Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Says It's Your Duty To Use an Ad Blocker (for Security)
AmiMoJo writes: In a long interview about reclaiming your privacy online, ex-NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden states that it's not just a good idea to use ad blocking software, it's your duty: "Everybody should be running adblock software, if only from a safety perspective. We've seen internet providers like Comcast, AT&T, or whoever it is, insert their own ads into your plaintext http connections. As long as service providers are serving ads with active content that require the use of JavaScript to display, that have some kind of active content like Flash embedded in it, anything that can be a vector for attack in your web browser — you should be actively trying to block these. Because if the service provider is not working to protect the sanctity of the relationship between reader and publisher, you have not just a right but a duty to take every effort to protect yourself in response." Other recommendations include encrypting your hard drive and using Tor to keep your internet use private.
I think APK might disagree with you, sir.
at least one person thinks I'm not a bad person because I don't want to see flashing ads and videos while I am trying to read a story.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
running an adblocker is almost like running an antivirus...
Be or ben't
I don't want to kill the funding of my favorite sites by blocking advertisements.
But my $BROWSER has SANDBOXING! It means it's completely INVULNERABLE! Arf! Arf!
Seriously: dear web designer: if your page/ad/whatever is Javascript-o nly, I won't see it. Period.
If your ad is flash, ditto.
I'd rather have half of the Intratubes go dark for me (probably the more unpleasant half, but how would I know?) than allowing random stuff from the Intratubes being executed in my box.
Now if the boneheads at Mozilla understood that, they'd be again my friends.
I concur, and I run adblockers primarily for this reason. At present, malicious ads/malicious content delivered through ad networks is probably the most likely thing to infect the average user, and there's no more effective defense than simply blocking the content.
Why block it? Why block random content from unknown third parties, coming across content networks that have proven, time and again, that they don't give a rat's ass about vetting the people they're selling ad space to, let alone the content that those people are sending - and we're not even getting into all the constant invasive tracking attempts that come with that.
I don't mind reasonable ads, especially native ones that belong to the page I'm actually visiting. I mind the fact that there's been no real consequences for the rampant bad or negligent behavior on the part of the ad networks - so, like all content that I view as inherently suspicious/possibly malicious, I'm going to block it by default. The fact that there's no real value to me in it just makes it easier to not worry about that.
Once again Mr Snowden hits the nail on the head.. I just wish there was an ad blocker that worked as well as uBlock for TV and radio, but alas there isn't, so I suffer there...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
... making excuses for for ad blockers:
and when someone points out his stupidity:
Even Mozilla has this stupid mindset WRT Do Not Track:
Actually, the advertising industry identified it as a problem exactly because more and more people start using adblockers. What they fail to understand is that they themselves are the reason why people do it.
There were always the "on principle" blockers. People who'd block any and all ads "on principle" because, well, because because. But that was an insignificant number of people. It barely registered. Most of us, I dare say, didn't block ads right from the start. At least for me it was a "fair vs fair" business. You give me content, I let you display your ad to fund you. And hey, if you managed to be topical, I'd even click that ad!
But then greed set in. That was not enough. Too few people clicked the ads. Advertisers wanted more. And, used to users that can't defend against ads from their times on radio and TV, they had zero qualms about getting obnoxious. Ads started to flicker and strobe that would warrant epilepsy warnings. But people didn't click them either (hey, be honest, I barely could stand looking at them, let alone click them!). So full page pop-ups, pop-unders and pop-inyourfuckingface became usual. Along with eye-popping flickering and eardrum bursting blaring.
And then came Adobe Flash. And the ad bozos went into full blown overdrive banana mode.
And then something odd happened. Something that I didn't deem possible at all. Something so outlandish that, if anyone had told me about it 15 years ago, I would have told him that it's a nice dream but it will never, ever happen: The Joe Randomsurfers got fed up enough with ads that they started to reach for ad blockers.
Do you have a faint idea what feat this is?
We are talking about a group of people who don't want to deal with their computer, who don't really care how it works and who want to spend as little time as possible administrating it. The kind of people who willingly deal with 20 popups from some malware that piggybacked on freeware every single time they switch on their computer. The kind of people who deal with enough browser bars that the main window is barely visible anymore rather than finding out how to uninstall or at least deactivate them. The kind of people who have a bigger malware collection than the average anti virus researcher before finally deciding that it might be necessary to maybe start reinstalling their OS.
Can you even possibly imagine just HOW MUCH you have to piss such a person off with your ads that they start finding out how to get rid of them.
And that group of people is now blocking ads. And there is no way back. None. Can you imagine what herculean effort it would take? Nothing, absolutely nothing, the ad industry could do would even remotely get those people to move their asses again to uninstall that ad blocker.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Absolutely. I don't block ads, but ads get blocked, because my browser security package (noscript+requestpolicy) just doesn't load anything from a 3rd party site unless I approve it, and then doesn't run javascript unless I approve it.
Its generally a bit annoying but.... I put up with it for the same reason I wouldn't have sex with someone I just met without condoms. However, that isn't really even an apt comparison....because sex with a random person is, mostly a pretty rare event, even if you are trying.
Browsing the web is like.... if we replaced the social custom of saying "hello" with anal sex, and browsing a website is like going to a dinner party with your friend, and 20 of his friends that he brought along; and they are all anxious to greet you, and quite offended that you even brought up the word condom.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
If you're right, then the web advertising business has screwed itself royally and irrevocably, until Joe User gets a new computer.
Seems like their only hope of coming back is to:
1) Stop being offensive
2) Deal with the fact that the market's shrunk for the next few years at least
and if they ever want me to disable my ad blocker:
3) Sanitize ads and pay for cleanup if they deliver malware.
Because the sad fact is that I was willing to put up with annoying, but I am NOT willing to put up with security risk. The same day that it registered with me that I could protect my computer's security by blocking ads, that's the day I put in an ad blocker.
--PM
The problem for them is that there is very little room for cutting corners here. Joe Randomsurfer will keep his blocker for reasons 1 and 2, and his computer savvy friend will tell him to keep it for reason 3. And there is exactly zero negative impact on Joe, so why should he not install it? He already found out that it ain't too painful to install it (it's basically no different than installing an app on his phone, it even works almost the same way), it works out of the box, web pages load faster and there's less clutter on the page that doesn't interest him.
There is exactly zero drawback for Joe.
It's hard to compete with that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I do it because even without Flash, the ads are now javascript + canvas + video + audio + animation.
1. My bandwidth is limited, I only have a 5 Mbps connection. And at the rates the only ISP in town has, I'm not interested in paying for a higher speed.
2. I have a monthly data quota which is below 50GB. Again, we only have one ISP in town so I'm stuck with them.
3. I have an older computer with a Core 2 Duo CPU. When there's a few ads using javascript, canvas, etc. it slows down my browsing and takes seconds before a page becomes responsive enough to be able to scroll it.
4. Using Activity Monitor, I see my CPU usage spike up when there's ads. Without ads I'm averaging about 5% CPU usage. With ads it can go to 50~80%.
Non-static ads cost me bandwidth and electricity, they slow down my browsing and my computer and they just plain fucking annoy me while trying to shove their unwanted products in my face.
We also have those "hover your mouse cursor to expand" ads, which means you can't even leave your cursor anywhere now, you have to move it to the right to make sure you won't trigger those damn things.
Instead of trying to data-mine every single fucking website we visit, which inevitably gives them false data - I don't care about product category XYZ, I only viewed a website once because I was looking for something not related to category XYZ - how about letting us tell you what we're interested in?
You must be new here.
Score: clueless moron
3) Sanitize ads and pay for cleanup if they deliver malware.
See I'm not willing to even take a chance on the malware delivery. If there is even a remote chance of malware delivery then their ad will remain blocked until the end of time. I don't care if they are willing to pay for cleanup or not.
Because the sad fact is that I was willing to put up with annoying, but I am NOT willing to put up with security risk
You are more generous than I am. I'm not willing to put up with annoying OR with a security risk OR with tracking. If they want to pay me with cold hard cash, then and only then will I consider the limited circumstances under which I'm willing to be watched. Under no circumstances will I countenance a security risk or any irritation from advertisements.
I use Adblock + with Firefox. I have used it since it became available, and I will continue to use it. We are constantly assaulted by hucksters in all the media, electronic and print. ENOUGH! NO MORE!
I think some updates have removed read write ability on my hosts file.
Windows Defender in Windows 8 and later treats .../etc/hosts as a protected file because some malware has operated by redirecting facebook.com to a phishing site. If you want to manage the hosts file yourself, exclude it from Windows Defender.
But hosts files do have other disadvantages. For one thing, the syntax doesn't allow wildcards or explicit NXDOMAIN. For another, most operating systems' built-in resolvers use an inefficient linear scan for every resolve call rather than loading the file into an efficient data structure such as a Bloom filter, and they don't allow each of a machine's users to maintain a separate blocking list. Finally, iOS and Android don't even let the user edit the file at all unless the user wipes and roots the device and voids its warranty.
The worst part is that now they have ruined conventional advertising they will increasingly use product placement and paid articles. We have seen it happen with TV, where a lot of people skip the ads on their DVR so they put the ads in the show instead.
Actually I've noticed that some YouTube channels have started doing this. Not even big money professional channels, these are mostly hobbyists turned "pro" who just do woodworking or electronics videos. Right in the middle they stop to sell you some shit which is easy to skip, but when you look all their tools and equipment are freebies from their sponsors and they will go out of their way to use them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Also, his stuff is free.
APK Hosts File Engine is not free software. It's proprietary, and APK intends to keep it that way. When I told him that proprietary software inherently has strings attached, here's what he said, with cleaned-up formatting:
So it's not the best choice for someone who is switching to free applications in preparation for switching to a free operating system.
Assuming the author is male constitutes a microagression.
If that's the first microaggression, it'll take 999,999 more of them before there's even one real problem.
And there is no way back.
This. Because once you have an ad blocker installed, it doesn't matter if the ad industry changes for something more reasonable again. You'll simply not see it, so you won't uninstall.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Anyway, a more reasonable person uses hosts files when they are the correct tool for the job, frequently combining them with a good ad blocker in order to gain the multiple layers that good security demands.
APK agrees that hosts files are only one component in a layered security strategy. Eight years ago, he wrote a detailed article about the other layers.
Apart from Wikipedia, free works other than software haven't caught on to nearly the same extent as free software. Even video games tend to be non-free because there's so much to a video game other than software.
Well, if they server their own ads, fine
How should a smaller web site go about seeking advertisers if its operator wants to stop sucking on the AdSense tit? This article recommends the equivalent of leaving "Your ad here" banners, but "if you build it, they will come" doesn't pay the domain, hosting, and certificate costs, let alone feed and house the writers. How should a site's operator even know what to charge?
Nothing, absolutely nothing, the ad industry could do would even remotely get those people to move their asses again to uninstall that ad blocker.
True, but not particularly relevant.
They don't need to get people to uninstall the ad blocker, they just need to make ads sufficiently non-annoying that when people get a new device they aren't motivated to re-install the ad blocker.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
And there is no way back.
This. Because once you have an ad blocker installed, it doesn't matter if the ad industry changes for something more reasonable again. You'll simply not see it, so you won't uninstall.
Until you get a new computer. Then it's not a question of whether you'll uninstall, but whether you'll re-install.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
How would a real-time chat application or collaborative whiteboard "gracefully degrade" without scripts and without Flash? All I can think of is "read-only, press Ctrl+R to refresh". And how would a game such as Pirates Love Daisies or Cookie Clicker gracefully degrade? By providing native versions for fourteen different platforms?
Done.
If you aren't using some form of progressive enhancement to make sure your website's core functions work without javascript then you are putting your users at risk.
How would a browser-based game such as Clicking Bad be made with "some form of progressive enhancement"?
It will become your problem once more and more of the sites on which you rely make the decision to "charge membership" or "starve and close your website".
He might prefer paying in cash than with his privacy; then this change is not a problem but rather an improvement. You could argue that the walling-off approach would reserve important content for rich people, but then it is the seller's fault who fails to extract money from his visitors in a proportional manner. Rather than walling off the content you could use the "tip jar" already mentioned. It works for some people. I do not belive in limiting ones audience, I believe it to be counterproductive.
I wonder: How could an online whiteboard or browser game work without JavaScript?
They would not. They are a required for that kind of interaction. Displaying static text however, does not. It is either really bad web engineering or intentional degradation. Both of these lowers the value of your content for me, as it requires me to jump through hoops to selectively enable content on your site. Unless you offer something truly unique, I will go elsewhere. It is called competition.
Your eyeballs will likely end up looking at an NXDOMAIN or 404 page or a credit card form as more and more sites continue to close or go subscription to make up for lost advertising revenue.
On the whole, very few people block ads.
Well, you happen to be wrong. 22% of users is very few? 200 million people worldwide are estimated to use ad-blockers, and the past few years have seen very dramatic increases in these numbers, which is why the ad companies and some website operators are starting to panic.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Again, we only have one ISP in town
FlyHelicopters, Bengie, and Zero__Kelvin might reply that there are other towns.
I don't care about product category XYZ, I only viewed a website once because I was looking for something not related to category XYZ - how about letting us tell you what we're interested in?
So would you be happy if every single website put up a survey wall in order to read more than one article in a month?
You could argue that the walling-off approach would reserve important content for rich people, but then it is the seller's fault who fails to extract money from his visitors in a proportional manner.
How would the seller determine what is "proportional" without tracking visitors across websites to obtain evidence of their likely income?
Rather than walling off the content you could use the "tip jar" already mentioned. It works for some people.
And not for others.
You should tell Snowden you think he is a moron. You seem to think you know better than everyone else, so maybe you and Snowden would get along nicely.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Look, they found what causes your delusions of grandeur!
http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
Maybe they will finally find a cure.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
He came in here sowing the wind trolling me yet again or talking about me when I wasn't even here to see it?
Please point to where I say anything about you:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Also, you were already in the thread, and you have demonstrated by your repeated posting on my comment that I did nothing behind your back.
As I have repeatedly said: Despite your paranoia, I am not the one posting as AC, I post and Coren22, and no one else.
You really need to stop making shit up, it just makes you look nuts man.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You rely on windows to both:
A. respect your wishes
B. not be pre-r00t'd
Both are a fantasy.
blocklists belong in your firewall, not the devices you have the least control over (PCs).
Many sysadmins will question the validity of saying the PC is the network component you have the least control over.... those who say that aren't familiarized with Windows 10 yet.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Unlike TV, where you have only so many channels and only a handful of them actually show anything you like, there are literally thousands of YouTube channels, and dozens thereof present you essentially the same content.
If someone pesters you with product placement, just unsub and let him know why: Because you can't take his endorsements serious when they are clearly paid for.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The main reason Joe Randomsurfer didn't install the AdBlocker originally was that he didn't know about it and that he didn't know just how easy it is. He's used to app installation on his phone by now, and installing an AdBlocker is essentially the same: Click on something in your browser and wait a moment.
And he did immediately notice the benefit it had for him. He will install it again when he gets his next computer. Because instantly the ads will go on his nerves again.
Should ads change, then slowly and gradually, the Joes of this planet MIGHT move away from blocking again. The question is whether the ad industry will survive that long.
My hope is that it won't.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Won't work. For two reasons.
First, even IF it worked, people don't get a new PC at the same time. The advertising industry would have to "behave" for an incredibly long time for this to work out. I just don't give an industry with the self-centeredness and greed of a three year old that kind of patience.
Worse, yet, that Joe Randomsurfers that got used to blocking will continue to do so. They learned that blocking is hassle-free and easy to do. It's like installing an app. Something they know well from their cell phone. And they learned that this will clear their surfing experience from obnoxious, loud ads. They don't want to find out whether this changed. They will simply install the blocker.
I do aid a few friends with their computers who fit the "Joe" profile pretty well. They already ask whenever it's time to get a new PC whether there is some new blocker software or whether the old one will do. It's already part of the computer experience for them, much like antivirus has become. It's already part of the standard package they expect to get.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I never doubted that a good hosts file is useful. I have used one myself since about nineteen or twenty years ago when I first discovered Linux. At that time, I was unaware of any good browser add-ons for blocking ads, though I did use the Junkbuster proxy (a local filtering HTTP proxy). I could be wrong but I believe this was before your program existed, or at least before you promoted it by spamming Slashdot.
The only real differences between your advice and mine: I only give mine when either directly asked, or when blocking advertisements is relevant to the discussion; and for me this is not a religious issue. I don't invest my concepts of self-worth or self-esteem into methods of blocking unwanted sites. I use multiple overlapping tools to get the combined benefits of each.
I find the performance of my system (including my browser) to be more than acceptable and I like the experience I have when using it. I also accept that someone else might have different goals and might be more satisfied with a different setup. I can accept that because it's supported by real-world observation and because again, this isn't a religious issue for me. I have no need to win converts and I don't care about treating others as heretics. It's called emotional security, and it's at least as important as host security. For me the important thing is that we all have the ability to customize things as we please.
I'm glad you are getting positive feedback about your hosts program. It sounds like those users are pleased with you, and to that degree you've done them a nice service. I just wish you'd grow up a little. That's all. If you need to hate me for saying that, I understand, but I hope you don't.
(Plus - it's also the reason why AVAST won't give up their source to governments who have been KNOWN to try subvert antivirus programs especially (device drivers kernelmode level access privelege is why - subvert those wares using that, you have the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM & it's done to find exploits in those antivirus programs or other security wares)
Yes that's known as "security through obscurity" which is definitely an oxymoron. This isn't opinion and it's not debatable. Security through obscurity isn't security at all.
A program for which you have the source and still cannot successfully attack is a truly secure program. Especially for security-oriented software, anything less is unacceptable. You can try to attack a default OpenBSD setup if you don't believe me...
(Security researchers & even antivirus programs are being 'targetted for termination' by the spy agencies + GOOGLE CHROME was abused to create malware as well - that's ontop of my code is MY CODE as you noted - I don't "give away" my HARD WORK to others so they can steal it & claim it as "their own" (goes on like mad too due to "Open SORES")).
Did you seriously think that a state-sponsored spy agency doesn't have the talent and the virtually unlimited funding to disassemble a program of interest and look for vulnerabilities the hard way?
Precisely how do you suppose pirate groups keep successfully cracking elaborate copy protection/DRM schemes? Did you think they were given source? No. They weren't. And those tend to be rag-tag groups with nothing like the talent and resources of government agencies. Often they are simply individuals running commodity hardware who enjoy showing off their skills.
All you are accomplishing is to allow said "spy agencies" to pick your program apart at will while denying well-intentioned users the ability to audit it for themselves. That's it. Once you're talking about anything like the NSA, source is merely a minor convenience. If pirate groups can find vulnerabilities in well-funded DRM schemes published by billion-dollar corporations, imagine what NSA can do to an anti-virus program when its major modes of operation (signatures and heuristics) are already known.
Actually I clearly said "in my opinion". It's right there in the first part of the first paragraph, in case your reading comprehension has failed. I also said "I believe he may have" followed by ".. should find a qualified therapist". Libel doesn't apply to opinions, but of course you already knew that. You just enjoy raising a stink when you know you're cornered.
Isn't it funny how nothing in your reply actually rebuts any part of my post? You falsely cry about libel when I was giving a clearly labeled opinion, you call me a worm, and you quote the Bible. You haven't replied to a word I said, not really. If you're afraid to do so, I understand. This is how most childish people react when they know someone else is right but they can't stand it. Oh, and if I thought I were a shrink, I would have provided something more than my personal opinion. I didn't do that. Instead, I said you should FIND a qualified therapist. That way someone who really is a shrink can diagnose you.
If you're too cowardly to actually tell me what I said that was wrong, that's okay. It's what I expected. You have only validated my expectations. I notice you aren't celebrating your "great victory" this time. You can't win them all, APK, and you clearly lost this time. Act like an adult and be a good sport. For once. Just to see how it feels.
Have a nice day!
Look, they found what causes your delusions of grandeur!
http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
Maybe they will finally find a cure.
Wow. Look at all of those replies he posted.
That's a lot of text. I am a very fast typist and it would take me a significant investment of time to a) type that much and b) get a bunch of proxies [or whatever it is he does] to get around the Slashdot posting limits. Hell, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he won't open-source his hosts program because it includes a backdoor, allowing him to use other peoples' computers as HTTP proxies so he can spam Slashdot. I can't say whether or not this is true, but I can definitely 100% say that it wouldn't surprise me and in fact, it would explain a lot. He certainly does appear to have something to hide, since a guy working in security should be aware that security through obscurity is automatically suspect.
Anyway, normal people understand that folks on the internet will say things they don't agree with. Normal people would have better things to do than waste all of that time and effort overreacting to someone who disagrees with them. In my opinion (you see that part, APK?) the man is not remotely normal at all.
It's amusing how he will write 20x more words than we do. We can expend the slightest effort posting our honest opinions and he goes nuts, expending tremendously more effort than we did. He doesn't seem to understand how he puts himself at a disadvantage. He really seems to believe that if he just repeats himself hard enough, somehow his false views will become righteous.
I appreciate the sanity you are contributing to this discussion. You are raising the signal-to-noise ratio that APK keeps obsessively trying to lower and that's a respectable act. I hope you keep up the good work!
P.S.=> Thanks for pointing them out to me - I'll just repost them + exhaust the downmodders modpoints... I have NO LIMITS on my post counts (unlike most acs here)... apk
So you are basically a guest on a site owned by someone else, and rather than respecting their rules, you openly brag about circumventing them.
What follows is my opinion. Got that? Will I need to spell that out for you later? Because you can read it right now.
This is who you are. A whiny, spamming, immature, psychotic, obsessive-compulsive pest. Daddy didn't love you enough? Is that your problem? Maybe the kids at school bullied you and picked on you and now you're gonna show us all how clever you are? Perhaps the woman you loved didn't know you existed? Or she divorced you because she couldn't take your obsessive-compulsive shit anymore? Maybe you had a nice cushy job but you treated your co-workers like shit and got fired for being an asshole who didn't understand the concept of a team?
That's about the level of respect you're showing for this site and its users. You're such a pathetic sack of shit. Seriously I'm so glad I am nothing like you. Rather than trying so hard to be where you're not wanted and not appreciated, find someplace where you are valued. If there is no such place, man up and do some god damned soul-searching until you realize how fucked in the head you are, and then get some help.
Now, go convince yourself I'm just "jealous" of your "amazing wit and talent". Convince yourself you "really outwitted me, yeah got me so good, damn I didn't even know what verbally hit me." Make a big deal of how I use a pseudonym and pretend like my words are somehow less true because of it. Whatever the fuck you have to tell yourself to avoid crying yourself to sleep every night. Defense mechanisms are the domain of true cowards like you.
I'd estimate that 99% of what I watch are documentaries. If I see Brian Cox drinking a Coke and wearing a Nike hat and a shirt that says 'Disney' on it then, well, I'll probably stop watching. I don't even have OTA television hooked up at home. I did have satellite for a while but I got rid of that because I never watched it. I haven't really watched much "television" since the middle of the 1980s. They started having too many damned commercials, way back then, and I tired of it. The internet has been awesome for me. I get a playlist of streams going and I'm all set for hours. They're passive entertainment that plays in the background while I'm doing other things. I don't even really actively watch most of them (for some definition of actively) but they're something passive and in the background. I'll often play them as I'm going to sleep and I might catch an hour or two of those at night but I'm usually still doing something else.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I see more and more sites telling me that they won't serve content unless I disable my adblocking software. They even are helpful enough to tell me how to disable it. That might be motivation enough for Random Joe to simply uninstall it. "Man, I really want to see this cat video!" If he says and sees that often enough, he may just remove it entirely.
Even before I install Opera - I install AdBlock Plus. Then I go to download Opera. I even do this with live sessions running from USB. Then, with Opera, I install ABP and I'm on my way from there. Often, I'll then toss uMatrix and grab the config file from Dropbox and be done with it - for live sessions that will be active for a while.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I actually wouldn't mind that. If the product placement doesn't get in the way of whatever show it happens to be done in, where's the harm? If the product gets more air time than the show, that's when we have a problem again.
But a presented wearing a shirt with a company slogan? Depending on the programming it may well increase the credibility of the show. If the protagonists of a sitcom drink coke or pepsi exclusively instead of "generic can of soda" and in return I get fewer ridiculous ads spliced in, count me in!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think it would depend wildly on the subject matter. If, say, Brian Cox were (somehow?) doing a documentary on which soda tasted better then I'd probably stop watching if he were wearing a Coke shirt. Then again, at this point, it's so absurd that I might just watch it for the amusement value. I'm not a huge fan of covert attempts to manipulate me. If you want to do so then, by all means, do so - I'm okay with that. Just do it and be upfront about it and I'm okay.
Err... If that makes any sense. Slipping repeated Coke products into the background or something? No thanks. Perhaps a "program sponsored by Coke" is okay - like PBS used to be before they went full five (or more) minutes of "not ads" at the start and end of a program. :( Hell, if they openly state they're sponsored by Coke and he wears a shirt then I'd be okay with it. (The shirt and hat weren't really the best examples, in hindsight. But I'll run with 'em now.)
So long as it's open then I don't think I'd mind, too much. Just don't try to manipulate me behind my back. There's a reason I don't watch TV and that's ads and lack of content but it's primarily ads. I'm willing to watch stupid shit. I don't want to be bombarded with stupider shit (like ads) constantly while doing so.
I was an early (I mean very early) adopter of ad blocking on the internet. Think Windows 95 days (I'd not yet been exposed to Linux, that was a couple of years later when I bought RedHat and then a copy of Slackware) and I was using some software (name forgotten) that ran as a proxy server (no, not that one) and it ate ads based on sizes and domains. I could add sizes to it and I could insert the URL of actual addresses as well as it supported wildcards.
I could block:
example.com/image.jpg/
example.com/ads/*
example.com/*
etc...
It was kind of neat and only like five bucks. I've long since forgotten the name of the application, however. It was lost in a strange electro-magnetic incident that I've mentioned before but never figured it out.
I had a lightning strike right next to the house - it hit and split a tree in the driveway. I had lots of media that just went blank. Hard drives that weren't connected to anything were killed. Floppies and zip disks were killed. Things that weren't even in boxes got killed - simply deleted. No partition tables, no anything. Some data was able to be recovered but, alas, the ad munching software was not and the name is forever lost to me. It's not the proxy one that everyone tells me about when I mention this story. :/ It had a yellow icon in the system tray.
*sighs*
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
While I agree with the sentiment, surely that same logic applies to all websites. Any random site could serve up malware at any time.
It could but advertisements have some extra bonus features that make them worth blocking. First, I haven't ever gone to a website looking for advertising. Any advertising that is present is at best a distraction that consumes my bandwidth. They serve no useful purpose to me. Second, most random websites do not attempt to track my activities outside of that site. If Facebook wants to know what I do on Facebook then that's fine. Facebook knowing what I am looking at on eBay is not acceptable. Third, there is the general obnoxiousness of the ads as well as the sense of entitlement by the folks serving them. Pop ups, pop overs, interstitials, huge banner ads, flash, etc. These things basically do nothing but cost me time and money to get rid of. Every once in a while I have to use a computer without ad blocking software and wow is it annoying. If they want to advertise to me, making increasingly obnoxious ads is not how to get my goodwill of make me pay attention to an ad. Fourth, most random websites take a little more care in what they display. They don't generally run random content from companies they aren't familiar with. Ads are a vector because no one is paying any attention to what is displayed.
Once you add on the security problems basically ad companies have dug their own grave as far as I'm concerned.
I think he spent about a week coming up with that one, and last Thursday he started threatening posting it. I laughed because it just proves my point better than anything I could type.
He says he uses network bridges to get around the AC limitations of Slashdot. As a network bridge can do nothing of the sort, I am guessing he is using some kind of proxy, but as he doesn't seem to understand what a proxy is, he keeps denying he uses one and keeps pointing at bridges as his method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hell, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he won't open-source his hosts program because it includes a backdoor, allowing him to use other peoples' computers as HTTP proxies so he can spam Slashdot.
Entirely possible, as he won't demonstrate the security of his product be exposing the source (someone might steal it!), no one knows. Though apparently the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them. His newest post is trying to refute that MiTM attack opportunity his software provides, but it is so nonsensical that it is actually hilarious, it is like he doesn't even understand what a MiTM attack is or how it is done.
Thank you, I appreciate the message, it is nice to know the effort is appreciated.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Sorry, didn't realize that. As a Mac user, when I get a new computer it copies everything from my old one while I go to lunch. It's been a long time since I re-installed an entire machine from scratch.
But you are right, there is some in that, and a few people won't re-install. But since people are creatures of habit, and they have a long list of re-installs anyway, that will be only one checkmark on that list. Most likely, those not re-installing will be the ones whose ad-blocker has since gone out of business or something.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Wow, you have got to be the dumbest "network expert" I have ever met. No, you could not possibly use a bridge to get by Slashdot's post limits on ACs. A bridge is device simpler than a router, it doesn't even have the smarts to limit what traffic it passes. You could not possibly use a bridge to do what you claim it does, but I am aparently the idiot because I have actual networking training and have been building networks since around 95. But I guess the ALMIGHTY APK will show me how much smarter he is than me and demonstrate how he gets around Slashdot's blocks using only a bridge (something no one in networking would ever install anywhere)
Please, demonstrate your immense knowledge of networking and show us how you get around Slashdot's limitations on AC posts. We would love to see the solution your "towering intellect" can come up with that isn't a proxy, as you said.
But since you will just post more shit, this is my response right off the bat. I have done more with networking in 1 year than you have done in your whole life, prove me wrong, don't just post about how smart you are, PROVE it!
But I know you won't, you will just claim that I am wrong again, without actually refuting anything I have said. Typical idiotic responses expected yet again.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Oh, and should have responded to this before hitting submit:
P.S.=> I see your 'greatest hits fails list' vs. me is getting to you - well, again: You only brought it on yourself, failing to me... lol!
Yeah.. in your dreams. You have yet to actually prove me wrong on a single thing, you are the OCD/NPD person who can't even concieve of where you went wrong. When you can prove me wrong on anything, I will gladly admit it, but so far you haven't actually proven anything except your silly need to always be right, and always act like you win an argument before even responding to a single point. Keep it up loser, you are making my week with this shit, it is the most hilarious reading ever. I share it with my kids as an example of someone who doesn't know anything about computers.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Beside your point about OS-level support for automatic migration, it should also be pointed out that Chrome -- and probably other browsers -- will automatically install all of your previously-installed extensions for you.
However, although people are creatures of habit, people are also lazy, and it seems likely that most people will, at some point in time, encounter a situation where they have to go out of their way to install an ad blocker, and if ads are no longer bothersome they may well not do it. In addition, my preferred ad-blocker (Ad Block Plus) by default doesn't block "acceptable" advertising, meaning ads that are small, motionless and unobtrusive. I've never felt a need to change that default, and in fact I feel like I'm doing a good thing in leaving it as-is. I do prefer the ad-supported web over a paid model, and I do want to help in a small way to fund the sites that I use. I think many people who aren't in the "on principle" camp feel the same.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Thank you for proving me right. You can't do it, not even once can you actually prove your knowledge. I have a new signature, thanks.
---
APK: proving he knows nothing about networking, security, and programming
You have now proven, your lack of knowledge of networking is causing you to try and hide behind some kind of effort at making it look like I don't know networking, despite me already proving I know what a bridge is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And that a bridge has zero capabilities of doing what you have claimed to be using it for. Bridges are used to connect wireless devices to wired networks, they aren't used to get by Slashdot's AC limitations.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Keep it up loser, you are making my week with this shit, it is the most hilarious reading ever.
No joke! Sometimes at night I have to be careful not to laugh so loud at APK that I disturb others in the building.
You remember that South Park episode about hybrid cars? The way people became so smug that they spoke with their eyes closed and bent down to sniff their own farts? That's APK! But he didn't need a hybrid vehicle to do it. He just needed to write a dinky little string manipulation program that outputs a text file, his life's work, his magnum opus.
The hilarious part was he objected to me providing my OPINION that he may have mental problems, crying about how I'm not a shrink, etc (it obviously struck a nerve, something he is so quick to reveal) and then he accusses you of having Asperger's (while insulting those who really do suffer from this disease by rendering it "assburgers")! He appears to be unable to grasp his own hypocrisy. Priceless!
An AC above (in the first thread) mentioned the hilarity of intentionally summoning him. Sometimes I do that myself. He usually appears right on cue. And probably thinks it's his own idea when he does. I wonder how upset he'll get when he realizes that I (among others) have done that intentionally? I'm sure he will deny it and brag about how smart he is or something. Hilarious.
He's either a profoundly fucked up individual or the most masterful method actor the world has ever seen.
Your opinion doesn't make you qualified to judge others mental condition moron. Get over your delusion of grandeur you're a psychiatric pro.
Did you see the part where I recommended he find a therapist, that way "someone who really is a shrink can diagnose you"? It's right there in my post. Hard to miss. Did you somehow miss that part? Or do you not understand the concept of having a medical/mental health professional perform a diagnosis? It's pretty basic, you know. See, the point of saying that, is to recommend that someone who IS qualified to judge his mental condition does so. Inherent in that statement is the implication that I am not.
It's amusing but also pathetic the way you APK fanboys have to clutch at straws like this. Still waiting for anything I said to be rebuted... guess that's not likely to happen. If you could have, you would have by now.
He is actually quoting me by saying I have Asperger's syndrome. I talked about it in the article about Autism in STEM that hit Slashdot a couple weeks ago.
I however am not "mentally damaged" or "retarded" as he claims, which is kind of funny that he associates Asperger's with retardation, considering that people with Asperger's have higher IQ than average, while mental retardation/Down's syndrome is pretty much exactly the opposite.
I collected this link to an AC talking about APKs possible diagnosis, it fits him like a glove. It really pisses him off when NPD is mentioned about him.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I had actually already added yours to that one in my notes file to quote back at him as it was a very well thought out comment on his behavior.
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Yeah, that change was when I uninstalled ABP and switched to ABE. Because it turns out their criteria for allowing ads are a little tainted - they sell whitelisting.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/i... is a great read and it reminded me that I still have some power as a humble user. It also reminded me how much time I must've spent over the years "debugging" Ad Blockers. It's far better to do wthout them if you can. I run 3 web browsers on my Mac. One of them (guess which it is), I run with Javascript turned off. It's fast and clean. I can always turn JS back on if I really need to for a particular web site. Alternatively I can simply switch to another browser with JS turned on if I want to handle it that way.