotten enough steam, and the ad block movement is well on it's way to a majority of web surfers. Where there's a will, there's a way.

    11. Re:We accept your apology by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > Courts around the world have ruled that ad blocking and ad skipping is not illegal.

      Courts around the world have ruled that drinking water you have paid for is not illegal.
      Courts around the world have ruled that inhaling air is not illegal.
      Courts around the world have ruled that pooping is not illegal.

      Of course, the courts never ruled any of those things. Nor are there any laws against them that courts had to deal with. The difference is, while there's ALSO no laws saying you can't skip ads... IT STILL WENT TO THE COURTS, OVER AND OVER

    12. Re:We accept your apology by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      "benign, wholesome advertising sites"

      You'll spot a dodo in the wild before that.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    13. Re:We accept your apology by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You can only buy what's for sale. For reference, see Microsoft and its problem with Linux.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:We accept your apology by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Wait for TTIP and its "you shall not make laws that cut into our profit" provisions come into play, then we'll see the revision of it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:We accept your apology by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nah. I'll comply. I'll just write a proxy that does load the page just as the advertiser wants it to load, then forwards the parts to me that I want to see. I think that would satisfy both sides.

      Or, at least, satisfy me while making the others think they got what they wanted. Which is enough in my books, considering that's pretty much the same they do.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. "... will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue..." by macraig · · Score: 2

    Nope, they haven't "lost" anything. This is just like the bullshit "loss" numbers claimed due to so-called digital piracy. It wasn't guaranteed revenue even without the existence of ad-blocking software. Our brains are perfectly capable of "blocking" ads without software augmentation. Ad-blocking software is just a convenience for what our brains were already doing with a bit more effort. Like math.

  16. Might be a bigger problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I spend an inordinate amount of time tweaking my AdBlock and my NoScript settings in order to whitelist those sites I actually care about. Sometimes I even click on an ad, when the site asks nicely. But, and here's the thing, I practically never buy anything advertised. True, N=1 is a poor statistical sample, but I wonder if the advertisers' clients are actually getting their money's worth. And if not, then the current ad blocking crisis is the least of advertisers' worries.

    1. Re:Might be a bigger problem by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      The old saying for marketing is that I know I am wasting half my ad dollars, I just don't know which half.

  17. Doesn't bother me at all by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

    "...U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers..."

    It's funny how there's no way I could care less about this.

  18. I like text based ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't mind looking at advertisements that have plain text and a link. The animated GIFs and flash ads with sound and video are annoying. I hate the pop-up ads, especially the full screen ads. My 2 cents.

  19. Ad companies suck at their job by allquixotic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The ad industry really sucks at their job (especially Internet ads). Their job is to make consumers LIKE them, to WANT to watch the ads and buy their products, but they end up having the opposite effect.

    Imagine if you are a software developer, and instead of writing new code, you find yourself regularly deleting code that others wrote on your team (and all available backups), forcing them to re-do their work. If you were this bad at your job, would you expect to make any money?

    The ad industry is faced with several huge problems:

    1. Ads take up too much bandwidth. They need to use more efficient content formats (yes, even if that means IE6 users can't see the ads), compress ads (yes, even very lossy compression) to reduce their size, and improve caching behavior, so they have absolutely minimal performance impact.

    2. Companies that produce ads or aggregate ads from disparate sources do a very piss-poor job of vetting ads to make sure there is no malicious code in the ad. Hijacking links, CSRF, drive-by downloads, ad chaining from one site to another, opening more ads upon closing existing ones, and links to explicit content are very common. These are malware behaviors, people. Advertisements intended for paying customers should be much more respectful of the consumer's personal space and *not* make every possible attempt to invade their system and prevent them from closing the ads.

    3. Most ads that we view are not relevant to us. We would never buy whatever is being sold, either because we know it's trash, or we're simply not in the market for that type of product (selling women's dresses to single guys, gaming mice to grannies, etc.)

    4. User trust in the ad system as a whole is at an all-time low, mostly due to the past effects of attempted identity theft, personal information exfiltration and malware installation attempts of a large proportion of the ad networks.

    These factors mean that users are left with two alternatives: either don't visit websites that display ads, or use an ad blocker.

    If the ad industry can't come together as a cohesive whole and actively seek to eliminate these bad actors within their industry, their negative influence is going to continue to drive users to block ads, even if a significant portion of the ad industry completely cleans up their act.

    At this point, the only ads I can tolerate are Youtube ads which can be skipped after 5 seconds. Not only are they sometimes relevant, but they're much more pleasant to watch than most of the annoying popups out there, and they come and go very fast if I'm not interested (5 seconds is a rounding error since the video might take that long to buffer anyway). Not only that, but they are also rendered using the same efficient codecs that Youtube uses. I've even stopped to watch one or two full ads.

    Imagine if 95% of car mechanics at car dealerships deliberately tried to screw you by saying things are broken that aren't (deliberate lying, not accidental misdiagnosis). How many people would trust mechanics vs. trying to fix it themselves or asking for a trusted friend's help? Most people would not be willing to bring their car into the dealer in this case. In reality there's still a significant percentage of bad apples out there, but I think it's much lower than 95%. Unfortunately, in the ad industry, the percentage of bad apples is very, very high, and the percentage of people trying to do the right thing is very, very low.

    1. Re:Ad companies suck at their job by yodleboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Imagine if 95% of car mechanics at car dealerships deliberately tried to screw you"

      What do you mean "imagine"?

    2. Re:Ad companies suck at their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. I do all my own mechanical work on my car, exactly for this reason.

      I let my wife take her car in to the dealer and they screwed up the brakes and damaged the rotors (~$2,000 in repairs). Lucky for us they fixed everything for free.

      If you add deliberately malicious mechanics to incompetent mechanics you have a really high chance of something going wrong.

    3. Re:Ad companies suck at their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad companies suck at their job? So, Google... that was clearly a failure of an internet ad company....

    4. Re:Ad companies suck at their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was an apprentice mechanic at an auto dealership in another lifetime. I don't recall anyone purposefully defrauding customers. In fact I remember customers accusing us of that even when you show them the broken part and explain why it broke.

      Now, I am not saying that there are not shady mechanics out there, and I am not saying that the prices charged aren't highway robbery, but at the dealership I worked at, I don't recall a whole bunch of funny stuffy. The closest I ever saw were band-aids applied to used cars going to auction.

      In fact I remember one occasion with a customer that was just passing through blew up an engine. Book time for the job on this 4wd truck was something like 14 hours. (4wd adds a lot of time) since he was passing through me and the mechanic training me both stayed late that night putting in 6 hours a piece. The customer raised hell at the bill for 14 hours when the truck had been there for 7. He did not take into consideration that we don't make book time, the manufacture doesn't make book time, Chilton does. He also did not take into account that there had been two of us working on his truck, two times six is twelve, pretty darn close to book time. But yet we get branded as cheating him, for working late to ensure he got back on the road.

  20. ENough Bullshit. It Definitely Can Be Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People(shills) keep saying utter bullshit like, the internet can't be free without advertising. This is utter bullshit! The internet and the web use to be free. Free trans-oceanic interconnects, free content fee everything. Sure, someone had to pay for it all, but they did and then they gave it away to the world for free. They gave away bandwidth, storage, content... Free is how the web came to be!

    At first commercial entities offered free content as a lure, to attract potential customers to their site in the hope of them buying their widget. Then a few years in, commercial entities said; 'hey, there's an audience here that we can monetize with all sorts of ads'. People immediately started complaining about the commercialization of the internet and the web, but it only got worse and worse. Now these jerks are claiming that without ads, none of it can be free. They imply or outright state that without ads, all the free content has to go away or be paywalled.

    That's BULLSHIT. It was free before and it can be free again. That ad companies can't make a buck is of zero interest to me. That their artificial clickbait content has to go away would be a boon to the internet! The widget makers will still offer their content for free, so as to sell widgets.

    BLOCK ALL ADS! Fuck these marketers straight to hell. All of them.

    Hey DICE, I'm looking straight at you! Wanna get cute and paywall Slashdot? You'll be doing me a favor. A free alternative will replace it IN LESS THAN ONE DAY and absolutely nothing will be lost except your gravy train!

    1. Re:ENough Bullshit. It Definitely Can Be Free by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:ENough Bullshit. It Definitely Can Be Free by Paco103 · · Score: 1

      When the internet started, yes, everything was free. It was also almost entirely educational institutions and hobbyists. These things don't scale. Yes I can provide free e-mail to my friends and family, but I can't give it to everyone. As more "consumers" joined the web, it became a lot more one sided. Most people on the internet now provide nothing of value to the internet. I can provide a free product (say facebook, google, drop box, etc) when I can handle the load off of one computer. When demand grows, I either have to shut it off or monetize it, I can't continue to give it away when the demand for my product requires a million dollar server farm on every continent.

      To provide a car analogy:
      I can give my friend a ride to work for free every day so he has no need to have a car. I might even be able to work a couple more friends in. But eventually, I either have to charge for the ride and become a full time taxi service, or start saying no.

    3. Re:ENough Bullshit. It Definitely Can Be Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There already is an ad free alternative with a better signal to noise ratio. soylentnews.org

      In started with the whole beta fiasco, but so far in 20 months they just hit their 250,000 comment on 8,400 stories posted. 167,000,000 page hits as well. Not a single ad.

      The internet is still free, you just need to find it.

    4. Re:ENough Bullshit. It Definitely Can Be Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You solved it with the last 3 words of your comment.

      If you can't provide a service on the internet without trying to charge for force advertising you don't belong.

      The internet was built on free open standards for people. For-profit do not belong taking over it and ruining it for everyone.

  21. Dumber than dumb... by MrKrillls · · Score: 2

    There was no ad blocker for broadcast TV way back when. Ads were stupid and annoying and became universally hated, and the audience gradually learned to walk away from the TV during the commercials. A few brighter lights among the ad community realized that to cut through the wall of hatred, they would have to create entertaining ads. Those who succeeded actually got people to look forward to their ads.

    The internet ad community has been too lazy to notice that they could do better. Their ads need to be worth seeing. That idea has been hidden right in front of them for years. They've earned the payback they are now getting.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
    1. Re:Dumber than dumb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were promising interactive television since at least the early 80's and the only interactivity they delivered was forcing people to turn the sound down during commercials.

    2. Re:Dumber than dumb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On TV they did the same thing and got worse by flashing more on the screen with bigger text and compressed audio (radio being the same).

      On the internet we are at that same stage again.

  22. Boo hoo by JohnFen · · Score: 2

    I am a bit surprised that anyone in the online ad industry recognizes that they act like scumbags, but this is too little, too late. They've already burnt their bridges with me.

    Also, I notice that not a single mention was made of doing something about the primary reason I block ads: the spying. Which makes me believe that regardless of their crocodile tears now, they fully intend on continuing with what I consider to be their most objectionable practice.

    1. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me I wouldn't call it "too little, too late".
      Sure I'm not going to turn off adblock or noscript any time soon, but I don't install adblock on new computers as part of my routine, I wait until I find the ads obnoxious.
      If the ad-networks shape up and stop being so obnoxious I will probably not have any computers running adblock in ten years or so.
      They still need to find a business model that doesn't rely on scripts from third party servers being pulled in, because noscript is not going away anytime soon.

  23. Questionable Method by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 1

    Any professional salesperson knows people inherently want to please others, so they are more willing to say 'yes,' than 'no.' It is well-known that among experimental subjects, there is a strong will to please the experimenter (see milgram, etc.) so it is unsurprising that the results show an absurdist tilt.

    It's like walking up to a stranger and asking, "do you like my hair this way?" Of course, most people will say, "yes."

  24. no single US$ is lost due to ad-blockers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers"

    That's simply wrong. The same money is invested in ads, it's just distributed evenly to other channels, as well as more expensive (higher cost-per-click value) due to ad-blockers.

    Imagine adblockers did not exist, than all the advertising companies still only had the same amount of money for ads, totaling in a loss / gain due to adblockers of exactly: 0 US$

  25. Ads make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Websites look like shit!
    Browsing unsafe because of malware.
    Low data caps impossible.
    Surfing a pain the ass.

    Fuck ads! If they use anti-adblock I use anti-anti-adblock, if they use anti-anti-anti-adblock I make my own greasemonkey script and upload it. If it's a site I really like I'm nice about it and use Stylish to make custom CSS rules to make them invisible so the site still gets paid without me seeing the clutter. And that depends on the type of ads they allow. No flash, no advanced scripts, no html5 video, and all sloppy ad providers that offer any of that are blocked in Acrylic DNS.

  26. RTB (Real Time Bidding) is the real threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    That scummy platform is the bane of my browsing experience and the worst culprit when it comes to saturating pages in flash heavy bullshit. Enjoy this article from 2013 from suits singing the praises of how much they're going to eyefuck everyone: http://www.businessinsider.com/rtb-or-real-time-bidding-is-the-future-2013-9

    Here's an overview of why RTB or real-time bidding could make the difference in mobile, digital advertising's new frontier:

    It could help solve the CPM problem: The glut of ad inventory as global audiences rush into mobile has dragged on mobile display ad CPMs (CPMs refers to the cost per thousand impressions). That means publishers can't monetize their mobile audiences effectively via ads. Advocates of programmatic — or automated buying and selling — say it can deliver the scale and efficiency needed to effectively match buyers and sellers and boost CPMs.

    - Leveraging location data via real-time bidding (RTB): RTB is a style of programmatic buying in which digital advertising opportunities are auctioned off in real-time. The auctions take place in milliseconds as advertisers bid on the right to show you an ad immediately after you open an app or click to a new web page.

    - On mobile, RTB could be extremely powerful because consumers take their devices everywhere — to the mall, the car dealership, Starbucks, etc. "You have a source of media that's with someone constantly," says Jamie Singer, director of client services at Everyscreen Media, a platform for mobile RTB that was recently acquired by Media6Degrees. "You're working in real-time, and getting information based on location."

    - Helping to reach the holy grail of mobile advertising — controls and efficiencies: Believers in RTB and programmatic for mobile say they are making giant strides in perfecting their technologies, so they'll have the ability to leverage consumer data on mobile and track users as they do on PCs (while still being sensitive to privacy concerns). That will include location, contextual, and demographic data layered on top of real-time ad requests.

    - Some publishers already achieve higher CPMs with RTB than they do with traditional ad networks: As a result, RTB is seeing wider adoption across the mobile ad ecosystem, and positive momentum on both sides of the equation. The sell-side is providing more premium inventory, and larger publishers. And the buy-side is seeing more demand for RTB from advertisers and agencies. Of course, RTB and programmatic are contributing to hyper-efficient markets where ad prices tend to be low. The key is for RTB to bring scale to premium mobile ad marketplaces, bring in scale-focused brands, and lift all boats that way.

    FUCK YOU RTB!!!!!!!!!! LET IS BROWSE IN PEACE!!!!

  27. Simple solution for content providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go on a pay per view model or block your content if the user has Adblock.

    Oh but wait, then the users will find another content provider to get what they need.

    And let's be honest, most value in websites is created by the comment of the users and the interaction between the users.

    So... Either split the revenues with them or stop complaining.

  28. Blame the idiots who told everybody about blockers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's that damn helpfulness that is so common to nerds: Can't keep a good thing to themselves. Making something like ad blocking ubiquitous naturally kills it, but does that stop nerds from showing everybody how to block ads? No, gotta help all the people, even though many of them would gladly exclude you in a heartbeat if it helped them in any way. So here we are, ad blocking has become a problem, and it will be "solved". We could have kept blocking ads and let the unwashed pay for it all with their attention, but no, not us nerds...

  29. Loss? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not gaining is not a loss. Of course, this gets stated every time similar comes up. I guess that's because it's true.

  30. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    The unfortunate truth is that once someone experiences the speed and cleanliness of adblocking, they simply won't go back. Not ever.

    Once you go block, you never go back.

  31. Users have always been alienated from advertising by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    It took the mainstream acceptance of ad blockers before ad firms finally realized what was already obvious to everyone whose career is not tied to selling ads. Talk about needing to have a house fall on you before getting the point.

  32. Adderist Revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They say that if we don't have anything to fear, we have nothing to hide, or block. They say we cause damages to the more important citizens and soon start banning our tools and hunting us where ever we train. We are the Adderists and we have every reason to be afraid. Block the world!

  33. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Advertising isn't dead, and it is foolish to think so. Ads will just not come in a form that is easily blocked anymore. They will look like "content", the stuff that you came for. They will be where "blocking" them would cause a distraction, not remove one. They will be the content. You know that people pay to have company logos on their clothes and accessories, don't you? Do you know what a Tupperware party is? When your friends get paid to tell you about products, how do you block them? You ain't seen nothing yet.

  34. There needs to be a limit on Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm all for advertising on the Web, but there has to be a limit. For instance I recently went to a new aggregate site and literally only 15% of the screen contained words from the article I had clicked on. It is unfortunate that the Advertisers can't self regulate, but it appears that they can't. So we need some regulation that will limit the amount of ads on a site to less than 50% of the content on the page. (And not have all the ads at the top so you have to scroll through reams of ads just to get to the content.)

  35. Re: If he were really serious... by taustin · · Score: 1, Funny

    I disagree. I'd pay real money for a live video stream of that. I'm not alone.

  36. Okay, someone "fessed up" by Chas · · Score: 1

    Now what are they going to do?

    Continue pulling the same stupid shit that alienated people and has people rushing towards ad and script blockers like someone in the desert jumping on a glass of water.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  37. Gee whiz, really? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    No shit. Thanks for the news flash. Here are some more headlines you might like:

    "In Battle With Prosecutors, Ted Bundy Fesses Up To Murdering A Few People"

    "In Battle With The World, Justin Bieber Fesses Up To Being A Gigantic Asshole"

    "In Battle With Linux Users, Darl McBride Fesses Up To Possibly Bending The Truth A Wee Bit"

     

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  38. All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple time by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    These asshats need to pick a new TLA... IAB is already taken.

    Almost all the three letter acronyms, except the ones using very unusual combinations, have been taken. Multiple times.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  39. Ad business overcome with BAD possibilities by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    The ad business was overcome with BAD possibilities. They keep thinking about what they can do to grab and hold attention, thereby turning everyone off.

    I loved cracked.com. But I can't use their website without being bombarbed by video advertisements for stuff that sounds interesting but I do not want.

    Video ads that won't let me scroll past them.

    You want a real ad? It can NOT depend on 'force'. Grabbing someone and MAKING them see the ad is a clear way to make sure they never click or buy.

    Rules for a good advertiser. 1) NEVER USE SOUND. Not unless they specifically click 'sound on'.

    2) Make it EASY to turn off video/sound/skip the ad. If they try to close and you 'accidently on purpose' take them to your page, you will never get a sale. NEVER STOP THEM FROM SCOLLING AWAY. It's too late once they hate decide against you.

    3) You have video? Low bandwith (small size) unless they click to play. If you can't get them to play the video, you can't get them to buy the product.

    3) Targeted - REALLY targeted. Not "reader = books". No, instead it's Star Trek = other Sci-Fi.

    Accept the fact that you are NOT TV - you can't make people pay attention, you can just make people get angry.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  40. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    In a way, that's bad because it means advertisers will start looking for ways to get around ad-block.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  41. They really need to shore up security too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't expect much from Ad vendors - Advertisers are essentially professional liars.

    An ad consortium that creates a strong security and anti-fraud policy and enforces it would go a long way to making me turn off ad blockers. As far as I'm concerned Ad blockers are the number one best security suite you can put on a computer.

    The next step would be some taste and design guidelines to ensure the future doesn't look like the TVs in Idocracy (Though I've already seen websites that are far worse)

  42. Yeah nobody clicks on TV ads, or NASCAR. Yet Coke by raymorris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Coke, Charmin, Tide and other major national brands spend billions on TV advertising, putting their logos on race cars, blimps, and all sorts of non-clickable ads.

    Notice I listed major national BRANDS, not major national PRODUCTS. It's all about branding. When you're ready to buy a router, you look and probably see options in three categories:
    Top brands, Cisco and Juniper.
    Brands you've never heard of, like Raytel.
    Brands you recognize but don't know much about.

    Most people will prefer to avoid brands they've never heard of. Just having seen the name before increases our confidence in the product. Any ad gets them out of the lowest category, "never heard of that brand". It's also a required stepping stone before a brand can make it to "top brand" status like Cisco or BMW.

  43. Re:All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost all the three letter acronyms, except the ones using very unusual combinations, have been taken. Multiple times.

    A relevant example

  44. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't that rhyme or something?

    Now, if only we could think of something which rhymes with "block" ... Once I go block, they can ....

    Damn, I was never good at poetry, can anybody finish that for me?? ;-)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  45. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by taustin · · Score: 1

    My advice to webvertizers: update your resume and find another line of work.

    Or jump off a bridge, because you're talking about people who will not, ever, under any circumstances, earn an honest living. Parasites. Offer them a million honest dollars for an honest day's work, and they'll choose to pick your pocket for the $20 you had for lunch.

  46. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    The unfortunate truth is that once someone experiences the speed and cleanliness of adblocking, they simply won't go back. Not ever.

    This is what finally made me a True Believer. The speed at which pages started appearing was like night and day. *BOOM* (5 seconds versus 25 or 30 seconds)

    Instant convert.

    Later it became a matter of avoiding malware, but even if malware suddenly stopped being a thing (yeah right) I'd still use a blocker just for the speed increase.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  47. Re:Blame the idiots who told everybody about block by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

    Making something like ad blocking ubiquitous naturally kills it, but does that stop nerds from showing everybody how to block ads? No, gotta help all the people... We could have kept blocking ads and let the unwashed pay for it all with their attention, but no, not us nerds...

    Yeah... this is my fault. So here's what happened:

    I went home last Thanksgiving, and Dad and Uncle Bob were watching omgfootballz.com and Mom wanted to show Aunt Jan something on artsandcrafts.com, and Cousin Suzy and Cousin Josh wanted to play the cool games on notactuallyfunbutsomehowstillpopulargames.com, and because of all the auto-playing full-motion full-volume all-singing all-dancing video ads for the 2015 Chevy Ponderoso that they were all pulling down simultaneously, I wasn't able to access textonlytechnews.com. This cannot stand.

    So, long story short, I put ad blockers on every computer in the house. Sorry.

  48. I take issue with this by andymadigan · · Score: 1

    I take issue with this, they're calling themselves "technologists" as though that would somehow make up for forgetting about user experience. I'm a technologist, and my job requires considering user experience.

    I've seen this in online advertising for years. The ad industry measured how many people clicked, but not how many people they pissed off. They didn't care about users at all, not because they were technologists, but because of the ethos of their industry. Now that there's backlash they'll pay lip service to "user experience".

    Text and (motionless) images only. No scripting, strong privacy protections. Build the ad blockers into the browsers, set to block any ads that do not declare compliance with industry rules. One site, network, or advertiser breaks one rule and that organization is blocked automatically by all browsers for at least 2 years.

    --
    The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
  49. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an obvious but interesting observation. I had been running ad blockers for so long I forgot how many people don't use them.

    It takes news articles like these or, new significant other, new close friend, new job to find people who don't use ad blockers.

    Eventually there should be hardly anyone NOT running ad blockers. I can't imagine the use of ad blockers declining.

  50. onward to our bright glorious future! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    "there's no such thing as bad publicity."

    Just imagine the exposure your client would get with a story like :

    advertising executive shoots himself in the head

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:onward to our bright glorious future! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >advertising executive shoots himself in the head

      that would be put behind a paywall for maximum income generation.

  51. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tupperware party

    I've only heard about these on the internet, but if someone invited me to a Tupperware party in real life, I would stop interacting with them.

  52. Battery life: 1.5 hr w/ads, 4.5 hr w/blocking. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    Yes, that's right. TWO-THIRDS of my battery use can be attributed to Web ads and ridiculous Javascript idiocy.

    Furthermore, all that activity sets my laptop fans to howling, where they're whisper-quiet without it.

    Between the battery wear and the heat-related stress on my hardware, I don't need any more reasons to block ads. The reduction in stress and distraction (from trying to ignore squirming, writhing, strobing fields in my motion-sensitive peripheral vision) is just a bonus.

    Or, vice versa. The perceptual/cognitive stuff is the important part, and I get a quieter laptop with three times the battery life as a bonus. Either way works for me.

    1. Re:Battery life: 1.5 hr w/ads, 4.5 hr w/blocking. by Zuriel · · Score: 2

      I went to a website once that had a message where ads would normally be, asking me to turn off my adblocker to support that site. Fine. I did. It loaded an ad. I read the page and then went back to Word or whatever else I was doing.

      1.5 hours later, my laptop shuts itself down due to low battery. I'd left the page open when I alt-tabbed away from it and the Flash ad that should have been an animated GIF thrashed my CPU until the battery ran dry a couple of hours sooner than it should've. I still needed to use the laptop and hadn't brought the charger, because I shouldn't have needed it.

      Never again. "Please unblock our ads to support the site!" Fuck you.

  53. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they are going to lose billions of dollars due to ads being blocked? I can honestly say that I have never purchased anything as a result of an ad. Everything I buy I research and then I visit several retailers till I find the best deal. I honestly believe that these numbers are false and impossible to prove. This is just to keep the marketing, and malware industry going. If the companies realized how little these services offer to their bottom line, I think that would be the end of the ad problem over night.

  54. Re:All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple t by GNious · · Score: 3, Funny

    These asshats need to pick a new TLA... IAB is already taken.

    Almost all the three letter acronyms, except the ones using very unusual combinations, have been taken. Multiple times.

    Clearly we need to upgrade to the Extended-TLA format (ETLA), which allows for 1 more letter!

  55. Re:All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple t by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    I'm still using MS-DOS 3.3, you insensitive clod!

  56. Wikipedia Found a Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't continue to give it away when the demand for my product requires a million dollar server farm on every continent.

    You're one of those shills, aren't you? As in the beginning, someone has to pay for the tangible assets. But, as in the beginning, there are plenty of people out there that are willing to pay for it and then give it away for free.

    Just as Wikipedia has found ways to pay for nearly $60,000,000 per year in operating costs with ZERO FUCKING ADS, so will others.

    Your willingness to run a email server for a few people, combined with many others similarly running SMTP servers equals a world wide fully functional email system for free. So it was with FidoNet, so it was with SMTP, so it can be again without Gmail, Yahoo, HotMail/Outlook.com. Facebook started out with nothing and will (WILL) be replaced with a similarly underfunded startup. It can be done with no ads and free to users, if the creators choose to do it that way. Zuckerburg simply chose to monetize Facebook to the absolute hilt, but he didn't have to. And that's fine for him, but the users don't need that and a competing service doesn't need it either.

    The internet DOES NOT NEED ADVERTISERS. Advertisers desperately need the internet. People are only starting to realize this.

  57. Re:Blame the idiots who told everybody about block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goddamnit, Pseudonymous Powers! Have I taught you nothing?

  58. You want me to buy your products? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    Let's talk about processed foods as an example.

    1. A lot of people are lactose intolerant or allergic to casein. Stop putting lactose in salt and vinegar chips. Stop putting dairy byproducts in non-cheese-flavored food.
    2. A lot of people have high blood pressure. Stop adding insane amounts of sodium.
    3. A lot of people are vegan or vegetarian. Stop simply saying "natural flavour" and tell us if it's plant-based or not.

    Unless you like losing customers, stop adding useless ingredients that a percentage of the population is allergic to, or just plain avoids.

    To stay on-topic, I'll say that the only food products I buy are the ones I already know are safe. I only notice new products if they change the packaging/artwork/logo, which then makes me read the ingredients list once again, just in case the new image comes with a newly formulated product. But since 99% of the time it's still the same thing, it goes back on the shelf.

    Stop trying to sell me your marketing, it's your product that I'm buying.

  59. Re: All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple by Pop69 · · Score: 1

    Why not get a committee to design TLA v6 ?

  60. Why don't they just do this.. by Krokus · · Score: 1

    Enough with the stupid web page and TV advertising. Just create a YouTube account for your company or product and make video ads that are entertaining enough that they're likely to spread virally to one degree or another. As a benefit, you're no longer restricted by things like TV content restrictions (so you can make ads like that awesome un-aired Nutrigrain commercial made years ago, which actually increased sales of Nutrigrain bars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ). Monetize that YouTube account so you can make money from the views in addition to any money you make from the sales of your product.

    No reckless and unwarranted chewing up of users' bandwidth. No malware. I personally could put up with a (skippable) 20-30 second ad in front of YouTube videos to keep YouTube flush.

    Can't make entertaining ads? Sucks to be you.

  61. Returns on eBay by sjbe · · Score: 2

    eBay's is non-existent if the seller is a lying scumbag.

    I used to make my living selling on eBay. Doesn't matter if the seller is a liar or not, you can pretty much return anything if you just utter the magic words "Not As Described". Unless they have changed thing dramatically it doesn't really matter if the seller doesn't accept returns or not. You just tell eBay it was "Not As Described" and they'll almost certainly authorize a refund if you ship it back. My little company got screwed by a number of shady buyers despite us have a no-returns-ever policy.

    I'm not saying there aren't shady sellers out there but returns aren't a problem if you know how to play the game.

    1. Re:Returns on eBay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had a "no-returns-ever" policy then you, sir, were a shady seller.

  62. It could be worse by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    If rather than ad blocking, users employed an app that downloaded the ads but neglected to render them, the advertisers would be paying for ads that well to null but they could never tell. I bet that could severely hurt the advertising industry if advertisers weren't sure if they were paying for ads that were delivered but never viewed.

    If they keep pushing, this is where the war may go.

    1. Re:It could be worse by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If rather than ad blocking, users employed an app that downloaded the ads but neglected to render them, the advertisers would be paying for ads that well to null but they could never tell.

      Teo problems with that - First is if you are on any kind of cap. I was reading a bloggers site where he wanted to read a 500 word document, but without his blocker it was 40 Megabytes of advertising shit downloaded to hi mobile. Doesn't take too much of that, and he's up to his cap limit.

      Second is How would they know? I and many I know refuse to buy anything they see in intrusive internet ads. That shit they (try to) put on my computer is ignored wherever it ends up.

      I still like the idea of th etwo pronged defense: 1 a good ad blocker

      2. Pretending to be a "good netizen" but send out completely bogus info to them on where you visit. Make their tracking 100 percent worthless.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  63. Been there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had a conversation with a web site owner a couple of months ago. He was soliciting memberships ("sign up, and you'll get *less* ads!") and I responded to him that while I didn't currently use an ad-blocker (using MS Edge, with no extensions), the level of ads on that site made it so unusable to where I could easily justify it. And I also mentioned how I had already heard the "it's how we make money, and we can't control the ads" spiel before and didn't care - it made my browser unusable. He replied back by literally saying "This is an issue of macroeconomics..." at which point I hit delete and no longer wasted time trying to explain the concept of not giving in to extortion.
    And in the end, I grabbed an MVPS.org HOSTS file, and everything's been great since then.

  64. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by Macdude · · Score: 2

    The advertising companies will figure out how to bypass ad-blockers, then the ad-blockers will figure out how to block the new ads, lather/rinse/repeat.

    If the ad companies did a few things, people wouldn't feel the need to block ads:
    1. Don't auto-play sounds or moving images.
    2. Don't react when the mouse moves over or near your ad. Only react when your ad is clicked on.
    3. Don't serve ads laden with javascript/flash/whatever. Some simple javascript should be fine but if the script can't be vetted in a few moments it's too complex--reject the ad.
    4. Serve the ads from the primary web-site (including any java script), not a third party web site.
    5. Don't track users across web-sites.
    6. Vet ads before putting them in rotation.
    7. Don't use pop-up, pop-over, pop-under, slide-out or any other similar technique.
    8. Don't open ads in response to closing an ad or other window.
    9. Don't obfuscate where clicking on the ad will lead.
    10. Don't accept ads from companies of questionable morals, e.g. quibids.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  65. High-Risk Behaviour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Friends don't let friends surf without protection.

  66. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a way, that's bad because it means advertisers have already started looking for ways to get around ad-block.

    FTFY.

    Googling "block adblock" comes up with a link dated December 16, 2011. We're already 4 years beyond this. And we're also 10 years beyond the in-kind response, showing that the advertisers are more than just a little bit behind the curve. (Noscript was first released on May 13, 2005.)

    Personally, I've been blocking ads, scripts, trackers, and other assorted shit from my browser since about 2007. I haven't had any significant malware problems since then. A few minor scares, but nothing major. And it's somewhat jarring to see ads on YouTube videos. That's how rarely I see ads.

  67. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tupperware parties aren't advertising. They're sales, which is completely different.

    Advertising is when you tell someone about a product in order to get them to seek it out and purchase it.

    Sales is when you tell about or demonstrate the product in an attempt to secure a direct sale.

  68. Google Contributor waitlist by tepples · · Score: 1

    You mentioned Google Contributor. How long does it take for a new user to get through Google Contributor's waitlist?

  69. Microtransactions would have to be solved first by tepples · · Score: 1

    With payment processors taking tens of cents from each credit card transaction, how would pay-per-use work?

  70. Re: All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did already, its called language. Unfortunately, no one adopted it.

  71. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The distinction is fluid. Tupperware parties are mostly sales and a little advertising. Inbetween is affiliate marketing, and of course your friends might also get paid just to show their stuff around, with no immediate connection to conversions. That would be advertising. Multipliers, the well-connected nodes in the social graph, could monetize some of their popularity that way. For another vision of the future of advertising, see The Joneses.

  72. Re:All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple t by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Extended TLA format? I think ETF would be a five section acronym for it.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  73. Re:All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple t by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Microsoft Denial of Service 3.3?

  74. I do mind the weight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I go by the look I like, beside important detail like sharing conversation points and interrest, I like women which have far more weight than the average model you see touted as the "perfect woman" in various outfit. I dunno if it is 25 pounds more, but that certainly more. But then again i am a freak which likes heavy breast so...

  75. Nice Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad practice is different. One time I bought a cheap, simple switch from an eBay seller; no auction, a 'buy it now'. Seller lied about it being shipped, and hid his true physical identity on eBay's files. After not getting my item nor any explanation, I tracked down the seller on the internet; in our phone conversation, he said my item was "lost in my warehouse, we can't find it. We'll ship it when we do." adding, "It was only $7."

    I sent this info to eBay and gave him negative feedback. He lied in response to my feedback, saying I had not paid him. There is no rebuttal for purchasers on eBay's feedback system, so I could not set the record straight. Some weeks later, after reporting item not received to eBay, my item was delivered.

    I use Amazon now.

  76. My solution by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is to stick with Google. I run a few adds to pay for the hosting fees (it's a few hundred a year, yeah, I know I could do better but my host works and I can email their support directly). You'll know when you're site is serving Malware ads, it'll be taken off line by Firefox/Chrome warning your users that your domain is serving up viruses. It happened to the Angry Nintendo Nerd and it happened to Penny Arcade. Both of those guys do their sites full time. Mines a little hobby site for my Firefox plugin to store help docs and beta version of my plugin. I haven't got the time or the inclination to spend getting my site off black lists. So far google's managed to police their Ad network well enough that I haven't had to (knock on wood).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: My solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pay twice that sum for my server farm and I pay it out of my own pocket. I decided from the start that if I have to start using ads to support my free services for gamers, I'll just call it quits. I do what I do because I love doing it and I'm willing to spend a share of what little I make a year towards it.

    2. Re:My solution by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      What about promoting shit products. Your site, you create the space and you are promoting the product. Whether that product be gambling targeted at minors, super erection compounds, crap gold coins, really unreliable computer parts, fake pharmaceuticals, homoeopathy or blatant corporate political propaganda. Do you care or not care that people are getting ripped off when they come to your site because you are the one promoting that product on your site. Personally I think the whole marketing chain should be penalised for fraudulent products and services, the supplier, the ad crafter, the ad agency and the web site that hosted the add.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  77. Let's Play Whack-A-Mole! by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    I'm sure adblocking will die on the vine, just like piracy, under a tidal wave of laws and regulations.

    Oh wait, no, that's not going to happen because people don't want it to happen. If Adblocker A gets shut down, everyone will move to Adblocker B, or otherwise implement whatever technical strategy that lets them use their computers. Technical rebellion is as easy as a few mouseclicks. And anyway, what are they going to do if 200 million people don't obey a bullshit law? Throw them all in jail, fine them?

    Remember when the MAFIAA slapped a bunch of teenagers with $100,000s of fines for illegally downloading some $0.50 Bieber tunes? Remember how bad that PR shitstorm was for the studios? The first advertiser that decides to actually press for outlandish damages because someone blocked their advertising with an illegal blocker will do nothing but show everyone who wasn't paying attention to the noisy ads what a bunch of obnoxious, money-hungry pricks the advertising industry is. They'll be pulling their own noose tighter around their own neck.

    Advertisers tried to squeeze more golden eggs from the goose than it could lay and are mystified why the goose is dead. If I were an advertiser, I'd either be looking for another revenue model or perhaps another line of work.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Let's Play Whack-A-Mole! by Dwedit · · Score: 1

      The first advertiser to sue someone for blocking ads will open up a huge can of worms - Increased awareness of the existence of ad blocking.

  78. Neo-puritans by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    seems to be the essence of modern progressivism

    Progressive's strongly support free speech. These people are more correctly labelled neo-puritans, they have invaded the student bodies of universities all over the US and to a lesser extent the UK/AU. They're a new flavour of narrow-minded puritan that progressives fought against during the civil rights movement.Outspoken progressives such as Dawkins and Maher are calling them out for what they are; puritans in progressive clothing.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Neo-puritans by lgw · · Score: 1

      Progressive's strongly support free speech

      No true Progressive eh? I think you'll find the movement has been taken over. I wish you luck in restoring it, however. Even on Slashdot, it has become nearly impossible to have a civil discussion about the neo-puritans without being modded to oblivion. (It's driving my off /., frankly - this used to be a site where we could talk about things.)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re: Neo-puritans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progressive's strongly support the free use of popular speech.

  79. Deliberate abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scott Cunningham ... issued what amounts to an apology for "[losing] track of the user experience"

    There is no way a reasonable person would use the phrase "losing track" for all the severe abuses his industry has inflicted on users: malware, bandwidth wasting, CPU wasting, privacy invasion, selling personal information, auto-playing loud volume videos, pop-overs that obscure content, page hijacking, and many other dirty tricks that are too numerous to mention.

    Scott Cunningham: "we messed up"

    Deliberate abuse is not "messing up". "Messing up" is when you make a mistake. This was no mistake. All the abuses were well-planned with intentional malice. They knew exactly what they were doing.

    And now he's playing dumb by pretending it was all a "mess up". So we can add lying to the list of abuses.

  80. Another question is "Are ads EVER effective?" by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Another question is "Are ads EVER effective?"

    I guess the answer has to be "yes", as I once bought a pepsi. And I still remember:
    "Pepsi Cola hits the spot,
    12 full ounces, that's a lot,
    twice as much for a nickel too,
    Pepsi Cola is the drink for you."

    Of course, I didn't like the taste, so I only bought it once, but perhaps I never would have tried it if it hadn't been for the ad. (I don't recommend it, but my sister-in-law likes it. Who knows, you might find it better than catsup. And I understand it's good for cleaning gunk off of pans.)

    But while I occasionally remember lots of ads, I rarely, if ever, remember an ad for something I often buy. Sort of like the advertisement for Pepsodent toothpaste included in South Pacific. ("Bloody Mary is the girl I love...and she don't use Pepsodent.) Does the company even exist anymore?

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  81. Advertisers proved that advertising works by Kinematics · · Score: 1

    Advertising works, even on those who say advertising doesn't work on them. Why? Because advertising isn't a nice tiny little black box. It doesn't only apply to one tiny aspect of what you view. It applies to *everything*.

    What does this mean? Do you remember phrased related to "selling yourself"? How to sell yourself for a job interview, or when meeting new people, networking at a conference, etc? Basically, that's an advertisement interaction. You advertise something (yourself), and others react to what is presented.

    The point is, that's not a TV commercial, a radio spiel, or a banner ad. Its an abstraction. And everyone here should recognize what you can do with an abstraction.

    Every "thing" is an extension of a base "thing". C#'s System.Object; Java's java.lang.Object; etc. Every single thing that can be described as "creating an impression on a person" is a similar type of base object. Or perhaps having an appropriate interface would be a better analogy.

    So what has those properties? Well, pretty much everything. Every TV show is advertising all its actors. Every road is advertising the city council. Every well-manicured or overgrown lawn is advertising for the family living in a house. People focus on the content of the advertising object (the actual jpg with "Amazon" on it, or the flash video from IBM, or whatever), and somewhat miss that it also applies to the object itself, as well as the container for that object, and the means of accessing and delivering that object, and on, and on. Each of those are also objects that themselves have that same 'advertising' interface.

    And on the web, every ad is advertising for the advertisers. The /contents/ of the ad is advertising for the company that wants you to know about it and its products, but the ad itself is advertising for the ad company that created the ad; its delivery is advertising for the ad delivery network; and its presentation is advertising for the site that hosts it.

    People say they hate annoying ads, but we also know that more annoying ads make people more aware of the companies they're advertising for. And there's a part of you that realizes that there are three or four separate entities involved in the presentation of that ad. For an annoying TV commercial, is your anger going to be at the product/company being advertised? The people who created that travesty? The people at the TV station who screwed with the volume settings so that the commercial was a lot louder than the show you were just watching? The people who are spamming this ad through all the late-night commercial slots so you see it all over the place?

    There's plenty of anger to go around, and, honestly, there's probably not a strong emotional connection to the product itself; just the correlation between the strong emotion and awareness of that product happening at the same time. So you hate the commercial, but are more aware of and likely to remember the product itself, without necessarily hating the product that much more. Now if you bought said product and found out it was complete crap, the emotional association is solely with the product itself, and almost certainly will negatively impact your likelihood to buy it again.

    So what have the advertisers done? They've well and truly advertised themselves into being one of the most hated industries around. It's more subtle and distributed than something like Verizon customer service, but because it's so constant and pervasive, it's become completely embedded in the public consciousness.

    So, people hate ads. Not necessarily the ad -content- — I don't hate Ocean Spray, or Amazon, or whatever — but the -ads-. The delivery networks; the presentation; the slowing down of page loads; the tracking and surveillance; the way they affect the page design; the malware exploits; the annoyances and noises and disruptions.

    So the advertisers have convinced us that what we truly, truly want is to be free of them. Not the advertising itself

  82. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, but I would still not want to interact with people who host or attend tupperware parties. What a miserable concept.

  83. Ads Slow My Computer to a Crawl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't adblock because of ads, I adblock because they need 100x more power than the entire rest of the webpage. They could literally just turn a gif into a link and it would use barely any power at all, but that's not what they do.

  84. Criteo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if fucking Criteo, the most evil ad empire to ever exist, where to apologize, well, then hell hath frozen over

  85. No Agenda by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

    If your content is any good you can produce it without polluting it with advertising:
        http://www.noagendashow.com/

  86. the story of Job by bingoUV · · Score: 1

    Have you read it?

    --
    Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    1. Re:the story of Job by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      Yes. Several times. It's an interesting debate both in heaven between God and Satan at the start, and on earth among Job's friends and Job and his wife.

      There are a few things to keep in mind.

      • Job was a good man, but no man is perfect. None of us compare to God for righteousness and holiness. As you read Job you see some of his inner character shine through and it isn't always pretty.
      • In the end, God restores Job's status.
      • The story of Job happened far back in the Old Testament before many of the promises that the Bible records were ever made and long before the Holy Spirit was made available to all believers.
    2. Re:the story of Job by requerdanos · · Score: 1

      > In the end, God restores Job's status.

      So, what about Job's first family; they were also imperfect--and their status wasn't exactly restored. Does that mean that prayer and advertising are equally and indisputably effective? I am not saying they aren't, just that this is a lousy argument to support the idea that they are.

    3. Re:the story of Job by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      Eternity is just that - forever - we stretch our minds to think of a lifespan of 100 years or so.

      It is true that Job's family weren't brought back to life on earth. A few instances of this were recorded in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments and have been recorded since Bible days, and yet Job's family were not. Job had other sons and daughters after this, so would have married again. His life went on and was full and blessed.

      So what of the original family members? The Bible doesn't declare their status with God at the time of their demise.

      If they were right with God, then they got to continue on in the paradise compartment of sheol until Christ's death on the cross and resurrection when He took those souls with Him to heaven.

      Even paradise was better than their life on Earth (which was good since Job was wealthy), and heaven certainly is better than anything Earth could provide. Job would have been reunited with them when he died and again - eternity is a long time, so a few years apart would not be a big thing.

      If they were not right with God, then they were eternally separated. That is the risk you take when you live your life in such a way that a sudden departure means eternal separation from God and His judgment. Job was righteous, so I think it is safe to assume that he had imparted right and wrong to his wife and children. If they chose to ignore his wisdom and go their own way - how can you blame God for that?

      The lesson of Job is to be sure you are ready - even if you think you are rich and self sufficient and have no worries

      because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

    4. Re:the story of Job by requerdanos · · Score: 1

      All right. Given that

      > paradise was better than their life on Earth

      And of course it would be, then what does it matter that Job's "status" on earth was restored? Either earthly status matters or it doesn't. Either prayer was effective in "restoring Job's status" as something that mattered, or it wasn't. Can't go saying that folks dying and going to the great beyond is "just as effective" because the earthly status thing didn't matter, after you just said that it *did* matter and was a shining example of the power of prayer. Can't have it both ways.

      Where this leads is: Prayer has a track record, and can be judged effective or not by that track record.
      Advertising has a track record, and can be judged effective or not by that track record.

      Job's convoluted story, message of faith and readiness or no, has precious little to do with either.

    5. Re:the story of Job by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      I didn't bring up Job, and I don't consider it to be a study of prayer at all - although prayer is technically a conversation with God, so I suppose several parts of the book qualify. It doesn't matter that Job's status was restored - I'm simply pointing out that in this case it was. It isn't recorded that he prayed for his status to be restored either. God simply did it because He liked Job. My answer was simply that the family not being restored was not a consideration or expectation. God did give sons and daughters to comfort Job and help him carry on his business and life. In no case did prayer enter into any of these things.

      I also take issue with people who say that when someone dies their prayers of healing were answered. No, they weren't. They don't have to deal with the disease anymore, but that doesn't mean the prayer was answered.

      A prayer to God that causes something out of the realm of nature to occur is evidence that must be considered by those who observe it in accepting that God exists, with all that implies. A prayer that is not answered in the way we think it should be answered, however, cannot be used as definitive proof that God doesn't exist. He has His own will that is higher than ours, and His own plans for us and history that will be carried out. His will can occasionally be swayed, but judging prayer results as a basis for the existence of God is not the same as advertising.

    6. Re:the story of Job by requerdanos · · Score: 1

      My mistake then; I believe I misunderstood what you were saying.

      > judging prayer results as a basis for the existence of God is not the same as advertising.

      I guess a problem I was talking about is that people judge prayer results not as a basis for the existence of God (not a good indicator, as you mention), but simply as a basis for the effectiveness of (their) prayer. There's a lot of hand-waving in this regard; I have heard often an explanation "the answers to prayer are yes, no, and wait" which basically is a restatement of "prayer not answered is answered" which is nonsense. The existence of God isn't determined by whether any certain group of people gets their wish, and while in the Bible God asks for prayer and apparently likes it (likes its smell, even), that doesn't mean that it's the equivalent of wishing on a star or other superstitious methods to "get what you want".

      Bottom line, prayer and advertising aren't very much alike and it's not a good comparison. Advertising works by raising awareness; prayer works by communicating with God.

      Peace.

  87. They are shitty at marketing is all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats what it boils down to, there are plenty of ways to successfully advertise on the net, but they are not good enough at it to make much $$. Some marketers I cant help but buy their product because they are really good, and their products are very helpful... its how you present a good offer. Learn how to advertise better and your problems will go away.

  88. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Just don't make too much of a statement in your CV that you have been working with web ads unless you want to continue working in that area. To most other companies it's like having 'I've done porn for 5 years' in your CV.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  89. Advertisers should pay for using bandwidth by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
    Bandwidth is a resource that users pay for. Advertisements use this resource and pay nothing. It's a push model.

    Put the cost where it belongs, on the source. When advertising bytes go from a server to a user then the advertiser pays for the bandwidth for every internet packet. Apply this rule for end user ISPs at the destination, and higher level tiers if feasible. If they can tell if the ad is blocked they can damn well track their bandwidth usage.

    This would fundamentally change the online advertising model. It would knock out the low return/high volume ads immediately because they would become unprofitable. The groups making and selling ads would be faced with a real world cost metric that would stop them selling snake oil to their clients.

    It works because it correctly applies capitalism to the business model: the users of a resource have to pay for what they use. The way things are now bandwidth is an "externality" to the cost model of the advertisers. In the economic model of capitalism an externality is a cost that is not accounted for in the total set of transactions. For example China is choking to death because they treat the cost of pollution as an externality.

    Capitalism can provide a really efficient and effective control paradigm when it is applied correctly. Unfortunately much of the time it is used manipulatively to siphon money into the pockets of the greedy, corrupt and inefficient. See the US financial sector for endless examples.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  90. Re:All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple t by hucker75 · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised the right wing copyrighters haven't thought about suing each other for "stealing" three letter acronyms!

  91. Re:Yeah nobody clicks on TV ads, or NASCAR. Yet Co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people will prefer to avoid brands they've never heard of. Just having seen the name before increases our confidence in the product. Any ad gets them out of the lowest category, "never heard of that brand". It's also a required stepping stone before a brand can make it to "top brand" status like Cisco or BMW.

    A brand you've never heard of can easily enough be a fly-by-night--the reason you've not heard of CRP may be because SHTTY realized enough people considered their brand name extremely appropriate and they rebranded themselves in hopes of escaping their reputation. Every so often, when a company collapses, it'll get bought out purely so its brand(s) can be reused--the company may have destroyed itself, but its name may be still worth something.

  92. Crappy Web site contest by lpress · · Score: 1

    The crapiest, most cluttered Web site I have ever seen is that of The Hindo, an Indian news site. Does anyone know a worse example?

    1. Re:Crappy Web site contest by thejynxed · · Score: 2

      Yes. The mobile version of Slashdot. Fscking atrocious.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  93. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I build/buy a new machine or install a new OS I try, for a few days at least to stop being a leach.
    Browsing without ad-block lasts hours at most before I'm driven to install an add-in.
    Then, after a few days of running with the blocker turned off on my favourite sites, I inevitably go nuclear and install a "no ads" hosts file.
    I get sick of pages stalling with "waiting for add-in" in the status bar.

    For me at least, ABP's attempt to monetize/build the brand with excessive phoning home has caused me to nuke ads from orbit.

  94. For the best hosts file (that uses mvps too)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    ---

    FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability & does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' many security issues!

    ---

    It obtains its data vs. many types of online threats & for adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

    ---

    It SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS also aiding reliability) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    It does all that via something you already natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    * "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

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  95. For the BEST custom hosts file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    ---

    FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability & does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' many security issues!

    ---

    It obtains its data vs. many types of online threats & for adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

    ---

    It SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS also aiding reliability) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    It does all that via something you already natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    * "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

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  96. I thought I'd sit this one out till Saturday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I wait for the admen to not be on the job downmodding (which they did to you) & then I'd post seeing what others think 1st.

    After all - They have ADMITTED their shenanigans finally & learned what REALLY "runs the show" is users. Users that are their lifeblood who they have alienated, admittedly.

    Yes they're scared. This article points that much out easily along with others the past month++ now or so.

    APK

    P.S.=> That's all I really have to say about it - other than a few other posts I did pointing out hosts files' superiority over AdBlock, UBlock, & other less efficient + less capable methods of adblocking.

    Besides - Everyone else here did the talking for me, by the 100's. They're the ones advertisers have to fear, not I... apk

  97. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talkback
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talkback
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talkback
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (for reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past dns blocks
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
    15.) Easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better vs. addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver).

    ---

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in browsers via native browser methods!

    ---

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    ---

    Ab+ adds complexity in a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overhead vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ---

    AdBlock's SLOWER vs. hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    ---

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    a 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  98. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talkback
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talkback
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talkback
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (for reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past dns blocks
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
    15.) Easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better vs. addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver).

    ---

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in browsers via native browser methods!

    ---

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    ---

    Ab+ adds complexity in a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overhead vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ---

    AdBlock's SLOWER vs. hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    ---

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    a 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  99. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talkback
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talkback
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talkback
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (for reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past dns blocks
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
    15.) Easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better vs. addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver).

    ---

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in browsers via native browser methods!

    ---

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    ---

    Ab+ adds complexity in a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overhead vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ---

    AdBlock's SLOWER vs. hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    ---

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    a 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  100. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talkback
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talkback
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talkback
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (for reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past dns blocks
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
    15.) Easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better vs. addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver).

    ---

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in browsers via native browser methods!

    ---

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    ---

    Ab+ adds complexity in a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overhead vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ---

    AdBlock's SLOWER vs. hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    ---

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    a 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  101. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dns blocking
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

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

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    ---

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

    ---

    What's better?

    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...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  102. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dns blocking
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

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

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    ---

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

    ---

    What's better?

    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...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  103. They can't Clarityray block hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Hosts != a browser addon they can detect's how & why. For the best hosts file use APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability & does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' many security issues!

    ---

    It obtains its data vs. many types of online threats & for adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

    ---

    It SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS also aiding reliability) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    It does all that via something you already natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    * "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

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  104. Best adblocker & can't be clarityray blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    ---

    FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability & does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' many security issues!

    ---

    It obtains its data vs. many types of online threats & for adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

    ---

    It SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS also aiding reliability) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    It does all that via something you already natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    * "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

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  105. Re: All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Morgan Stanley Delivery of Stock??

  106. Re:Best adblocker & can't be clarityray blocke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use spybot search and destroy with its immunization feature.

    now go away.

  107. Unsubstansiated losses! by EricTheO · · Score: 0

    "But it may be a case of too little, too late as "a report (PDF) released in August forecasted that U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers," writes Jeremy Kirk.".... Really?

    That's a very large assumption, just like the RIAA's claims of lost sales due to piracy. With or without ad blockers, I never click on ads. If I want to buy something I seek it out and research it online before buying via online or brick and mortar. If an ad is a popover, auto play video or audio ad, or any other type of ad that gets in the way or slows down my access to viewing a website I wish to visit, I will leave before the page loads. Embedded static ads are the way to go. Why should I have to wait on a slow third party ad sever to decide which irrelevant ad to show me?

    --
    -Eric
  108. Bwaaahahaha, you're deluded #1/2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)

    Google can try explaining it vs. proof my ware's CLEAN (from VirusTotal which GOOGLE owns, you stupid freak):

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who also has the source & verified it safe too) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    * :)

    In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

    (which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)

    I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?

    You failed badly on all accounts.

    APK

    P.S.=> Especially funny is that you work for CLOUDWORDS (an advertiser affiliate of Marketo) which tips your hand & PROVED YOUR ILL MOTIVES for your stupidity, running away from this most of all -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ... apk

  109. Bwaaahahaha, you're deluded #2/2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

    Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

    UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

    * See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

    ---

    "which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

    WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    &

    ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

    ---

    "your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

    See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

    ---

    "I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

    You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

    ---

    YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

    APK

    P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

    "It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

    So

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

    ... apk

  110. Re:Blame the idiots who told everybody about block by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Making something like ad blocking ubiquitous naturally kills it, but does that stop nerds from showing everybody how to block ads?

    Huh? What's been killed? Blocking ads still works just fine.

  111. Do what advertisers hate: click on ads by gmiller123456 · · Score: 2

    Back when I rand ads on my website, the click through rate was horribly low, and that's what the advertising agencies used to demand very low rates for displaying ads.

    The strategy everyone who hates ads has adopted is to never click on ads, and as a result, a website displaying 10000 ads will probably only get a handful of clicks.

    So the strategy I've adopted is to click on evry ad I can. Especially on websites I like. With such low click through rates, just one user can double or tripple a site's revenue, and by the same virtue double or tripple an ad agency's costs.

    It only takes a few seconds to open every ad in a new background tab that I'll never see. And I get the benefit of helping a website I like, while costing the advertisers money.

    I'd think it wouldn't take an incredible number of people adopting the same strategy before advertisers have to change their game.

  112. Re:Do what advertisers hate: click on ads by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    ... So the strategy I've adopted is to click on evry ad I can. Especially on websites I like. ..

    Now, -that- is an interesting idea! 8-)

  113. Extended TLA format by hendrikboom · · Score: 1

    Canada is already adopted this. RCMP, CSIS, an so forth.

  114. Re:All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Already exists.

    USTLA - Ultra Short Three Letter Acronym (1 letter)
    STLA - Short Three Letter Acronym (2 letters)
    TLA - Three Letter Acronym (3 letters)
    XTLA - Extended Three Letter Acronym (4 letters)
    SXTLA - Super Extended Three Letter Acronym (5 letters)
    UXTLA - Ultra Extended Three Letter Acronym (6 letters)
    WTLA - Wide Three Letter Acronym (7 letters)
    WXTLA - Wide Extended Three Letter Acronym (8 letters)
    WSXTLA - Wide Super Extended Three Letter Acronym (9 letters)
    WUXTLA - Wide Ultra Extended Three Letter Acronym (10 letters)

    The RFC for TLA v6 includes support for TLAs of up to 128 letters, and TLA versioning.