Adblock Plus Blocked From Attending Online Ad Industry's Big Annual Conference (arstechnica.co.uk)

An anonymous reader writes: Adblock Plus has been uninvited to the upcoming IAB Leadership Summit and is having its registration fee refunded. The company was informed of the cancellation in an email with little explanation. A company blog post reads in part: "Unfortunately, the top brass at the US IAB don't want us coming to their Leadership Summit next week in Palm Desert, California. We attended last year, and we signed up again for their 2016 meeting including paying the hefty entrance fee. We were fully confirmed and they even listed us on their website as a participant. Then this week we got one of those sudden emails that land in your inbox innocently, then floor you with something weird, unbelievable or ridiculous when you click on them. This one came from an unfamiliar IAB address, and it informed us that our registration for the summit was canceled and our fee refunded."

Comments

What was the subject line in the email?

[sehlat]

"La la la la la la la I can't hear you!"?

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[Anonymous Coward]

This one came from an unfamiliar IAB address

From: apk@iab.com

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. APK has also been discouraged from attending this conference (indeed, any conference or gathering of more than two people) for years, due to his aggressive attitude towards, um, advertisements.

Re: What was the subject line in the email?

[WarJolt]

They are fools. Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer.

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[amicusNYCL]

APK hasn't been spamming Slashdot lately, there's no reason to make fun of him at this point. If he has decided to stop posting his advertisements here then do your part and leave him alone. If he wants to make meaningful comments like other Slashdot users (stop laughing) then that's fine, let him. No reason to poke him if he's not spamming.

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[Anonymous Coward]

>, due to his aggressive attitude towards, um, grammar, formatting, communications, and sanity.

FTFY

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[flopsquad]

No reason to poke him if he's not spamming.

Indeed, these people know not the forces with which they meddle.

I bet they don't even realize that, like the dreaded Candyman, if you say "APK" five times at the top of a Slashdot thread, he will appear in your HOSTS file and can never be deleted.

The only way to get rid of him is sudo rm -rf --no-preserve-root / and then pull out the hard disk and burn it on a pyre of sage and thermite.

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[Noah Haders]

of course he's welcome to participate. I would suggest he post under a different name tho (as he probably has done all along). It's fair to say that his spam posts have reached the point of performance art, and his notoriety is deserved, and it's ok to poke fun at that.

Re: What was the subject line in the email?

[Z00L00K]

Well, since Microsoft ignores hosts for some addresses it may not work in all cases. Some sites shares host when it comes to wanted and unwanted content too.

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[jellomizer]

However advertisers don't need to be adversarial. People are using this product, there must be a good reason for this. Ad-Blockers do not block advertising, but they do block particular types of advertising.
If they learn from ad-block they may realize that they will be sure to follow less intrusive and safer advertising methods.

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[flopsquad]

Shit, there goes another hard drive. I'm running out of thermite here.

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[phantomfive]

Well said.

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[amicusNYCL]

Looks like I did speak too soon. So, I'll follow up with this, in case anyone wants to help discourage the spam here.

APK includes this line in his spam:

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified its source is safe [link removed] ) hosts & recommends it [link removed]

He refers to this forum post, which is a complaint about his spam here on Slashdot, with the admin saying he would have a talk about the spam. The signature identifies the admin as Steven Burns, and lists it-mate.co.uk as a site he runs. The it-mate.co.uk contact link points to this form. Anyone seeing APK's spam here should contact Steven Burns through that form to let him know how his reputation is being used, and the fact that he is hosting the software of an obvious spammer. Do not paste whole URLs into the comment form, it will be rejected, instead remove the protocol (http://) from the URL before sending.

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[amicusNYCL]

Don't just deal with it, report it.

Stop APK Spam

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[Ol Olsoc]

The only way to get rid of him is sudo rm -rf --no-preserve-root / and then pull out the hard disk and burn it on a pyre of sage and thermite.

Sage advice there. I just love the smell of thermite in the morning.

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[rastos1]

I know who RMS is. I know who GKH or PJ is. I can decipher NYCL too. But who the f*ck is APK? (Apart from Android Package Kit.) Did I miss a memo?

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[Cederic]

This week I encountered APK spam on The Register.

Except it may be an imposter. They'd actually registered an account, and posted a single line response. It was weird, it almost felt like there may be a human behind this.

Re:What was the subject line in the email?

[amicusNYCL]

Alexander Peter Kowalski is the single most prolific spammer on Slashdot. Go ahead and view this thread at the -1 threshold and scroll down and look at all of the wall-of-text comments he posts advertising his software that no one cares about. And if you dare respond to him, then watch as he comes back at you with all of his 13-year old emotional maturity. Then shudder as you realize that he's actually a man in his 50s. Feel free to also search online and find him exhibiting the exact same sociopathic behavior going back at least 15 years on various online forums, most notably Ars Technica. He's Slashdot's resident psychological case study.

Old Habits Die Hard

[Random Nobody]

Every time some technology innovation comes along and smashes a business model the incumbents cry and drag their feet every step of the way. Adapt or die.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[ichthus]

This is, to a degree, like the record companies not wanting to talk to Napster or Apple (when iTunes was new), because their business model was being destroyed. ABP is not going away, and they've extended olive branches (in the way of allowing "non-intrusive" ads). Ignoring ABP is counter productive to the ad industry's cause. Work with them, or they will continue to work against you.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Pezbian]

Online advertising wouldn't need to be destroyed if it wasn't focused on being as annoying as possible to grab attention.

Maybe companies should focus less on loud, bandwidth-hogging, un-mutable videos, pop-overs, pop-unders, anything Flash, and focus on making stuff people want to buy.

There are no commercials for Ferrari, Lamborghini, or Bentley. Beater dealerships, on the other hand...

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[amicusNYCL]

What? So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?

Well, yeah, assuming of course that for some reason an increasing majority of users have decided to use the product that blocks TVs (fantastic analogy, BTW). This is what is happening in online advertising: users have decided they are better off without it. Of course, that is their choice to make. If that means they can't access forbes.com, then people will keep things like that in mind.

Adblock plus is literally in the process of destroying the business of online advertising.

Don't be obtuse. The coffin of online advertising was designed, perfected, and manufactured by the advertisers. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it. Use of tools like Adblock is the inevitable conclusion to the abuses and overreach that online advertisers have been doing for the past couple decades. You might as well whine about popup blockers or spam filters. Once a technology like that gets abused, you can bet your ass that another technology is going to be developed to block it. If advertisers don't like that then they probably should have started their self-policing campaign before ad blockers really caught on. As it is, they're starting to realize that their tricks are going to be caught, and only now are they crying foul. They did this to themselves, if the attendees of the IAB's conference want to blame someone for the state of their industry and their business model all they have to do is look around the room. The most surprising part of this whole affair to me is that it took so long for ad blockers to become mainstream, but I'll chalk that up to the fact that IE did not have an ad blocker for so long. The rise of browsers supporting extensions has opened up the general public to ad blockers. Adblock Plus was released in 2006. Advertisers have had a decade to understand that people don't want to see ads and think about how they can co-exist peacefully, but instead they used that decade to figure out how to force more and more ads down peoples' throats. They made that decision, so now they get to deal with the consequences. I don't think you're going to see a lot of people shedding a tear for advertisers.

why would a group of advertisers want to have anything to do with them?

You would think advertisers would want to hear from the other side, particularly on ways they can come to a compromise. Apparently, you would be wrong.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[sl3xd]

So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?

Don't talk crap. Adblock doesn't prevent people from using their web browsers.

A closer descrition: "If somebody is making a technology that prevents TV's from showing advertising, the TV industry should adapt to people not watching ads."

Well, let's look at the situation: We've had DVR's that can skip commercial for nearly a generation now.

Some of the more forward-looking companies in the TV industry has adapted to a model that has no ads: See Netflix, Amazon Prime video, and Hulu +'s ad-free option.

Each of those networks produce their own highly-rated, highly-watched content.

There are, of course, incumbents who refuse to adapt.

Ironically, the ones who refuse to adapt are all advertising companies: the old TV and cable networks. Their refusal to adapt is well described in their anger/frustration that Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon do not report their viewerships (ie. "ratings").

Well, let's think about that for a second: What are ratings for? They're to provide a value for how much an advertising slot during the show should cost.

Well... Netflix doesn't show ads, so what is the point of ratings? Netflix knows how many people are watching, and they know what it costs to stream. As long as they've got a profit, and their customers are happy, why do they care what advertisers think?

It's the advertisers trying refusing to change their habits, and refusing to accept that consumers are so tired of advertising that consumers prefer to pay directly for content than get it "free" with commercials.

In the same way, internet consumers are sick of being monitored and assaulted all of the time by intrusive advertisers who continue to try to force increasingly unpalatable advertising upon consumers.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Slashdot Junky]

ABP is not going away

At least for Firefox, ABP is very dependent on Mozilla continuing to develop a browser that supports 3rd party add-ons. While this feature clearly makes their browser more appealing to people, ABP could be effectively shutdown if Mozilla cooperated with the Ad Industry and Content Providers in such a way that prevented their add-on(s) from working.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Falos]

>make unable
>forced
This is contrary by definition. A user decides to use an optional piece of software. No one is "made" subject to anything, and a victim card needs to be played a lot louder these days, after the chronic offendees we saw in The Year of the SJW.

The software happens to catalyze the status quo of an ecosystem, "the business of online advertising", indirectly. Expectedly, but incidentally. They are "made" subject to literally nothing - a void, an omission.

Interestingly, this reasoning applies to ABP's rejection. It's not a perfect apples-to-apples, but I couldn't really refute someone applying the same words to the situation, that IAB can't be forced to honor attendees.

This line reserved to honor the death of the word "literally".

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[ceoyoyo]

I doubt you'd be welcome at an ad industry conference with that attitude either. You're suggesting companies concentrate on engineering and customer service instead of marketing? Madness!

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Rob Y.]

The recording industry was (partially) saved by Apple, who with iTunes, came up with a way to buy music that was less hassle than stealing it. That doesn't mean that the industry's model didn't take a huge hit - it did. And they're still able to make money from streaming sites and (golly!) radio.

Ad Block is, yes, threatening the Ad industry. But they're a more serious threat to online content in general. Advertisers have other places to get their messages out, but online publishers are stuck with online publishing (duh). Without advertising to fund it, the only other model is to charge for it. But iTunes had a much more salable product - people knew what songs they wanted, and there was no place else to get essentially the same thing as a recording by popstar X. So most online publishers can't charge, either. The only thing left is 'native advertising', which kind of ruins the content by hiding ads inside it. Not a rosy situation.

I say this as an AdBlock user, as well as a DVR user. Which doesn't say much for the argument that's about to kill Union participation at the Supreme Court. Given the chance, people won't pay - even if they 'know' they're getting benefits that might be threatened by their freeloading. But apparently Justice Kennedy thinks government workers will gladly fork over union dues once they become optional. Maybe so, since the union is directly working for their interests - as opposed to ad-supported media that are mostly just acting as bait for advertisers. But still...

I do have AdBlock set to allow some non-intrusive advertising. So far, so good. I haven't been tempted to turn that back off.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Rob Y.]

By the way, apparently Slashdot doesn't have non-obtrusive ads, since I see no ads at all on the site. When I've visited Slashdot on a public computer, it's chock full of the nastiest, blinking-est shit. Why is that SD?

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, exactly. The experience at many websites is just like being set upon by a throng of panhandlers. Maybe the solution is to provide them their own space to scream and wave their arms away from more genteel folk, like a website specifically for advertisers. Then, if you're feeling charitable, you can amble on down and hand out a few bucks to the needy ones... "Hmm... Zappo's is looking a little hungry today. Here's a dollar, buddy. God bless you too."

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Pezbian]

I doubt you'd be welcome at an ad industry conference with that attitude either. You're suggesting companies concentrate on engineering and customer service instead of marketing? Madness!

I'd be burned as a Witch and defecated upon. Vigorously.

Re: Old Habits Die Hard

[ZeroWaiteState]

Then people would stop using Firefox like they stopped using IE. People use Firefox because it can be made to obey the wishes of users. A browser which doesn't obey isn't as useful as one that does. Would you buy a car that slammed on the brakes automatically at every billboard? Would you even agree to ride in one for free?

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[NoZart]

http://www.milliondollarhomepa... ;-)

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Pezbian]

If I could get shoes that don't break on that "running on my toes" joint after three months, that would be awesome. Trick is it's not the same for every given shoe size. I'd pay double or more for a shoe that would last a couple of years at that joint, since getting the rest to last that long is a given.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Nothing2Chere]

Maybe companies should focus less on loud, bandwidth-hogging, un-mutable videos, pop-overs, pop-unders, anything Flash, and focus on making stuff people want to buy.

The problem with this idea is that advertising companies don't actually make anything.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Chas]

No, Adblock Plus is in the business of formulating acceptable standards for web advertising.

Right now what we've got is a mixture of Wild Wild West on crack and a whorehouse specializing in HIV positive girls where the nearest condom is several continents away.

Don't get me wrong. I support content providers' right to make money off of their content by utilizing a portion of my screen real estate and attention.

That, however, doesn't give them the right to completely take over the entirety of my screen real estate and pop un-avoidable video ads with full, loud audio.

Additionally, ad networks are an unmitigated clusterfuck of an attack vector on my machine. My generosity doesn't extend to having to burn multiple hours/days restoring a system because some rogue ad/network slid malware by my AV/AM systems and crashed my system. My time and effort is worth money too.

And come on. The Forbes Fuckup only happened.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... about 2 weeks ago.

"Disable your ad blocker SO WE CAN SHOVEL MALWARE ON YOU!"

FUCK

THAT

NOISE!

The reason internet advertising is in such dire straights is the advertisers PUSHED it to this juncture. They kept coming up with ever more obnoxious, intrusive, downright DANGEROUS methods of serving us shit we really don't want to see. As such, people who want to actually be able to use their computers in a safe, effective manner, look towards blockers. So these ad assholes keep looking for ways AROUND ad blockers, coming up with things that are even more crazy-obnoxious, intrusive and dangerous. Hell, if they could, they'd force click-throughs too.

And what remediation do people get when malvertising kills their machine?

It's a bunch of buck-passing.

Site Owner: Oh it was the ad network! Fuck you! Have a nice day!
Ad Network Owner: Oh it was a rogue advertiser! Fuck you! Have a nice day!
Advertiser; Oh! It was a third party company we hired to get our name out there! Fuck you! Have a nice day!
Third Party Ad Company: *CHIRP* *CHIRP* (Basically, they're operating under another in a series of new names this week. Again. Fuck you! Have a nice day!)

As such, there is ZERO accountability in this "industry". It's ALL snake oil.

Basically, the internet advertising people don't want to settle on an acceptable ad standard.
Know why?
Because the profit margins are even shittier than those for their current obnoxious, dangerous crap!

This bit of shenanigans with ABP is just another nail the internet ad companies are driving into their own coffins.

Internet advertising is a nasty, STD'ed up whore. Ad blockers are condoms.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[sjames]

let's face it, practically nobody seeks ads out, but some ads make people willing to take action to get rid of them and some don't. Even the ad industry recognizes that it went too far and has inspired people to install adblock plus. It may be too late now, especially since they also failed to police themselves to prevent drive by malware ads, but had they listened earlier, perhaps they wouldn't face the problems they face today.

They're not going to find a solution to their problem by jamming their fingers in their ears and shouting LaLaLa.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[sjames]

No. That would force them to make ABP a proxy server but that's about it. Meanwhile, Mozilla would further damage themselves and their shrinking market share.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Noah Haders]

the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up. i think it's fair to want to block components of websites that can inject viruses into your computers, make the page load slower, and are generally annoying. it's also fair for a site like forbes to block access when an adblocker is present, which I'm fine with. i'm not going to try to find a way around that.

Re: Old Habits Die Hard

[clampolo]

It's decent but he should also add: "and burns extra gas every time you pass a billboard and it takes 5 times as long to reach your destination" This would match the horrible tolling ads have on load times and bandwidth

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[clampolo]

I'd be burned as a Witch and defecated upon. Vigorously.

Go on....

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Merk42]

the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.

The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.

i think it's fair to want to block components of websites that can inject viruses into your computers, make the page load slower, and are generally annoying. it's also fair for a site like forbes to block access when an adblocker is present, which I'm fine with. i'm not going to try to find a way around that.

You can have security vulnerabilities by visiting an ad-free page that uses JavaScript. Hell there are exploits in CSS.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[phantomfive]

You're suggesting companies concentrate on engineering and customer service

They do. They put a lot more attention and effort into their real customers: the advertisers. (You can tell they are customers because they are the ones paying. Incidentally, the Slashdot subscriber subsystem is broken: if you subscribe, it doesn't work).

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[sjames]

ABP displays ads that meet their standards. It's users seem fine with that. They just don't want singing dancing malware. The evidence for that is that ABP has users even though there are other ad blockers that block ads completely.

The advertisers are just ticked off that people object to the use of airhorns and a punch in the nose as an attention getting device.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Pentium100]

People would ditch Firefox for that pretty quickly. Or keep using the old versions. If all browsers did it and somehow the old versions stopped working, ABP could be easily remade into a proxy server and it would no longer depend on the browser.

Actually, the first ad blocking I ever used was a part of a software firewall (I forgot the name), it looked for URLS and banner-sized images and blocked them. Worked with any browser.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Pentium100]

There are multiple problems with ads online beside the fact that they are annoying (one could say that this is the price we pay for free content). Annoying/distracting I can handle. The much bigger problems with ads are the fact that the ads load slowly and eat up data (on a cell phone), the privacy invasion (traacking across multiple sites) and the biggest one of all - malware. Ads were used many times to infect computers. If the advertisers somehow manage to ensure 100% clean ads (simple - just allow static png images, no scripts and no flash) only then I would even consider turning adblock off.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Noah Haders]

the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.

The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.

I'm not blown away by that argument. I see what you mean, but I'm not morally compelled. I'm pretty sure there isn't a shadow TOS on sites saying I'm obligated to look at the ads they show me.

I would be fine if there were a browser setting "ads are being blocked" and sites could choose whether or not to provide me content.

Somebody needs to come up with a holistic solution in which both providers and consumers are satisfied.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Slashdot Junky]

While I do believe that ad-blocking will ultimately be done by a proxy server and have said this before, ABP as software as it is now is dependent on the browser's add-on architecture. The company/developer behind it could, of course, evolve both their core product and release something entirely different such as a ad-filtering proxy [service].

As for Mozilla and Firefox, yes, people will jump ship if it loses support for ad-blocking tech. If Mozilla were to cave, I'd expect the other major browsers to do so as well. Before a suggestion is made that people can always use a ad-block supporting browser growing from a fork, Jane and Joe Mainstream isn't even going to know that this is an option, let alone going to do it.

Re: Old Habits Die Hard

[Slashdot Junky]

Would you buy a car that slammed on the brakes

Of course not. Now, do understand the inconvenience and annoyance of ads as they are now and have been hasn't reached the level that such behavior of a car is at. The bigger problem is that it won't just be one make or model or browser, all major offerings will adopt this type of practice in a collusion-wrapped way if it serves their interest financially. Such a change may bring additional revenue or reduce legal expenses. Either way, it is money.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Quirkz]

So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on...

Curiously enough, the TV I just got has a software bug and turns itself on once per day. If you offered me a tool that selectively prevented unwanted activations, I would embrace it gladly.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Slashdot Junky]

That would force them to make ABP a proxy server

While I do believe that ad-blocking will ultimately be done by a proxy server and have said this before, ABP as software as it is now is dependent on the browser's add-on architecture. The company/developer behind it could, of course, evolve both their core product and release something entirely different such as a ad-filtering proxy [service]. As for Mozilla and Firefox, yes, people will jump ship if it loses support for ad-blocking tech. If Mozilla were to cave, I'd expect the other major browsers to do so as well. Before a suggestion is made that people can always use a ad-block supporting browser growing from a fork, Jane and Joe Mainstream isn't even going to know that this is an option, let alone going to do it.

Re: Old Habits Die Hard

[danomac]

Ah yes, but the using gas and wasting time can be put as:

"circles each billboard 10 times, stopping in front of it each time."

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[amicusNYCL]

The only reason people like you like to claim that people are freeloading is because there isn't an alternative. I would gladly pay money for things that are valuable to me, but right now that isn't much of an option. Take NFL games, for example. I don't have a good way to just pay the NFL and then be able to watch the games live. I have to have cable subscription, which I don't want. So I can either get an antenna and then try to get the local channels over the air, or I can go to a sports bar or something, or I can try to find some site which is illegally streaming the games. If I could just pay the NFL $5 or whatever and watch the game, I would, but that's not an option. So, I do whatever else is available to me.

Don't confuse the fact that people are blocking ads and using sites "for free" (in reality there is essentially no cost either way to the user) with trying to argue that people will never be willing to pay for what they want. The option to pay for an ad-free experience often doesn't exist.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Darinbob]

Except that it seems Chrome is much much bigger than Firefox with adblocking. I hadn't realized how big it got given that is has many of the same bad design decisions that Firefox copied, but it is getting automatically installed quite a bit (at least one anti-malware product automatically installs it unless the user is savvy enough to uncheck the box during upgrades). I don't know if it uses APB or not though, but if just Firefox went away it would only make a relatively small dent in ad blocking.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[sjames]

The company/developer behind it could, of course, evolve both their core product and release something entirely different such as a ad-filtering proxy [service].

I'm fairly sure they would rather than just give up and fold the tent.

Once they did, it wouldn't much matter what browser people use, ads would be blocked.

If they don't, some anti-virus company will.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[chihowa]

Incidentally, the Slashdot subscriber subsystem is broken: if you subscribe, it doesn't work).

I don't think it's worked for years. The last time I tried to subscribe, it refused to take my money.

Re: Old Habits Die Hard

[Darinbob]

I recommend watching Black Mirror, episode 2, Fifteen Million Merits. Where one loses merits by choosing not to watch the adverts.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[onepoint]

You missed something ...
Netflix uses product placement.
sources

http://www.ign.com/articles/20...
http://nypost.com/2015/03/02/h...

Also, a more valid reason why Netflix does not report numbers..
valuation of the show, better numbers always equal more revenue but don't equal more profits,
profits get eaten up by writers and actors at the negotiation tables . Notice that many writers and actors are forming production companies and or are becoming executive producers...

Product placement people are already following the street gossip, checking with Nealson for crappy Netflix data, and pricing out the idea.
netflix already knows its numbers, get's data from Nealson via third parties to check what the industry is guessing and then maximizes revenue

follow the money ...

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Jack Griffin]

That doesn't mean that the industry's model didn't take a huge hit - it did.

I don't think it did. The industry as a whole continues to make obscene profits, the only difference that the people with real musical talent don't.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[phantomfive]

Last time I tried, it took my money and refused to give me anything in return!

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[rahvin112]

Very few websites produce original content. Most by a Reuters license then post the same new cycle that every other Reuters subscriber has access too. Then they all want to make boatloads of ad money on this same content.

Websites producing original content can make money, they can do so because they can charge a premium for ads and place steep restrictions on those ads so that viewers won't be compelled to block the ads. The problem is the content producers are used to working for the ad companies, not working for the viewer. The online industry has changed the model, the viewer is now the customer, not the ad company and the ones that are having problems with ABP and others are because they still think the ad company is the customer and do whatever the ad company wants.

If these sites were simply to acknowledge that the real customer here paying the bills is the eyeballs on the content and the ad companies are paying for access to those eyeballs they could greatly improve their revenue and business model. But that would mean they have to vet the ads, ensure they are unobtrusive and not annoying. This is a problem for the ad industry because they truly believe that only by being annoying can they be seen. Solutions like ABP are going to teach them this lesson, it's the reason they have been trying to get legislation passed making ad blocking illegal.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[AntiSol]

firefox could be effectively shutdown if Mozilla cooperated with the Ad Industry and Content Providers in such a way that prevented their add-on(s) from working.

FTFY

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[rahvin112]

Advertisers have had a decade to understand that people don't want to see ads...

I don't think your average ABP user has any problem with ads in general. They do have a problem with the type of ads being produced right now. I would happily turn off ad blocking if I was guaranteed that there would be a limit to the number of ads per page (say top and bottom of page occupying less than 1/8th of total screen area at a time), they would be unobtrusive, would not contain auto-play video and were 100% guaranteed (with payment if not) that they did not contain malware. I don't even have a problem with video ads as long as they don't download and play automatically and are skip-able/stopable when you accidentally click them.

The ad industry abuses created ABP and popularized it. The fact that even the top ad companies push malware infected ad's through their systems is perfect evidence that all ad's should be blocked until the industry realizes it's mistakes and fixes them. The people viewing the page are the customer, and their satisfaction with the experience it was drives their presence. The ad companies still think they are the customer. There isn't an ad company I'm aware of that lets websites pre-screen and select ads and they don't even realize how badly that hurts them.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[negRo_slim]

Adblock plus is literally in the process of destroying the business of online advertising. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is beside the point; why would a group of advertisers want to have anything to do with them?

FUD, the only thing they are destroying are intrusive ads.

Re: Old Habits Die Hard

[Ol Olsoc]

Would you buy a car that slammed on the brakes

Of course not. Now, do understand the inconvenience and annoyance of ads as they are now and have been hasn't reached the level that such behavior of a car is at. The bigger problem is that it won't just be one make or model or browser, all major offerings will adopt this type of practice in a collusion-wrapped way if it serves their interest financially. Such a change may bring additional revenue or reduce legal expenses. Either way, it is money.

The basic user can vote with their presence. Given that ad blocking is now an actual threat to the malware providing networks, because even grandma is using it, trying to make everyone go back to dialup speeds is a pretty dangerous act to pull off for your bottom line. And yes, dialup speeds is what it feels like when I turn off Adblock plus and noscript

Ask Comcast how the "Fuck you, you'll watch what we tell you, and you'll like it." is working. Right now, the majority of my video entertainment is done via computer, and the millenials dont' bother with cable en masse. If the industry says I have to spend my time watching ads for things I'll never buy, I'll find another way to spend my time.

You can't just decide that whatever you do, people are going to put up with it.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Ol Olsoc]

What? So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?

Very odd that you are illustrating the exact thing that is happening now to the cable/television industry. You don't have any choice there, and you are treated to a mix of advertisements and programming that is at the 50 percent ad level, and in some cases more advertisement than programming. And such ads they are!

Ads for catheters for men who can't pee, ads for diapers for women who can't stop peeing, ads for lawsuits against stents, pradaxa, some medicine that gives your son big boobs (I shit you not) speaking of that, there are more ads for stuff to make you shit than there is actual shit I think. Ads for calling lawyers to make certain you aren't left out of the joful process of suing somaone anyone, ads for medicine a through Z, each telling you it might kill you or turn you into a murder or commit suicide. Botox treatments for leaky bladders - but don't take it if you aren't willing to catheterize yourself. MESOTHELIOMA!!!!! Half hour long ads for losing weight, or miracle creams that make you look 30 years younger.

At least that was where they were when I cut my television viewing way back. My wife wants to just dump it altogether.

Adblock plus is literally in the process of destroying the business of online advertising.

Not exactly. Adblock is actually a complaint - a gift if you will. The business of online advertising is serving up a very bad product, and it costs the consumers money and time, and in many cases serves th ecomplete opposite function - it causes people to be angry at the people who are trying to get them to buy something.

Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is beside the point; why would a group of advertisers want to have anything to do with them?

Because as an advertiser, they have to realize that they are guests in people's homes! And as such, they should strive to be polite guests, not barge in, demand you pay attention, shit all over the floors, and stay long past their welcome. I am not required to allow this behavior.

A complaint is a gift. And by blocking ads, we are telling the industry we don't like what they are doing. A very undeniable complaint. They dug this hole they are in, and forcing people who watch their shit and accept their malware is not the way to get out of it.

I don't know if you've been to many conferences, but the best ones are where they invite speakers who tell the folks truths they don't want to hear. And they also tend to have the most productive results afterwards even if they piss people off.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Pentium100]

Jane and Joe Mainstream probably have a friend who's "good with computers", that friend will recommend the adblock supporting browser.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Pentium100]

You can have security vulnerabilities by visiting an ad-free page that uses JavaScript. Hell there are exploits in CSS.

Yes, however, I may trust some websites (say, /. or some news site) to not do this on purpose. The ads they serve, however, are out of their control and may contain malware.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[thegarbz]

Don't confuse online advertising with marketing in general. Marketing had a very critical business purpose and can take many forms other than advertising. E.g Bentley partnering with a watch manufacturer to make a specific watch with their brand and logo, or the one I'm really impressed with is computer game companies partnering with YouTube celebrities to make videos with relevant content in exchange for a plug (see rocket jump's latest video on Tom Clancy). There's nothing wrong with marketing. There's everything wrong with the current state of online advertising.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[urdak]

What? So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?

If people want this TV-disabling product, then yes, the TV industry should adapt, perhaps by switching to make a different product, or a new kind of TV that people don't want to disable because they actually like it.

Carpet-bombing of ads - sticking them in every TV show you watch, on every website you visit, every newspaper you read and every road you drive on - are not a force of nature. The ad industry can also pick other solutions. One example is inventing ads that people actually *want*, and even collect (remember coupons?). Another example is only advertise when you really are looking for something - like Google's search ads.

Re: Old Habits Die Hard

[oobayly]

I never used to use any advert blockers, but some of the news websites are so stuffed with adverts that it was grinding my i7 with 16GB of RAM to a halt (independent.co.uk in looking at you). Looking at the Chrome's developer console shows that it was making requests to a 404'd resource in a tight loop.

I don't block adverts because I don't want to see them, I block them because they've made websites literally unusable. I started off with a tamper monkey script, but gave up when I was doing it more and more.

Re: Old Habits Die Hard

[bingoUV]

There are snakes in half the billboards, and the snakes enter every stopped car. You can travel with a mongoose in your car, but every mongoose is not effective against every snake.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Merk42]

The only reason people like you like to claim that people are freeloading is because there isn't an alternative.

So, you're paying for YouTube Red, right?

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Merk42]

the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.

The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.

I'm not blown away by that argument. I see what you mean, but I'm not morally compelled. I'm pretty sure there isn't a shadow TOS on sites saying I'm obligated to look at the ads they show me.

That means you haven't checked, and what if there were?

I would be fine if there were a browser setting "ads are being blocked" and sites could choose whether or not to provide me content.

Well, at least you support Adblocking blocking, not everyone feels that way

Somebody needs to come up with a holistic solution in which both providers and consumers are satisfied.

When self-entitled consumers want everything for free, what possible solution could there be?

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[ceoyoyo]

Online advertising is just one of the ways marketing is done. It's a particularly irritating one that's out of control, but it's not the only one. Product placement, paid advertising disguised as regular content, all have been abused.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[thegarbz]

Yes so you should call out the abuse rather than a form. Marketing on the one side is creating a demand and a need and manipulating the mind, but on the far end of the scale it is also about most basic sharing of information. It's product announcements, it's media releases, it's the reason we actually know that Intel's latest processor is called Skylake without hearing it from a mate who heard it from a mate who heard it from an Intel employee.

Marketing itself no more inherently evil than bitcoin or Tor is for aiding the tewwowists.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Anonymous Coward]

What? So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?

Yes. Since we're talking in analogy and metaphor, let's continue this..

If the general public are sick and tired of TVs always being on and being forced to have the TV on when they don't even want it on, then you come along with your turn-off-the-TV product and people _voluntarily_ buy your product because they all really, really want their TV's to be turned off, then yes, the TV industry (who's business depends on people having TV's turned on, even though people don't want TV's turned on) had better well adapt their business model or go out of business.

In a nutshell, if you're ultimately peddling something people do not want, you don't get to complain when people take it upon themselves to prevent you peddling the shit they never wanted in the first place.

Re: Old Habits Die Hard

[omnichad]

First episode was so disturbing I never made it any further. That's not to say it's a bad show but maybe too good for me.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[amicusNYCL]

No, I don't pay $10 per month for a service where I still see ads in some places. That's not something that sounds valuable to me. I'll continue to pay nothing and have ads shown instead of paying to only see ads in some places.

To put that in context with my previous post:

Don't confuse the fact that people are blocking ads and using sites "for free" ... with trying to argue that people will never be willing to pay for what they want.

Paying $10 per month in order to still see ads, but in fewer places, is not what I want from YouTube.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[david_thornley]

Experience shows that the "self-entitled consumers" don't in general want everything for free. They want everything to be convenient to buy at a reasonable price. Why do you think the iTunes store became popular? There are some who want everything for free, and won't settle for less, so they're not going to be customers no matter what.

Given that, and our experience with television, newspapers, and magazines, it looks like people are generally willing to see ads, but object to the on-line ones they've been getting. That may be due to them being distracting, annoying bandwidth hogs and often a vector for malware. (I doubt many people worry about the privacy issues.) On my iPhone, until I installed an ad blocker, certain sites were getting to be unreadable, because I couldn't touch the screen to scroll without hitting an ad that would obscure the screen. On my computers, NoScript was getting increasingly useless since I couldn't tell which domains were serving the site and which were serving ads.

People in general aren't going to bother much about ads until they have to. The job of the advertisers is to not make them have to. They failed.

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[sl3xd]

The thing that's insidious about product placement is also the thing which makes it tolerable: "real life" is essentially product placement everywhere, because everything under the sun is branded. Stuck in traffic? Stare at the Chevrolet logo in front of you. Walking behind somebody -- yup, clothing logo. Staring at somebody's tight behind? Little red Levi's tag. That homeless guy walking across the street? Covered in a the local team's old logo...

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[Noah Haders]

When self-entitled consumers want everything for free, what possible solution could there be?

Many solutions are possible. I paid for nyt online access for over a year, because I found that their content justified the price. I stopped paying when I grew frustrated with their biased news coverage. I also don't mind when a site has sponsored storied or content, as long as they are clearly marked. Those are two ideas off the top of my head. There may be more!

Re:Old Habits Die Hard

[houghi]

No commercials for Ferrari, Lamborghini, or Bentley? Not on websites, but that does not mean they do not exist.

I do not see a difference between online and offline advertising. It is all the same crap. AdBlock is a technical solution to a social problem. I see people defending ads here while not working in the ad industry.

They say things like 'I allow some ads. I would not mind text ads.' I am not like that. I do not want them. I do not like them. I would be happy if there were no ads at all.

Is this realistic? No. Will it ever happen? No. But that is the starting point for a discussion about ads. No ads at all. The moment you say you are OK with some sort, you handed them a finger and they will take the rest.

They have enough money to defend themselves. There is no need for the rest to help them.

conference is probably devoted to defeating blocki

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't want folks at ABP to see their new circumvention techniques.

IAB

[phantomfive]

IAB represents the advertisers, so it's not surprising they're upset at adblock. Ad blocking has just been going up and up.

Re:IAB

[Z00L00K]

And their action shows that they can't take a "No" at the door.

Re:IAB

[gstoddart]

Sure, but you'd think they'd at least be willing to listen to WHY they've pissed people off so badly to the point more people are using this stuff.

I mean, you can choose to not be aware of the fact that you serve malware and compromise people's computers like some self entitled ass ... or you can try to figure out WTF you're doing wrong.

In this case, it sounds like a bunch of clueless idiots not being willing to understand why people are now actively taking steps to block them.

AdBlock isn't "the enemy".

Terrible ad practices and non-existent accountability for delivering malware is. Bad management of our personally identifying data is. Not understanding we no longer wish to be tracked by 20 entities on every web site we visit is.

The IAB feels entitled to this stuff. Which means the rest of us will, without any remorse, actively deny it to them.

I don't owe brightcove or scorecard research a damned thing, and I never will. The sooner they stop acting like spoiled children the more they might understand the mess they're in.

Re:IAB

[MightyMartian]

Yes, I would expect that the Nazi Party would disinvite the Anti-Defamation League.

Re:IAB

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is/was their opportunity to work with Adblock (as the representative/proxy for the people who block the ads) to figure out a way to make ads acceptable to people so they don't want/need to block them.

Like a lot of people, I'm not against tasteful advertising. I will stop blocking when it comes [back]. But block the content I navigated to see, shove auto-playing audio and video down my throat, and create just generally annoying ads with lots of flashing, etc., and yes, I am going to block your ads.

So adapt, or fuck off and die.

Re:IAB

[MightyMartian]

It's a gathering of evil sociopaths. They don't care about why people don't like what they produce. We should be happy these monsters are in advertising, because otherwise they'd probably be driving around in vans kidnapping people, torturing and murdering them, and then eating the remains in cannibalistic orgies. These are evil people.

Re:IAB

[fustakrakich]

They're just going to have to sneak in wearing a Guy Fawkes mask.

Re:IAB

[Pezbian]

It's a gathering of evil sociopaths. They don't care about why people don't like what they produce. We should be happy these monsters are in advertising, because otherwise they'd probably be driving around in vans kidnapping people, torturing and murdering them, and then eating the remains in cannibalistic orgies. These are evil people.

Sounds like the plot of a game that should really be made. Or at least a book.

Re:IAB

[GuB-42]

Not really. ABP seems to be more open to discussion than other adblockers. They have an "acceptable ads" policy with guidelines and an optional whitelist.
If they don't want people to go full "fuck off", they better play along.

Re:IAB

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the F... is this moderated as "Informative"? It is so over the top and biased that if people really believe it is "informative" and not a lame attempt at flame-bait, the sanity of the people moderating it as "informative" can't be much better than that of the advertisers.

Re:IAB

[MightyMartian]

Okay, I'll be moderate. Only some of them would turn to van-based kidnapping and cannibalism. The rest would probably just stealing your wallet, swindling little old ladies or selling fake wart remedies on late night television. I apologize to all the sociopaths, not all of you enjoy eating human body parts.

Re:IAB

[Pezbian]

I so wish I had a +1 to give. Bravo!

Godwin's Law got Lampshaded there.

Re:IAB

[KGIII]

Sometime around 1995 I stopped allowing ads. It was a weird yellow thing that sat in the system tray and worked like a proxy and you could wild-card, domain block, and even block by the standard sizes. It was like five bucks for life. I have no idea what it was called - a lot of people have tried to help me remember the name. It was not Proximitron or AdMuncher.

Hmm... That's like 20 years since I've seen an add on my own computers. If I touch another persons computer, I ask first, and then I install software to prevent ads from being shown. Sadly, it's a required step in layered security.

Re:IAB

[phantomfive]

IAB is really reallly not interested in letting ABP decide what an acceptable ad is, and what is not.

Re:IAB

[Darinbob]

More like parasites. Person A talks to person B, and unrelated bystander C thinks "I deserve to make money whenever A talks to B".

Re:IAB

[nytes]

In that case, IAB shouldn't be surprised if the users of ABP make the decision for them.

Re:IAB

[MaxSmoke]

Sure, but you'd think they'd at least be willing to listen to WHY they've pissed people off so badly to the point more people are using this stuff.

I think they only care about making money a don't give a sh*t about people and the web they are trashing.

Re:IAB

[bentcd]

Sure, but you'd think they'd at least be willing to listen to WHY they've pissed people off so badly to the point more people are using this stuff.

Not if you discover that your conference has turned into an ad blocker blocking workshop, in which case you don't want ad blocker representatives anywhere near it.

Which may or may not be what's going on.

Re:IAB

[bingoUV]

Humans don't work like that. Same person has different contexts in which they are evil and saintlike. Some people end up in professions that make them evil.

simple explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

they have adblockblock installed.

Kim? Is that you?

[DriveDog]

Sounds like North Koreans... "you are spy!"

Congratulations, guys!

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

ABP folks, this is a strong indicator of success. Time to consider charging users for licenses in some way. You're winning. Good luck. Almost every individual human entity using the Internet is on your side, even though they may not know it yet. I'm shooting $20 your way today.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[110010001000]

Why are you sending money to Adblock, Inc? They are making millions off of selling their "whitelist" access to advertisers. Silly person, no one is going to pay for Adblock when you can get ublock and other alternatives for free.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[Triklyn]

i'm not. ads are a pain, and clicking through is auto-reflex now... but in the same measure, who's going to generate revenue for the companies behind these websites? say we reach the state you're looking for, everybody has blocked 100 percent of ads, or a large percentage. who's going to pay to put an ad on a site that nobody sees? how do you propose reddit generate revenue? all those aggregator sites?

do we go to a subscriber model? that's even more of a pain in the ass. we've already heard the death knell of traditional journalism, if the NYT can no longer generate revenue even in an online model... how exactly is journalism supposed to cope? do we rely on bloggers for our information? is there passion enough to compensate for someone else's profession? if they do it full-time, how do they support themselves without ad revenue?

in effect, we are exchanging our attention for content we want, would it be better to exchange actual money for it?

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[OhPlz]

The whole ad funded anything model doesn't make sense. Does anyone watch the stupid ads before youtube clips? Does anyone even see them? Why do companies pay to force these ads in front of people who don't want to see them? I've never bought anything based on a youtube ad. How much less would products and services cost if the companies weren't wasting so much on advertising?

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[xevioso]

I have no problem with ads...IF they don't make it difficult for me to use my computer. I have installed an adblock program on my iPhone because I was getting pages reloaded all the time because of some ads not loading correctly. As soon as I installed the adblock app, that problem went away.

It's very simple...if ads didn't muck with my viewing experience, I wouldn't have installed a blocker.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[Sable Drakon]

Why are you giving them money, or using AdBlock Plus for that matter? The company that makes ABP already makes plenty of money by crippling their own product by default. Not to mention the engine they're using is laggy as hell on mobile. Just move over to UBlock Origin with everyone else.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[Sable Drakon]

If advertizing CDNs took resposibility and accountability for the content they serve, and vetted every single ad, fewer people would block ads. I'm all for these sites generating revenue with ads, but I'm not about to allow malicious ads to infect my system with some random nasty bug. Using ad-blockers is the equivalent of using a condom. Don't want a virus, protect yourself. That's all people are doing.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[amicusNYCL]

What's "Adblock, Inc"?

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[ITRambo]

Sponsored content, properly marked as such, with useful information about a product is far more effective than annoying ads.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, people do. I'll even watch the occasional one that's interesting. I watched the one from the government claiming that the bridge out of the city isn't about to crash down into the river, because it's (darkly) hilarious that I live in a place where governments buy ads like that.

One thing you realize when you watch a few of those ads is that the content is right up front, in that first five seconds you can't skip. They're going for literal "impressions," eyeballs transferring their name and logo to brains. Apparently that's all you need to convince people to buy your crap.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[mujadaddy]

who's going to generate revenue for the companies behind these websites?

how do you propose reddit generate revenue? all those aggregator sites?

Revenue isn't a fundamental right. The network was better when it was all hobbyists & researchers.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[110010001000]

Whatever corporation owns Adblock. The name doesn't matter. They don't need your money. They are already making millions off of their whitelist.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[OhPlz]

I never even knew youtube had those 5 second can't skip ads until I watched a youtube clip on Android. If impressions are all it takes to sell stuff, that's pretty damning of the people in this supposed information age.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[ceoyoyo]

Not everyone has time to agonize over every purchasing decision. Many people make purchases based on questionable information. Advertising has always taken advantage of the mental shortcuts we have from our evolution and society. We trust familiar names and patterns. If you're honest with yourself, you can probably identify things you believe yourself just because you've heard them from other people, as opposed to verifying them yourself based on empirical evidence. Religion, morals, Vi vs. EMACS, government vs. private industry, open source vs. proprietary. It's easy to find examples.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[phantomfive]

I'm shooting $20 your way today.

Oh, ,that's good to know, I didn't know they accepted donations.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[sjames]

They could try actual journalism. Brushing up PR releases and reprinting the newswire isn't journalism. They could try not tracking people with their ads. They could try being more careful not to serve drive by malware in their ads.

Perhaps they should actually curating the ads like they did in print.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[SB5407]

And that's OK with me as long as the ads don't infect my computer or take away any control of my computer.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[nukenerd]

Not everyone has time to agonize over every purchasing decision. Many people make purchases based on questionable information.

My purchases fall into three categories :-

1) Everyday things like food. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided on trial. Eg, I will try different types of beer and settle on the one I like best.

2) Occasional things like a camera or a car. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided by looking at reviews and listening to others' opinions. Both of these channels I weigh up by reading between the lines - for example people who have bought a lemon are notorious for recommending it to others because they don't want to look like the only fool. Call that "agonising" if you like - I call it care.

3) Specialist things like car spares and building materials. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided by what I can find. Eg, I have to travel about 25 miles to find the nearest place that sells spares for my car, and >100 miles to the next nearest (who sells the same brand anyway). Hobson's choice.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[OhPlz]

The more bizarre ones are things like prescription drugs. Hey doc, can I get some of what that happy bouncing bubble on TV is taking? It seems odd to me that the ads are directed at patients who can't purchase them directly. I know doc, you went through many years of med school and continuing education and all that, but the TV said this drug could fix everything! It's so f'd up.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[bingoUV]

1) Everyday things like food. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided on trial. Eg, I will try different types of beer and settle on the one I like best.

And how do you know your "liking" doesn't result from harmful components?

3) Specialist things like car spares and building materials. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided by what I can find ... who sells the same brand anyway

Here you dodged the question - how did you select the brand in the first place. You did tell an unrelated fact - that the brand you selected is available both 25 miles away and > 100 miles away.

In spite of knowing that advertisements tell a one sided story, humans still get affected significantly by it.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[nukenerd]

1) Everyday things like food. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided on trial. Eg, I will try different types of beer and settle on the one I like best.

And how do you know your "liking" doesn't result from harmful components?

I don't, but that is nothing to do with advertising, the topic here.

3) Specialist things like car spares and building materials. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided by what I can find ... who sells the same brand anyway

Here you dodged the question - how did you select the brand in the first place.

By my method (2) in the case of the car itself. With regard to most of its spares there is no choice, even if I went 100 miles for it. Replacement headlamp for a Jeep Grand Cherokee (in the UK) - nearest main dealer for that (the 25 mile away one), and no brand choice. The point I am making here is that for some things there is no choice. Another example is looking for replacement ceramic tiles to replace broken ones installed before my time - had to be certain size and colour. Lucky to find any at all, I don't care about the brand. They don't advertise that sort of stuff anyway, not in the UK.

You did tell an unrelated fact - that the brand you selected is available both 25 miles away and > 100 miles away.

Why is that unrelated? As said above, I didn't "select" the brand; there is only one, the one made for the car. I "selected" the nearest place that sold it.

In spite of knowing that advertisements tell a one sided story, humans still get affected significantly by it.

I havn't time to read that lot, but I can guess what it says. I'm talking about me, and if anything adverts affect me adversly, especially intrusive ones, and increasingly it seems I am not the only one. My reaction to an intrusive advert on my screen is to shout "Fuck off!" and make a mental note never to buy that stuff. Not hard, probably not the type of stuff I am likely to buy anyway.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[nukenerd]

Even if you do not buy based on these ads, you see their brand or product multiple times, and the .. Mere-exposure effect makes you little by little gain positive opinion on the product.

No it doesn't, it gives me a negative opinion. For one thing I don't like being patronised, which most adverts do. For another I think of all that money being spent on advertising rather than going on quality in the product.

I bought a pressure washer recently; I see adverts for Karcher washers everywhere, so I bought a Black and Decker. I bought a chainsaw last year; I see adverts for Ryobi everywhere, so I bought a Stihl. Ryobi are rubbish anyway (correlating my point above about adverts vs quality) apart from the fact that you cannot get spare parts for them. Stihl don't need to advertise much because their reputation is rock solid, and just look at what most professionals use.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[bingoUV]

1. I don't, but that is nothing to do with advertising, the topic here.
2. As said above, I didn't "select" the brand; there is only one, the one made for the car

You seem to have missed the whole point of advertising. FYI it works best for companies selling products that have multiple brands of comparable products - mostly from different companies. It also works as a nice ego-boost for existing customers - a kind of after-sales service, if you will, but even there it mainly works for players in multi-brand markets.

Now, missing the point is a very poor way to make your point.

BTW, some car parts are made by multiple different companies and come in different brands (some unbranded ones could be great too). So if the ones applicable to you are the ones that come in single brand, that wasn't clear from your earlier post at all.

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[Triklyn]

what's the first company that comes to mind when i say car insurance?

is it state farm? geico? if you list out the car insurance companies you know off-hand will they be among them?

if you were to start shopping around, would they make the list of insurance companies you would look at, for the simple fact that you know their name?

given the choice between two brands of dish soap of approximately equal price, would you buy the one you've heard of before or the one you haven't?

Re:Congratulations, guys!

[Triklyn]

what tires are on your vehicle?

what cereal do you eat?

I don't block ads.

[Mike Van Pelt]

I don't block ads. I don't have a problem with ads as such. I do block scripts unless I feel the domain has some degree of trustworthiness. No ad servers have any degree of trustworthiness whatsoever.

Sites like forbes.com, which will not show you anything but their "Give us carte blanche to ream you with malware laden ads or you can't see our domain" splash page can die in a fire for all I care. I'm not doing it.

Re:I don't block ads.

[The-Ixian]

I do the same. I just run noscript. I have for many years.

This really has the same effect as ad blocking since most ads these days are JS.

Simple choice for advertisers though... just make your ad text or image based and you are fine.

Re:I don't block ads.

[Billly Gates]

If you are fine with viruses and having your bank account compromised go right ahead.

It is dangerous NOT TO run as malware gets on pcs through ads these days. Forbes is a reason to use it. It is sad but I need to protect myself and as soon as advertisers start flipping out the sooner they can police themselves.

After all why should they change. They get free money and do not care about infecting users.

Re:I don't block ads.

[cshay]

Forbes won't dare show that page to the Googlebot. Change your useragent and Forbes.com is a pleasant read.

Re:I don't block ads.

[KGIII]

If you use Opera, Chrome, Chromium, and probably Vivaldi, then just change the https:/// to cache:// and you're good to go almost every time.

Re:I don't block ads.

[Darinbob]

When ads are short then they're ok. Long story, then follow by "brought to you by General Products Industries" is ok. However what we have is the opposite - the ads take up more bandwidth than the content. They're sort of the equivalent of sitting through a timeshare presentation for an hour so that you can get the prize at the end, only without the prize.

Re:I don't block ads.

[nukenerd]

I don't even know what Forbes is (even after trying to go there), but I have a better solution :-

Tell them to fuck off.

As the admen keep telling us that there will be nothing on the Intenet without paying for it, please send me a dollar for that advice.

Re:I don't block ads.

[david_thornley]

I did use only NoScript for years. Then I started seeing websites that had multiple domains needed to serve up content. What are you supposed to do when you go to a website and a dozen domains are trying to run scripts, six of which are ads (potentially malicious) and six are things the site needs to run?

My solution was Adblock Plus.

Badge of honor!

[blind biker]

eom

Firefox already has built-in ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently used Firefox for the first time in ages (I've been using Chrome, like everyone else).

I quickly learned that Firefox now comes with built-in ads! I don't know what the technical name for the page is, but it's the one that's a grid of panels. Several of them were goddamn advertisements! They were totally irrelevant to my wants and needs, too.

I couldn't fucking believe it. How the fuck could somebody at Mozilla think it was a good idea to stick ads in the browser itself?! Holy fuck, Firefox became popular because it let users install ad-blocking extensions! Didn't Mozilla realize that?!

There's no point worrying about the ad industry or ad blockers when the web browser itself is forcing ads on you!

Fucking unbelievable, Mozilla! Fucking unbelievable!

Re:Firefox already has built-in ads.

[Alypius]

Mozilla lost all credibility when they got rid of Eich.

Re:Firefox already has built-in ads.

[OhPlz]

A new browser is coming to protect us from ad tracking and the like..

https://brave.com/

Re:Firefox already has built-in ads.

[aitikin]

Have you been living under a rock? This has been discussed here and later removed by Mozilla. You can't blame them for trying to find a revenue stream not linked to a competing browser and the fact that they admitted its failure should be respected.

Re:Firefox already has built-in ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hysterical much, Chicken Little? They aren't even ads... they are the same pre-populated bookmarks that Mozilla has always shipped. The only change is now they tile bookmarks on the default homepage, a feature that is actually popular with causal users. Power users don't use the default homepage anyway.

Re:Firefox already has built-in ads.

[OhPlz]

It's definitely a pop-corn moment. Firefox is losing ground big time, it's the perfect time for something new. Having Eich at the helm just makes it so much more interesting.

I'm a little curious why we're not seeing this on many of the news oriented tech sites. Bias?

Re:Firefox already has built-in ads.

[advocate_one]

(I've been using Chrome, like everyone else).

Bollocks...

I hate that I am using AdBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

I use AdBlock. I wish I didn't have to. I do not mind websites using advertising to finance them making quality content I want to read. As a former open source developer, I know it takes real money to make quality content -- "for fun and for free" is a fantasy pirates made up to justify downloading something they ought to pay for.

For years, I could block annoying animated ads without resorting to adblock. First, I changed Netscape binaries to make the string “netscape2” “notscape2” so that animated gifs would not loop. Then, when I moved to Firefox, I used about:preferences to stop animated gifs from looping and used the flashblock plugin to block animated flash ads. But now, the annoying animated ads are using Javascript. Since NoScript has issues with blocking legitimate content, I have installed various forms of adblock (I have used adblock, adblock plus, and ublock)

They work, but they by default blacklist all sites, which I don't like. Sites with non-intrusive ads should be rewarded with page views. Sites with intrusive ads should be punished with all ads blocked from their site. I end up whitelisting a site I haven't been to and reloading the page; I will un-whitelist them if there is a single animated ad on the page.

The web is killing the publishing industry, and I do not agree with the notion that we are entitled to content without paying them, either directly or by looking at ads. But animated ads are just to distracting for me -- I can not read an article which has them -- and have no analog in print media, so I need to block them. I just wish I could do so by blocking only the animated ads.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[clampolo]

They have forced us to do it. 1) There are some web pages where you can hear your computer's fans start to scream because there is so much javascript crap that starts running. 2) Some pages take an eternity to load up because of the megabytes of ads that need to be downloaded It's a lot easier to just block everything.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[UnknownSoldier]

> and I do not agree with the notion that we are entitled to content without paying them,

So let's discriminate against the poor instead. /sarcasm Great strategy for sharing knowledge!

Repeat after me, It is not my problem to support your broken business model.

It is not about entitlement, it is about the right to view, or not view. Are you one of those people that feel unethical when you got to the bathroom / kitchen / fridge / etc. when an ad appears? Using software (or hardware) to control what appears on *my* computer is no different.

The cable company is doing the same type of shenanigans with dynamic ad insertion for video assets.

When is enough enough and we take back the right to view content, on *our* terms, on *our* devices.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[phantomfive]

I think we would get better content if we got rid of ads. Consider the stuff you typically find on broadcast TV, to the for-pay stuff you see. There's not much on free tv anymore.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[Skewray]

I now use Ghostery and whitelist only Project Wonderful. And a flash-blocker, of course.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[jdavidb]

The web is killing the publishing industry, and I do not agree with the notion that we are entitled to content without paying them, either directly or by looking at ads

I'll continue to view whatever I can get my hands on and blocking ads. If they have a problem with that they can look into implementing technical solutions to require me to pay or whatever, or they can pursue some legal thing, or send a thug to break my kneecaps (basically the same as legal solutions), or go out of business and leave the web to everybody else.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[NoImNotNineVolt]

The web is killing the publishing industry

Is it? That means that the web is more profitable than traditional publishing, and there's nothing to worry about.

Conversely, if adblocking is killing [the profitability, and hence sustainability of ] the web, then the web isn't really killing the publishing industry, and there's nothing to worry about.

Explain to me how it can be possible for the web to kill the publishing industry while being unprofitable.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[squiggleslash]

There are some web pages where you can hear your computer's fans start to scream because there is so much javascript crap that starts running.

I, too, have visited Cracked.com.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[swb]

Explain to me how it can be possible for the web to kill the publishing industry while being unprofitable.

I think you can somehow insert Goldman Sachs into the equation and then everybody loses money....except Lloyd Blankfein.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[KGIII]

There's a slight learning curve - it's whitelist based so you can export and import, try uMatrix. There's now a version for Firefox - I'm not a Firefox user (I use Opera) but I'm very pleased you have it. It's from the same guy that does HTTP Switchboard, uMatrix, and uBlock origin. It's like an old school software firewall for Windows only it's specifically for your browser. It does take a few minutes but once you set up the various sites, once you tweak it, then very little needs to be done to it. I probably haven't changed a single setting in over a month now. It is awesome.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[danbob999]

Adblock Plus has the option you are looking for, their "acceptable ads". It's even on by default.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[Darinbob]

But remember that we used to get good quality on free broadcast TV. Then it declined. The internet used to be a wonderful place for good content, but then that changed.

The change I think is with the attitude. Originally we had the attitude that advertisements help support and pay for the content. Now the attitude is that content supports and helps distribute the ads. That is, content centric versus advertisement centric.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[UnknownSoldier]

I concur. I can only dream of a world where ads are banned. /oblg. and nothing of value was lost :-)

Instead, we ended up with this crappy state of affairs (Futurama - Internet Ads)

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[Morgon]

This argument falls flat because you have intentionally requested a resource. You said "it's not about entitlement", but your last sentence inarguably and damningly proves otherwise.

Your right to view or not view is there, but at a much higher level than you're assuming. If it's not about entitlement, you are free, and encouraged, to not visit sites that have advertising as a means of upkeep/revenue if you don't agree with it. And you'll save yourself even more bandwidth and CPU time by doing so!

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[david_thornley]

I request a resource if I pick up a copy of City Pages (a local free newspaper with lots of ads). I don't feel obligated to look at their ads. All they can do is present them on the pages and hope one of them is for something I might actually buy.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[Morgon]

That's not comparable to web traffic, where you get paid by hard numbers, not conjecture (e.g. someone pulls all the newspapers out of the stand to be a dick - newspaper could come to a reasonable conclusion that readership is strong in that area -- apparently there's an Audit company that "verifies" readership, but I have to imagine that's pretty difficult to do with such an asynchronous form of media).

Ignoring that, the advertisers are paying to get their message out. There mere existence of the ad on the page is the actual service that is paying the bills. By blocking ads, you're essentially picking up a newspaper that have all the ads cut out, which is much less valuable (between advertiser and publication, anyway) than the copy of the paper where you simply ignore them. I occasionally hear the phrase "I never look at ads anyway" as weak justification, but people don't realize that's almost wholly irrelevant, especially compared to the verified delivery of said ad. It's common knowledge that ad networks want, and generally pay more for, clicks and actions, but simple CPM is still the most common rate/metric.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[houghi]

I use AdBlock and other systems to block as many ads as possible. I understand that they want money, but that is not my problem. I do not want ads on my PC. I do not want them on TV, I do not want them in the street or on my clothes. I do not want them.

I understand that they exist and I understand the reason as to why they exist, yet I still do not want them. I DO mind them to shoz them to me. They also do not need me to defend them or stand up for them and say that I would not mind text-ads, because I do.

I know it will never happen. I know they exist, but I will not say that I am ever OK with ads, because I do not want them.

Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock

[david_thornley]

You seem to be arguing that varying precision makes a moral difference. The City Pages gets its money from advertisers, and as far as I know nobody else. Once I pick it up, it is mine, and I can pay somebody to white-out the ads before I see them. I'm not required to look at any ad at all. Alternately, web advertisers can stick to ABP's criteria, and I will see (and mostly ignore) the ads.

Moreover, although printing and distributing newspapers is cheap, it's far more expensive than serving a few HTTP requests.

I have options. I can leave myself open to bandwidth-sucking malware, which I don't find attractive. Currently, I'm using ABP and not trying to evade any restrictions. If a site wants to make itself unavailable to people with ABP, that's their decision, their site, and I'm fine with not using it. If they make a request (the Atlantic showed me a polite request to enable ads on their page), I'll typically abide by it. I am sending HTTP requests to a server, and accepting what the server sends back to me.

Who likes Ads?

[no-body]

Aren't they a permanent annoyance?

One goes to a site for a certain purpose - to look/find/do something.
Then there are movements, popups, slideshows aside from the permanent - please give feedback/survey later-ones...
Visual beggars for attention, distractions, from the original purpose requiring extra effort and time to avoid/ignore/eliminate.

Who likes/needs those?

Suckers! On a very large part of the Internet, defying the original purpose of this great idea.

Born to be killed.

Re:Who likes Ads?

[no-body]

Who likes/needs those?

Who needs them? You do. ...

Nope, I sure don't and I have no idea what is in your head to make this kind of statement.

I have a web site, actually several. They are financed out of my own pocket without soliciting ANYTHING without consent of a user looking for service or product!
I do not track cookies, nor do I send out emails with tracking links.
IMO, that's the original spirit of the Internet - Universities, DARPA, UUNET and what else there was in the beginning. One paid a provider for access only.

How the current Internet with all that content would happen in that fashion is a good question.
Sucking on people in the current manner, be it on probing their habits and then targeting them for ads, throwing unsolicited content in their eyes and brains I consider as abusive.

Either people get used and tolerate this kind of stuff - dulling their senses with unnecessary and unasked input, or there will be eventually an end to it.
Personally, watching a video with a pre-ad showing, I turn the volume down and move the window away.

What is the success rate of all those ads in various fashions? Maybe one of thousands - and the remaining thousands - 1 dispraisers pay for it. That clearly is abusive behavior.

One can only speculate what impact all this has on human perception - all this constant blanking out of visual information. Long term I would think that there is a dulling affect on openness to visual input.

If adblockers no longer work, maybe it's time to look for something else to do than being sucked on.
I am definitely at a point to go elsewhere when this stuff thrown on me gets too much.

One has to think about the frame of mind the people have creating this stuff, how they think about their subjects being exposed to their products. Definitely something missing here on empathy or are there already robots at work?

Re:Who likes Ads?

[Darinbob]

That's silly. You think the entire world runs an advertising? Civilization grew up without incessant advertising. We got people to the moon without in-your-face malware ridden advertising. We built the internet without any advertising.

Advertisers used to, in the good old days, work their asses off to sell the ads. It was not free, they needed to have quality ads for companies to accept them, they needed ads that did not annoy their customers. Companies were picky and selective. You needed to be a good advertisers with good ads and respectful ads and you had to know your market and what your market liked. Today it is not the same on the internet, the companies open themselves up to whatever third party cheapass advertising services are out there, they don't pick and choose the ads, they just sign up and wait. They'll even let the advertisers design the web pages and infrastructures in many cases. The goal is to make it all automated; automatic serving of ads to unsuspecting victims, automatic delivery of revenue, automatic analytics so you don't need to know your market, etc. In this regard I don't see advertisers as the only evil going on here, but also the companies are at fault for allowing advertisers to have carte blanche without any oversight. What a tough moral decision: more revenue versus more responsibility.

Re:Who likes Ads?

[Darinbob]

In ancient times you advertised your own stuff. That is, you FIRST did something productive, and only after that did you add a tiny bit of advertising. Today it's the opposite, advertise the hell out of it first, then try to make it work buying second. Advertising is a major industrial sector today which is totally bizarre in my view.

Re:Who likes Ads?

[Bing Tsher E]

You are entitled to TRY to make money off your website.

We're entitled to not care if you don't.

Re:Who likes Ads?

[Pentium100]

Open your door, step outside. If you live in a city, chances are you'll see several ads immediately.

There are some billboards, but even the few animated ones do not produce sound, do not pop up in the middle of the street and do not slow my car down. Actually, I only notice them when I am standing at an intersection waiting for the light. Otherwise I am too busy looking at the road to notice the ads.

Watch sports? Watch ads.

Last time I was watching basketball, the advertisements were really not intrusive, they did not took my attention from watching the game.

Watch TV? Watch ads.

This is why I prefer to record the show and then watch it fast forwarding trough the ads.

Watch movies? Ads are now called product placement, watch them. It is beyond ridiculous.

Actually, I do not care about product placement. As long as it is not intrusive, if the character drinks a soft drink, it may as well be Coke or Pepsi instead of "brand name hidden", the car he drives may be Mercedes or Ford or whatever else, again, I do not care. Actually, I dislike when movies hide the brand name of some device or whatever, seems less realistic - I do not know of anyone who covers the labels of Coca-Cola and brand name of his stereo at home.

Of course, if the character suddenly starts talking about how tasty Coca-Cola is and how everyone should be drinking it with no relation to the plot, then I would care, but a charecter in a sitcom eating Pringles and drinking Coke - no problem whatsoever.

Re:Who likes Ads?

[Qbertino]

Aren't they a permanent annoyance?

Good targeted ads aren't that bad. I get information on products that interest me. Such as the recent slew of slashdot e-learning offerings. I actually bought one. Very nice. As for the standard mass-marketing rubbish: I hate it. It's the web and they're tracking me front, left and center (when I'm not using ghostery that is) - they should be able to target ads at me even with the big news sites.

My 2 cents.

Re:Who likes Ads?

[gnupun]

Fine. Then don't visit it, otherwise you're stealing...

Re:Who likes Ads?

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

You've got yourself a haiku:

A certain purpose
Aside from the permanent
Visual beggars

I guess they have that right. Bad idea though.

[91degrees]

I can totally understand that they don't like adblock. And I guess there's no reason they shouldn't bar them, if they feel it appropriate. They aren't part of the advertising industry, after all.

However, they are clearly operating in the same sphere. It would benefit the advertisers have both sides aware of the views of the other.

Looks like...

[Chris Mattern]

...they got ad blocked.

YEEEEEAAAAAHHHHH!

Think of the children!

[Virtucon]

IAB where advertisers learn from the Porn industry on how to implement effective click bait by using jail bait.

Business model has to change.

[ErichTheRed]

The problem with online ads now is how much CPU/battery/data they use up. Since people are desensitized to them now, the advertisers respond by making the ads more interactive, flashier and in-your-face, which eats all these resources. Your computer needs to run a million JavaScript snippets that go out to all sorts of web addresses to collect content, update cookies, etc.

I don't run ad blockers at some, simply because I'm not really bothered by them that much. But on my work PC, which is on a very slow connection (proxy server in another country,) I have to run them to make browsing tolerable. The problem is that if ads go away, people will need to pay for content. I doubt many people are under the illusion that Google is giving its massive amount of (very helpful) services for free. Given how helpful Google is to my daily work, I'd gladly pay a monthly fee for a "do not track me" version. But how many others would do the same?

Re:Business model has to change.

[Ol Olsoc]

The problem is that if ads go away, people will need to pay for content.

Good. Then the amalgamated pile of shit that teh intertoobz has become will shrink by quite a lot. Because most of the internet ain't worth shit.

Re:Business model has to change.

[gnupun]

Really? Are you ready for an internet consisting of only user forums (like slashdot) and the remaining 1000 paid-only sites?

A good chunk of the internet contains low-quality and free content (like those free newspaper stands in downtown). If you want high quality content, go to a bookstore or music store and pay $$$.

Re:Business model has to change.

[Darinbob]

Sounds good to me. Remember the world wasn't all that bad before the internet, and I'm saying that as someone who's been on the internet since the early 80s.

Re:Business model has to change.

[Ol Olsoc]

Really?

Really.

Are you ready for an internet consisting of only user forums (like slashdot) and the remaining 1000 paid-only sites?

My core use of the internet is mainly science and hobbyist sites. No Facebook, no Twitter, My antisocial media is Slashdot. I've bought from eBay, but not exclusively.

A good chunk of the internet contains low-quality and free content (like those free newspaper stands in downtown). If you want high quality content, go to a bookstore or music store and pay $$$.

And that book isn't going to make me look at ads for things I'm not wanting either.

This is not like "Die Internet, DIE!!" What i'm saying is that the standard model of put up a website, get some advertisement network to serve up ads, some innocent, and some malware, is badly broken. You can be served with so much junk, your browser slows to a crawl. You can get malware. You can be ad-stalked, you can get fake drive scans that tell you you have a virus, but don't worry, there's a company that will fix that for you for a fee you can end up with so many toolbars that they take up the entire screen with no room left for content.

If this was just a site or two, not really a problem. But when it's on these so called reputable site served up to you by a reputable ad network regularly and self entitledly demanding that you do it - yes, Virginia, there is a really really bad problem. If I go to a website, and get malware installed on my computer, it's their fault.

It's a world where a colleague found once that a 500 word textfile he needed resulted in 40 megabytes of crap placed on his smartphone. That crap can put you over your cap very quickly, and why should I or he have to pay overages in order to get more ads.

I've got a lot of grandmas running adblockers now. They call me because "My facebook isn't working right." a quick cleanup of the usual ad network installed malware, install addblock +, and they are happy campers. They now know that there are some sites they cannot access unless they turn off the adblocker. They've also been told that if they do, they'll be calling me again in a few weeks.

Ad-blockers are not only for cranks like myself any more. They have escaped into the mainstream. They are more important than anti virus software in keeping your system happy and safe. Without my adblocker, I'm Boom! outa here.

Re:no surprise it was on /. yesterday, either

[xevioso]

...while at the same time watching websites that provide you free content only because they can afford to do so because of their advertising revenue ALSO go to Hell on the fast track.

Was the conference in Russia?

[Wolfger]

...because in Russia, ads block you!

Re:Was the conference in Russia?

[fibonacci8]

So those in attendance can check out any time they want, but they can never leave?

Re:malware block plus is what I want

[StevenMaurer]

This is what AdBlock plus is. They're not against advertising. They're against intrusive advertising. Websites can apply to get their non-intrusive ads whitelisted from the program, so that they show up anyway. (Note: the criteria being used is much akin to the way ads were displayed in newspapers and print magazines.) An overwhelming majority of AdBlock users who responded to their survey said that this was the way to go, because everyone knows the content needs to be paid for.

Re: Open source discussion often isn't any better.

[loufoque]

There are also plenty of things you can say on Slashdot which will instantly convert your 10-year excellent karma into bad karma.
The problem is with technology providing bad modding and reputation systems.

Re: malware block plus is what I want

[loufoque]

On Linux, you install software from a trusted package repository.

On Windows, you install random crap from the Internet. The closest thing to a repository in the proprietary world is an app store. I believe Windows 10 might have one, though it's probably not well furnished at all due to it being initially designed for Metro apps exclusively.

Exciting New Technology!

[Thelasko]

The advertising industry has been collaborating with law enforcement on a new piece of technology. The Adblock Plus Blocker! It blocks Adblock Plus from ad industry conferences.

Will Adblock plus respond with an Adblock Plus Blocker Blocker?

Re:Exciting New Technology!

[The-Ixian]

Reminds me of the "Trace Buster" from The Big Hit

It would be a shame....

[dasgoober]

If/when these people left the convention to grab a bite to eat, or get drinks, that people came up to them and gave them sales pitches for things (movie scripts, viagra, sex toys, etc.) or if people knocked on their hotel doors late at night, to do the same..

Re:It would be a shame....

[swb]

That would be a pretty hilarious protest technique, to have some guy in a loud suit that held up a giant, bright LED sign in front of attendees faces and then moved it whenever they tried to look around it.

Hmmmm

[MitchDev]

So, the headline states : "Adblock Plus Blocked From Attending Online Ad Industry's Big Annual Conference"

Online advertisers have a conference where they gather, yet ISIS attacks innocent civilians instead?

Re:Hmmmm

[Darinbob]

Sharks don't eat sharks. It's professional courtesy.

Re:Hmmmm

[MitchDev]

Agreed, but if they wanted to recruit people, blow up the people everyone else hates too ;)

Re:no surprise it was on /. yesterday, either

[ceoyoyo]

That's fine. "Free" content is dishonest anyway. It's not free, the cost to you is just obscured. People now are wising up to the cost and deciding it's not worth it. Eventually everything will shake out, those sites that provide content worth paying for will figure out how to charge for it in a way people won't hate, and the rest will die.

/etc/hosts anyone?

[tgibson]

As an old-schooler, I've been using a modified hosts file. Are there any distinct advantages to using ad-blocking software over a hosts file?

Re:/etc/hosts anyone?

[Thelasko]

As an old-schooler, I've been using a modified hosts file. Are there any distinct advantages to using ad-blocking software over a hosts file?

Ad-blocking software updates the list automatically. Typically some sort of script needs to be used to do this with a host file.

I've been thinking about switching to the host method myself. I'm looking to use the very host file you posted on my router. Since I am a networking novice, I haven't figured out how to do that yet.

Re:/etc/hosts anyone?

[squiggleslash]

ABP does things like block sponsored tweets in Twitter and other ads that don't fit the normal "Use 3rd party server" model.

I'd be wary of hosts files in general, they're easily bypassed by advertisers and malware companies, either by using dynamic hostnames (xyzrandomstuff123.domainicontrol.com) or IP addresses.

Re:/etc/hosts anyone?

[Darinbob]

Yes, that's important. I was thinking about getting some hosts into my router because my tv+roku has no adblock (only ever necessary for youtube). But it's a complicated manual process, and I'd have to document exactly what I did, remember to update it periodically in case anything changed, and so forth. Much more work than using a plugin.

Re:/etc/hosts anyone?

[thejynxed]

Instead of trying to mount an entire hosts file in your router, for your specific use case you'd be better off just finding out the IP ranges of the Youtube ad servers and creating firewall rules to block/drop the traffic to just those.

There is a reason

[sectokia]

The ad companies have a new product which is basically they run your website instead of you, allowing the ads to come from the same domain as regular content, effectively making ad block ineffective, as it won't be able to distinguish between content and ads. They have no interest at all in letting ad block learn about this product. Ad block only go to the event to essentially extort money anyway, saying they will allow non intrusive ads, in reality you just pay them money and you get on their white list.

Re:There is a reason

[swb]

I'm wondering why this hasn't been done already to deter adblocking.

It seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to have some kind of server-side process that pulled the ad content on demand and then served it up as if it was local content, versus just the javascript they add to the web page to pull up the ads from remote domains.

With a little caching, it might even speed up page display because the content is coming from an existing http connection and not from a secondary connection with setup lag.

Re:There is a reason

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't do it that way because they need tracking. Whoever purchases the ads wants statistics on how many people viewed the ad and on click-throughs. The ad company can't promise that the data's accurate if it's all pulled by some other website.

Re:There is a reason

[Darinbob]

If that is what Adblock Plus is doing then they're not very effective at it. I have seen no ads with APB, non-intrusive or otherwise. 100% ads block, I don't see how something else would do a better. It works, it does the job, it's easy to use, so why change just because a few people think that APB isn't as pure as it could be?

Re:There is a reason

[Darinbob]

They will eventually I think. Right now it's a lot of work for them. They already get tons and tons of free money by sucking at other people's bandwidth, it would just hurt the bottom line if they reinvested in R&D. So yes, the advertising industry is just as short sighted and incompetent as everyone else in the "tech" industry.

More practically, it's a big change in their model. They exist as a third-party, loosely integrated with another site. They sell the idea to the content creator that they only need to add a few scripts then just sit back and wait for revenue to roll in. If instead they required the content creator to give the third party advertiser more direct control over the web server it becomes so much more complicated. The web site owner would start paying more attention to what's happening, and notice what's really going on ("hey, that's malware in that last ad you had!", "why do we need to promote hygiene products again?", "what do you mean I don't have permission to change my files?").

Re:There is a reason

[swb]

I don't really know how all this works, but I would assume it could work mostly like it does now.

Client connects to web site
Web site collects all the same client data that would be collected by the ad site now
Web site passes this data on back channel to ad site
Ad site does it's "dynamic" thing and returns the ad it would have otherwise fed to the end user browser
Web site delivers ad content returned from back channel transaction with web site

I'm not sure how much less accurate the data would be in this scenario, as the ad site still gets whatever info the web site gets from the client, it just collects it indirectly on the back channel connection.

I guess the only thing the ad site is missing is the ability to set and read tracking cookies, which maybe is hugely important in the scheme of ad networks. And possibly a trust issue, if the web site is being paid each time they present an ad, since it would be possible for the back channel transaction to happen but a different or no ad presented to the client.

Maybe this could be provided as a "premium" service to "better" customers who wanted to foil ad blockers more by being able to present ads from their own domain/site.

Re:There is a reason

[sectokia]

The issue is that the advertiser has no way to prove the hits are legitimate, the hoster can simply request ads even if they don't actually result in an impression.

Re:There is a reason

[sectokia]

The website could simply make up fake hits. Generate random data and pass it on and get paid for it. The reason ads are on their own server is that the hoster of the web page can't trick the ad company.

Re:There is a reason

[sectokia]

Actually the product will win even against that. From what i have seen its a word press like system. For example pictures on the site and adds would both have random strings as url's. So knowing what is and isn't content becomes next to impossible - yippy would have to have some smart algorithm to detect add by image processing. But yeah its all an arms race. Ad block should consider better croud sourcing. Allow people to tag ads, which is done at a visual level, not a url level.

Re:There is a reason

[radarskiy]

Adblock Plus is already effective against this. I use it to block non-ad components of site that are annoying, such as superfluous videos, boxes with links to related article, etc.

You what isn't effective at blocking ads that come from the same domain as the content? HOST files. 8-)

Re:There is a reason

[Ash-Fox]

Do I then get to sue the website owner for damages for infecting me with drive by malware delivered directly from their controlled domain and server?

You have always had that right, whether or not you'll win in court is another matter.

Re:There is a reason

[Ash-Fox]

They don't do it that way because they need tracking.

One of the advertising firms that one of the sites I use actually provides a front-end caching proxy that inserts advertising into the content. This is a superior method of advertising injection and tracking.

Re:There is a reason

[FunkSoulBrother]

They had no way to prove this either when they spent thousands to take out an ad in the Chicago Tribune in 1985, yet they happily purchased such ads and the newspaper flourished. What has changed?

The newspaper/billboard/TV/radio advertiser has no idea whether they got an 'impression' on me, why does the web advertiser feel entitled to this?

The last group

[Ol Olsoc]

they would want to not invite.

Doe the IAB have a wish for the internet to continue to be viable according to their model? If so, then it is critical that they come up with a paradigm that gets people to accept advertising. The present day Internet is now darn near unusable. The few occasions I have accidentally fotgotten to turn my ad blocker back on, it felt like I was on a 14.4K modem. NO! I did not pay for a fast line to be served that shit sammich.

And on my smartphone, It doesn't take much time to run me over my cap, so I almost never access the internet with it except when on wifi. I don't want to pay overage charges just to get the secret that a Pensylvania housewife found that's driving insurance companies crazy.

So if say Forbes won't let me see their website unless I turn off my adblocker? Sorry Forbes, but fuck you. How many ads will I see if I don't read your pages at all, and how many ads are you going to sell if no one else is looking at your website because you won't let them. I'll just add forbes.com to my hosts file

And if we get to a world where we aren't allowed to use adblockers at all, well, good luck with that. I'll find other things to do with my time.

In the end, I call the shots, not the Amalgamated Malware Providers Association. Your guano is not welcome on my computer.

Keep your friends close, your enemies closer

[seoras]

Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. No?
I wouldn't want to have been the AB+ rep attending, left alone in the corner feeling like a pork pie at a Jewish wedding...
It was an act of kindness.

Re:malware block plus is what I want

[Billly Gates]

You have to unregister it with the appstore. Otherwise it will be on the tiles for your kids to reclick to get it installed. FYI when an app is uninstalled it should be fully off your system. I mean apps BTW and not applications.

Did your kids get VLC from cnet or an internet search? Many will use SEO and get a legitimate version and put a trojan wrapper on it.

Go to pc settings -> user accounts -> and set your kids accounts to standard user. Then they can't install apps or applications. Weatherbug should not be in the app store if it is harmful.

Re:malware block plus is what I want

[Billly Gates]

Last time your kids installed VLC, they downloaded it from some sketchy site like CNet or Sourceforge that packaged it with a malware installer. VLC is available from videolan.org. Accept no substitutes.

The same applies to anything you download. If you can't verify the source of the download, don't trust it. Just don't install it. This is entirely on you, and that's not just for Windows. Windows makes it abundantly clear that it's your responsibility to keep your system clean when downloading new apps.

Linux users are easily lulled into a false sense of security by the combination of Linux being a low-payout target that isn't generally worth hitting and the relatively trustworthy apt/yum/whatever package repositories. But downloading from some crapware site is the same as downloading from some random repository. A Linux user that goes back to Windows will probably be much more likely to trust a download source than they should be, just because they've stopped thinking like a target. Prey, once tamed, can't be released back into the wild, or it will be caught and eaten very quickly. Linux users, once indoctrinated, can't be released back to Windows-land, or they will be flooded with malware very quickly.

TL;DR: You've changed, not Windows. Windows isn't any more vulnerable than anything else, it's just a bigger, juicier target.

What kind of messed up world where sourceforge is shady?? Most projects still are only hosted by them. How do I know if it is a compromised version or not?

Badge of Honor

[emaname]

I'd print that email out, frame it, and hang it on my wall.

Kudos to you, AB+!

Re:malware block plus is what I want

[laurencetux]

easy for you

https://ninite.com/firefox-vlc...

Ninite is a very cool speed/bulk installer Just [that app|those apps] get installed (or updated) no toolbars extra programs or browser hijacks.

if you have a few computers its worth it to stump for a Pro installer (btw you get extra choices in Pro mode including Flash)

Re:malware block plus is what I want

[mark-t]

A Linux user that goes back to Windows will probably be much more likely to trust a download source than they should be

Just the opposite, I would think. A Linux user that goes back to Windows is much more likely to only be installing applications from a limited number of providers that they have deemed trustworthy, having become accustomed to doing so in Linux.

Re:malware block plus is what I want

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of messed up world where sourceforge is shady?? Most projects still are only hosted by them. How do I know if it is a compromised version or not?

Since sometime last year, at least. Sourceforge can no longer be trusted.

Re: Open source discussion often isn't any better.

[KGIII]

That one seems unlikely. In fact, I had one guy who was determined to downvote every post I made. Meta-moderation made it so he went to three points to no points. I don't know if he's earned any karma back but you can rest assured that I say anything I want and exactly what I want to say on this site. Joke 'em if they can't take a fuck.

I said it, I own it, and I accept the repercussions. I hardly even post AC and I ID myself when I do. Fuck 'em. Someone likes what I have to say - I've held the highest karma ranking possible for years, even with concerted efforts to change that.

Re:no surprise it was on /. yesterday, either

[KGIII]

I am, without bragging, well within the 1% by US standards. In fact, I'm probably closer to the top .5% because I sold my business, gave a bunch away, and then invested the rest which (somehow) made me have more wealth than ever before. (I'm not sure how that works - I actually keep making more money than I can reasonably spend so I give a bunch away. Meh, it lowers my tax burden.)

Anyhow, put a fucking link on your site and set a damned cookie. I visit MAYBE 30 sites regularly. I used to pay Slashdot but they somehow at a bit of money in a week - I was drunk so the fault is probably mine. However, put a fucking link up. "Ad free for a year - cookie or login, $XX only." If I like the site? I'll pay it.

This may sound unusual to most people but I actually go out of my way to reward sites that I find helpful. It's not uncommon for me to contact the author, get their PayPal address, and send 'em a hundred bucks. I do the same thing for open source projects - projects that I don't even use. There are all sorts of distros that get "anonymous" donations - I don't even use them. Why? Someone has to support them and I appreciate what they're doing.

Figure it out and I *will* pay you, I will pay you handsomely, for good content. On an average week, not counting my regular donations, I probably gift about $200 - $300 to random sites that are doing something neat. Hell, I've been trying to pay uMatrix/uBlock guy for a while now. He won't take my money. I offered him $5000 USD as a gift - no strings attached, because I felt I'd had that much use from it. Nope... Won't take a nickel.

Figure it out and I'll pay you.

Re:malware block plus is what I want

[NormalVisual]

What kind of messed up world where sourceforge is shady?? Most projects still are only hosted by them. How do I know if it is a compromised version or not?

It's been like that for a couple of years. GIMP and FileZilla are probably the two highest-profile packages associated with SF shenanigans. As far as how you'd know it's compromised, I don't really have a good answer. The issues are with the installer Sourceforge uses (and SF's handling of abandoned projects), so the best bet may be to download the source and compile it yourself for those packages that aren't available elsewhere.

Re:KGIII it's like abp shills vs. me here... apk

[KGIII]

I concur. In fact, I've said it before - a hosts file is a good step. I'm just too lazy and prefer a more refined approach. I used to use hosts files extensively.

But yeah, I think I "won" that round. They seem to have run out of mod points. I can only conclude that if they get so many mods reversed by meta moderation that they stop giving them. It went from five, every day or two, to three every few days, then three once a week or more, and now - none. I can tell 'cause they were just going in order. Dumb asses.

Use Chocolatey for no-crapware installs

[xenoc_1]

Look into Chocolatey for installing most Windows Open Source and many free-as-in-beer but not open-source software. Conceptually very much like apt-get.

Even for software still hosted on now-evil sourceforge like FileZilla, it bypasses all the crapware wrappers.

Once chocolatey is installed, you do everything through an elevated command prompt, much like "sudo apt-get install filezilla" but literally "choco install filezilla" and upgrade as "choco upgrade filezilla".

Not everything has a chocolatey package but you'd be surprised how many programs do.

https://chocolatey.org/

Re: Open source discussion often isn't any better.

[KGIII]

It is a badge of honor.

Re:malware block plus is what I want

[sjames]

A world that runs primarily on money and desperation.

Re:malware block plus is what I want

[Billly Gates]

FileZilla was bought by a bitcoin mining company or malware company. I certainly would not install it now.

Re:Ad blocking is rediculous

[danbob999]

The whole idea of ad blocking is ridiculous. If you don't like ads, then don't view ad-supported content. Simple as that.

I hope you always watch all commercials on TV. If you don't like them, don't watch TV.
Never fast-forward them (if recorded on DVR) go to the toilet during the commercial.

When you read a magazine, I hope you never skip a page with only ads.

That would be as unacceptable as blocking ads on the web.

Re:Open source discussion often isn't any better.

[epyT-R]

I would go further and say that this is a societal problem. Feelings, consensus, and group loyalty matter more than facts, rationality, and truth.

Re:You = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. this

[amicusNYCL]

Stop APK Spam

Perspective

[DrYak]

the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.

The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.

It's a problem of perspective (again the BSD's freedom vs. GPL's freedom debate all over...)

For ME AS A USER/READ:
- I just click on a link, I don't pay, I get content, It's free (for me as a end-user, reader).
- If I don't use adblock : it's the same (from my point of view).
- If I do use adblock : it's also the same (minus all the flashing/blking/noisy/fullscreen annoyance)
- If I do use uBlock AND privacy badger : it's also the same (though my identity doesn't get stolen).
- If I do use uBlock AND privacy badger AND NoScript : it's still the same (though It's much harder to drive-by corrupt/infect my browser, at the cost of slightly broken UX)

No matter what, I still get my content simply with clicking, no payment required. It's free (as in beer. Gratis).

It's for the publisher that things change:
- if readers don't use anything : the publisher seemingly handed content for free, put actually get money back by selling the crap out of its users.
- if readers uses AdBlock / uBlock, etc: the publisher handed something out for free, and doesn't get much back, beyond some marketing analysis of readership, that can still be sold for money to sponsors
- if readers use uBlock, PrivacyBAdger, NoScript, Tor, etc. : publisher is screwed. They did hand content for free as usual, but this time they can't sell anything about the user to make some buck.

But from the users' point of view, nothing change the price paid for the content. It was 0$ before ad blocking, its still 0$ after.

So the argument that "suddenly the users discovers they can haz something for free" that was mentioned above is invalid.
They already got it for free (i.e.: gratis, without needing to pay any dollars) before.

What change is their experience of the web :
- before, it was an awful place with marketeer trying to push obnoxious ads as hard as possible. Making the result, distracting, ugly, noisy, not user friendly, slowing down loading time, and costing a fucking lot more on bandwidth. (actually costing more than what the publisher makes up, but that's another debate).
- after : web is finally a bit saner place, where you can actually get the content you want and nothing useless more.

You can have security vulnerabilities by visiting an ad-free page that uses JavaScript. Hell there are exploits in CSS.

That's why the more paranoid people don't stop at AdBlock/uBlock but keep other blocking of Javascript and plugins: NoScript or Flashgot, etc.

Re:Perspective

[Merk42]

the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.

The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.

It's a problem of perspective (again the BSD's freedom vs. GPL's freedom debate all over...)

For ME AS A USER/READ: - I just click on a link, I don't pay, I get content, It's free (for me as a end-user, reader). - If I don't use adblock : it's the same (from my point of view). - If I do use adblock : it's also the same (minus all the flashing/blking/noisy/fullscreen annoyance) - If I do use uBlock AND privacy badger : it's also the same (though my identity doesn't get stolen). - If I do use uBlock AND privacy badger AND NoScript : it's still the same (though It's much harder to drive-by corrupt/infect my browser, at the cost of slightly broken UX)

No matter what, I still get my content simply with clicking, no payment required. It's free (as in beer. Gratis).

It's for the publisher that things change: - if readers don't use anything : the publisher seemingly handed content for free, put actually get money back by selling the crap out of its users. - if readers uses AdBlock / uBlock, etc: the publisher handed something out for free, and doesn't get much back, beyond some marketing analysis of readership, that can still be sold for money to sponsors - if readers use uBlock, PrivacyBAdger, NoScript, Tor, etc. : publisher is screwed. They did hand content for free as usual, but this time they can't sell anything about the user to make some buck.

But from the users' point of view, nothing change the price paid for the content. It was 0$ before ad blocking, its still 0$ after.

So the argument that "suddenly the users discovers they can haz something for free" that was mentioned above is invalid. They already got it for free (i.e.: gratis, without needing to pay any dollars) before.

Your whole argument is based on the notion that a direct payment of money is the only way to pay for content. This is inherently not the case with ads (you view the ads, the advertisers pay for the content). If someone gives you a choice between A or B you can't say "Well, I'm going to do neither since you technically offer notB and notA and I'm opting for both of those."

What change is their experience of the web : - before, it was an awful place with marketeer trying to push obnoxious ads as hard as possible. Making the result, distracting, ugly, noisy, not user friendly, slowing down loading time, and costing a fucking lot more on bandwidth. (actually costing more than what the publisher makes up, but that's another debate). - after : web is finally a bit saner place, where you can actually get the content you want and nothing useless more.

and the time and money spent to create that content is funded by...?

Re:malware block plus is what I want

[ruir]

Really? Last time I tried to reinstall XP the old desktop of wife, because of malware, and which is old beyond belief, I ended up infected with malware just with the zip of the driver of the NIC card. It was a very good excuse to install Linux on it and solve the problem for good. Trustworthy providers, in Windows, sure...

Re:no surprise it was on /. yesterday, either

[nytes]

Getting something for free means that you are not the customer, you are the product.

This may have delayed the apocalypse!

[Cito]

If they weren't blocked we would have hit a real world recursive fork bomb that would have locked up the universe forcing a reboot since we'd be unable to /etc/init.d/universe restart

Ads which block Adblock who blocks Ads which block Adblock who blocks Ads which block Adblock who blocks Ads which block Adblock who blocks Ads which block Adblock who blocks Ads which block Adblock who blocks Ads which block Adblock who blocks Ads which block Adb¾}RÂJűÂtÂ'TTÂ`ŽU Ââï½tÅlÅ"OÃx. }uwÃXm¾/Æ'ÃsÃbÂâ¦8\ÂÂUÃ"LÂPÃ(ËoeÃS~yno¦}Ãn]Â#Âl;˱4Z`ÃâIÂÂfÃnÃSæÃNÃÃÃ%Âp\nÃBAt)DÂâsÂÃ--Ã--Åp~%émÃsgÂÃÃ--ÃuÂÃÃÃ"ÃÂ7®ÂÃ"ÃÃflîÂÃÂÂÃOEýÅ"`! ÃOEHDþx_hmÃcÃ'oâÃsÂJÃ'¼'-ÃÂ+5ÃfÃ2ÃÅ"ÃAÃâËâÂ¥eþ_ÃÃoe5bËoeÂ¥âxU¦bÃf(9®âzÃ¥ÂZâÃzÃz:âÂ(KÃSÂâoe Ãz5ÃÃÃÃ'ÂÅÅ"ÂÃ...pÃÂR
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Re:malware block plus is what I want

[bazorg]

Interesting. Where did you download VLC from? (URL please).

As for the "list service" that vets what software can be installed and what cannot, Windows RT worked exclusively like that. People didn't like it much even if they use it on all other non-Windows OSs.

Re:LMAO - You're still wasting your time?

[omnichad]

You pay for their air with your taxes?

Re:For your erroneous blowhard hot air

[omnichad]

YOU PUT OUT THE WRONG ORDER FOR HOSTS BLOCKING or HARDCODING in hosts, stupid

Well I'd better get my syntax right - what if someone tried to paste my comment into a HOSTS file. No, I don't live and breathe HOSTS, and by default it comes with documentation in the comments within the file itself. I don't even block ads, so I pay the "taxes" for your Slashdot.

What's next, requiring an opening tag for a </sarcasm> tag? Renaming Slashdot to ./ (for current events)?

Re:For your erroneous blowhard hot air

[omnichad]

Yes, APK's opinion of me is my life. If you don't approve, I will immediately jump off a bridge.

Maybe omnichad should talk about himself in the third person. DO you think that will get omnichad to feel like he has supporters? Will it give omnichad magic powers such that whenever his name is called, omnichad will be invoked as if a demonic force in the world and rain fire down?

Maybe I should RANDOMLY capitalize WORDS and put some in bold for good measure.

omnichad

P.S. => You are universally seen as a troll here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter whether you are right or not. You don't treat people right.

Re:For your erroneous blowhard hot air

[omnichad]

you're universally seen as a massive loser

Funny, you only quote yourself (both talking in first person and 3rd-person) - not very universal. I could quote dozens if not hundreds of people who consider you a troll. I could, but I really don't think it's worth my time. But I invite you to do it yourself.

blows a lot of hot erroneous windbag blowhard air

This is genuinely hilarious. I'm not sure how a scrambled line of air-related words is supposed to form a coherent thought, but it's really entertaining.

Again, USER perspective.

[DrYak]

Your whole argument is based on the notion that a direct payment of money is the only way to pay for content.

No. Nope. NOT AT ALL.
I think you didn't get what I'm trying to convey. (Maybe because English isn't my first language. Not even my second).

My argument isn't based on the notion that direct payment is the only to pay for content.
My argument is that, IN THE MIND OF THE END-USER, a direct payment is the only "way to pay for content" *that the user will pecieve as a payment*. Everything else, for the end-user seems "hidden" and thus is quickly considered as "free".
(Even if, as repeatedly shown "There's no such thing as a free lunch" - everything has a cost and a value, even it's not obvious because it's hidden behind a very indirect and convoluted relationship).

BUT the only thing that a user car is "do I need to get my wallet/credit card out of my pocket ? - Yes, then it's paying. - No then it's "free".

And most user aren't anymore interested beyond this point. They only care about NOT needing to take the wallet/credit card out.

For an end user, Windows is as free (gratis, I mean) as Linux is (gratis, again. I'm not speaking about the whole freedom concept. Stupid buggy English language use 1 word for 3 meaning).
The end user don't really think about "Microsoft Tax". Windows came with on the computer without needing to get the wallet out an extra time to get it. There fore, in the users' eyes "Windows comes free with".

So "I get my content for free" was already the case from the point of view of users.
So the argument that started this forum thread, "that adblock users find a way to get something for free" in my opinion doesn't hold. They didn't need to get the wallet out, so for all their concerns they will call the content already "free" even before AdBlock. Because not getting the wallet out is the only thing they care about.

AdBlock had nothing to do with this "freenes". And has everything to do with :
- Ads, specially the blinking, animated, loud, pop-up, fullscreen one are obnoxious and disrupt the user's flow
- Ads are extra shit that needs to be downloaded, and therefore "make the internet slower" for the user.
- Ads are extra shit that needs to de downloaded, and therefore are counted on the data plan of the user. It's more bandwith that the user need to pay fore, and therefore they perceive the internet getting more expensive because of ads (and there's some research showing that, in the grand scheme of things, they indeed lose money. The costs passed to the user: additional bandwidth, time, etc. might very well be outweighting the gain of the publisher using ads as a business model to pay for the content).
- Ads are a potential security risk: they don't depend on good user behaviour, they don't depend on good reputable content publisher, they dependant on yet a 3rd party (the ads provider) and the even less known ad maker (who might be a crook making a purpose crafted flash virus).

This is inherently not the case with ads (you view the ads, the advertisers pay for the content).

The *advertisers* pay for (the readship of their ads, due to the popularity of the given-for-free-to-the-user) content to the *content provider/publisher*.
Money goes from *advertisers* to *content provider/publisher*.
*End-users* don't see anything of it. It might as well not exist from their perspective. From their point of view, the only thing they care about: they didn't need to take the credit card out, they consider it as "free".

So the argument "Adblock enables the freeloader to grab something for free" doesn't hold.
They got it without getting the wallet out before, they got it without wallet after. For all they care, it's always been free for them.

and the time and money spent to create that content is funded by...?

- ...not perceived by the end users.

-

Re:Again, USER perspective.

[Merk42]

So because the user has a flawed concept on how a thing gets funded, it shouldn't get funded? Hm this road I drive on isn't a toll road, therefore it shouldn't be paid by the government either.

- ...could be as well paid by other more direct means (I do use various things as flattr, patreon, participating in crowdfunding, paying "pro access" or becoming "paid subscriber" for content that I like and/or depend on and/or would be missing if I wouldn't have access to).

it's nice that you support subscriptions, but they have issues. I have to have a subscription to every site I may stumble across now? Paying per article would probably be too small to charge to a card without more of it being in fees.

- ...for a long time of history was indeed paid this way. That's the whole concept about patronage. You're a rich european nobleman or bourgeois. You pay a few artist SO THAT they can produce content.

Essentially the rich are in control of what content exists? That's a scary thought.

Re:Again, USER perspective.

[cwsumner]

... Essentially the rich are in control of what content exists? That's a scary thought.

The rich were always in control of most content. No one else cared and it was too expensive to publish.

Modern technology, starting with the printing press, has made it more practical for others to publish. With the internet it is almost easy.

But never think that the rich don't exert some control.
And most people still don't care...

Re:Again, USER perspective.

[david_thornley]

DrYak described the experience of the user very well, and you're just calling it invalid, based on an imaginary contract which doesn't hold anywhere else.

Broadcast TV lived on nothing but advertising. Nobody felt the need to sit through all the commercials. They could be used for bathroom breaks or to grab a snack or something. Have you ever looked carefully at a newspaper? It's thousands and thousands of words written reasonably competently, with some research behind it. It's often available for something like fifty cents, which is ridiculously low. Newspapers run ads to support most of the operation. Some, more minor, newspapers are available at no cost to the reader. Nobody feels the need to look at the ads, although people often do because the ads are usually relevant to the section of the paper they're in, and they don't make it hard to read the paper.

If nobody feels the obligation to pay attention to the advertising on media supported mostly or entirely by advertising anywhere else, why should anybody feel the obligation to let web ads in?

Oh spare me the bullshit.

[Chas]

Please come back to me when manually fucking around with your hosts file is easy and effortless as adblock is for the average clueless non-power-user.

Re:My program makes hosts refined & easy

[KGIII]

Your program doesn't work with my OS. I do, technically, still use hosts - they're an option in uMatrix. Grab a copy of uMatrix and look in the settings. They're there but *specifically* only browser oriented. As I let my machine only do what I instruct it to do, I'm okay with that. With HTML5, I'll probably end up going back to managing the damned hosts file again. I really, really, with we had Outpost Personal Firewall (now sold and to be closed at the end of 2016) for Linux. I also wish hosts supported wild cards. I prefer a much more refined blocking.

Re:Practice what ya preach adblock shill

[amicusNYCL]

Sorry APK, but I have a policy of not responding to posts where you refer to yourself in the third person. You still think you're fooling someone and it's not even remotely amusing. Take care.

Re:LMAO - You're still wasting your time?

[amicusNYCL]

Not a single person here is interested in trying to prove you wrong, including myself (go ahead, find a single instance where I've said anything about the validity of using a hosts file). The only thing I'm interested in regarding you is stopping your spam. That's all. You think you're playing some game with me or other people but you don't realize that you're the only one playing, you think that everyone is out to try and prove you wrong. No one gives a shit. Sorry to put it like that, but no one gives a shit about you APK. I'd love to see a Slashdot without the incessant ramblings of a proven spammer, that's all. You're clearly not interested in just not being a spammer though. Why? I have no idea, truly. I have no idea what possesses a spammer to spam. I don't understand the spammer mindset.

Separate subject.

[DrYak]

So because the user has a flawed concept on how a thing gets funded, it shouldn't get funded?

No. You're mixing two different subjects:

A. Because the typical end-user has a flawed concept on how a thing gets funded, means that you can't pin the reason the users is unknowingly disrupting the (broken) funding mecanism on "wanting to get content for free". The users was already getting it for free in their mind.

That is why I started answering in this thread, and that is what you seemingly fail to understand I'm trying to convey.
Several posts upward you said:

No, what has happened, is people have found a way to get a thing for free. This is not a novel idea. If you can get $thing or $thing for free (and the exact same $thing), which one do you think people will choose?

What I'm trying to say is that, in the present situation, in the end-users mind both are "$thing for free". The user is completely unable to understand that one of the two wasn't actually "for free". (Due to "flawed concept" as you mention).
What I'm trying to convey for the past several post, is that for users, both are exactly the same (they think it's "$thing for free" in both case) and thus there is no incentive to "get a thing for free". They didn't find "a way to get a thing for free". It's not new to them, to them it was free already even before adblock.

B. *I PERSONALLY* think it shouldn't get funded, because of the horrendous and stupid way the content provider has decided to fund it.
If this causes the content to disappear (behind a paywall, or go out of business), well good ridance, I won't be missing it.
There's plenty of other content that I don't care about either that I can stumble upon as well.

But I personally think that ads are nearly as bad as SPAM. (The only difference necessitating the "nearly" is that in case of SPAM, the product advertised is almost always garanteed to be awful, even the maker knows it, that's why they are counting on awful tactics to get it sold. Whereas some of the content supported by ads instead of being in the "it's disgusting" level can sometime be only in the "I don't care that much about it" level).

Therefor, just as I think as SPAM is something that needs to die, I also think that advertising is something that I'd rather not be exposed to.

Only the strategy of *how* to to be exposed to ads change.
- If it's something I genuinely care about and are actively seeking as a content : then I use my wallet, so the author isn't forced to expose me to ads just to be able to afford to eat.
- If it's something that I don't care about, I simply shield my self from the ads (ublock and privacy badger and noscript) which isn't that much different from taking a pee during the commercial break or fast forwarding them on the VCR (yup, I really said VCR. That in it self shows you how much often I expose my self to the TV in recent years).

Hm this road I drive on isn't a toll road, therefore it shouldn't be paid by the government either.

Not exactly. In the "A" part above (The one I'm using to respond to your "AdBlock was invented because people want $things for free" model mentioned above)

It's more among the lines of:
- this road isn't a toll road. Therefor it's surely free for me anyway. I don't need to do anything about it! I got a road for free! Yay!
and separately:
- I hate tax! Taxes suck! I've had worked hard to earn my pay! Why should the evil government come and steal my hard earned pay from me ?! Fuck taxes, I don't need them
- (User don't realise the link between this two parts).
Therefore you can't use "Users want toll-free roads for free, that's why the are avoiding to pay taxes" argument.

Also note:
- From my impression online, there seem to be tons of people thinking the "I hate tax, fuck taxes, stop stealing my hard earned cash" though, specially in the US, less here around in EU.
- the tax example is a

Re:Give up: You can't prove apk wrong

[amicusNYCL]

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Apk makes you all look funny and stupid

[omnichad]

Is that all one sentence or just word vomit?

Re:LMAO - You're still wasting your time?

[amicusNYCL]

You're clearly an adblock shill and can't prove apk wrong going off topic calling him spammer and he's not.

"I'm not a spammer", said the spammer.

http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:LMAO - You're still wasting your time?

[amicusNYCL]

Do something as good as he has.

Should I post some spam 30+ times in each comment thread advertising a piece of software that no one is asking for?

You can't prove him wrong

Like I said, APK, I am not even having a discussion with you about the merits of host files. I don't think anyone is, for that matter, I don't know why you think you're in some contest about being proven right vs. wrong. That's not what any of this is about. This is about you spamming Slashdot. That's all it's ever been about. You're so obsessed with whether or not your ideas about hosts files are right or wrong that you don't even notice that no one cares.

modding him constantly so he reposts

AKA, spamming. The community says, in a fairly loud voice, that we do not want to see your advertisements. People with mod points use them to deal with your malicious behavior. You respond by continuing your malicious behavior and trying to work around the blocking. That is what spammers do. You are a spammer, by definition. I'm legitimately at a loss to explain why if you don't understand that. I think you do understand what you are and you just don't care because, again, you think you're involved in some sort of right vs. wrong contest when people only want your spam to end.

he outsmarts you and beats you at your game every time

So, these days intelligence means posting your spam more times than people have mod points to spend? That's what passes for intelligence in your world? Yikes.

Posting days later to get the last word on your end is a joke too.

I like how this line is part of a message posted 3 days after the comment thread happened. This is what we call "irony".

Re:Quoting "the community" moron... apk

[amicusNYCL]

Good lord, APK. OK, you have a single person who likes your spam (notice that he still calls it spam!!). What do you want to do, do you want to make a poll for the Slashdot homepage about your spam, asking if people enjoy seeing it here?

you can't manage to prove my points on hosts wrong either

I'm not trying to! You still don't understand that? Why don't you understand that if you're so smart?

Re:LMAO - You're still wasting your time?

[amicusNYCL]

I have 1 account here on Slashdot, APK. You apparently have multiple personalities. That is not the same thing as supporters.

Re:Explain these quotes too AmicusNYCL

[amicusNYCL]

Real /. users say otherwise LOUDER:

Real users are the people modding you down, APK. Those downmods speak volumes. That is someone actively taking the time to use a limited resource to make sure that other people don't have to see your trash. If that isn't a vote against your spam, then I don't know what is. If you think that I actually take the time to register multiple accounts and post enough comments with those accounts to get modded up and then get mod points myself on those accounts, then you think way too highly of yourself. I have a single account here, and this is it. Frequently (like right now!) I'll be given 15 modpoints and don't even use them before they expire. I have 15 points that will expire on the 29th. That's it. I rarely find things that I feel needed to be moderated by me. Other people see your spam and decide that they want to mod that, other people feel that your spam is a good use of their limited mod points. I usually post in those topics instead, so obviously I can't use my mod points there.

P.S.=> Which of these do you represent:

1.) Advertiser
2.) Webmaster
3.) Inferior competitor
4.) Malware maker/Botnet herder

None of those describe me. If you think I'm an advertiser then you haven't paid attention to my posts, which is highly probable since you typically just ignore what people say and instead only pay attention to the running narrative in your own delusional mind. I don't know what "webmaster" means, but I don't build or manage my companies' public web sites (other than running the servers) and we do not use online advertising to promote our business. I am not a competitor of Adblock, inferior or otherwise. And I'm not the bad actor here either. You know what else I'm not? A spammer. You're the spammer, APK, I'm the one trying to stop you. How about that, huh? You're trying to talk so tough about security and protection, but in reality you're the spammer and I'm the one trying to stop your spam. Weird how that works out.

This comment thread is going to be automatically closed soon, so I'm not going to look to see if you've replied here (and, being that you don't bother to register an account that will only get down-modded, I get no notice that you've replied anyway). The next time a story about blocking ads pops up I'll be sure to check in and compile the next list of spam to report to Steve.