Slashdot Mirror
Online Ad Czar Berates Adblockers As Freedom-Hating 'Mafia' (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Randall Rothenburg, the president and CEO of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has made a speech branding the creators of Adblock Plus (who were banned from the conference where he made this keynote) as "rich and self-righteous," and accused adblockers of subverting freedom of the press. Speaking at the IAB's annual conference, Rothenburg characterized the Adblock Plus team as "operating a business model predicated on censorship of content."
Since when is advertising "content"?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Censorship is when someone else prevents you from viewing the content that you want to see. Freedom is being able to view only the content that I want to.
Because I think it would be fitting if everyone were to forward him big packages containing all the unsolicited mail they've received recently. After all, that's "content" too, right, so if you don't want to receive it, you're "subverting freedom of the press" that allows anyone to send advertisements unsolicited to whoever they want and regardless of how annoyed they might get, right?
As far as I'm concerned the ad companies did this to themselves as soon as the volume of data for advertising became greater than the content I wanted to read. Oh, and malware, lots of malware. And visually irritating ads like the old shock the monkey banners. And the creepy way ads seem to know what I buy online and show me similar products on various pages. Creepy AF. Screw those crybabies. They created the conditions that gave rise to ad blocking, and they need to focus on creating an environment where the ads once again become less intrusive.
(relevant capcha: "sanest")
First and foremost, "Freedom of the press" applies to the government not restricting the press. If a private citizen tells a reporter "Get off my property", it's not restricting freedom of the press. If a web forum says in their terms and conditions that you can't talk about topics X, Y, and Z, it's not restricting freedom of the press.
And if an ad-blocker blocks ads, it's not restricting freedom of the press.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
If I, as a private citizen do it...it is selective viewing and reading of content.
You know, these people seem to forget that the internet was NOT primarily created for revenue generation, but for free exchange of ideas on a network where every computer connected could be a peer with any other one connected.
Ok, I know if you go back to the DARPA creation...that was mostly just to make a network capable of breaks in parts of it and still survive, but I"m alluding more to the web portion of the internet with my argument.
But seriously, it was quite free before there were ads (and yes, I was on a long time before I saw any ads on the web)...and it continues to be free for ideas, but every individual surely should still have the freedom to view or not view certain content, and also, to block having their information captured.
The internet and the web were NOT created for commerce, maybe someone needs to remind them of that....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Don't be silly. There are plenty of people in eastern Europe - places like Poland - who would quite gladly use it as a pejorative, and from time to time they may use more specific terms like "Bolshevik" as well.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
There have been great debates on the differences between government censorship versus censorship by berating or harassing someone until they self-censor, but regardless of how you feel about those things, making a tool that allows a user to alter the content that they view isn't censorship, because everyone still has the ability to view those ads if they choose to do so.
I'll continue blocking ads as long as they are these things:
* A vector for malware
* A huge distraction with animations, bright colors, flashing, jiggling, noise, etc
* Potentially misleading (fake DOWNLOAD buttons, etc)
The internet ad industry has dug this hole itself. They've turned the web into a giant shithole, and people are discovering how much better things are when you block them.
let me tell you about The Market (tm), you idiot. you put something out there. if it sells, you do more. if it tanks, you change things up or quit.
high-content bandwidth hog ads, especially delaying real content until those gobble gobble bastards are loaded and running, is not wanted. that's why we have ad blockers.
if you would get your crap together at stop what you're doing, you would be smart in The Market (tm).
if you piss and moan and toss crap off the podium, block your business when you smell an ad blocker, and refuse to do what The Market (tm) is telling you to do, you will fail, collapse, and go away.
and you are, so you are a raving idiot. screw you. I am keeping my blockers up.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Speaking of self-entitled assholes, here comes the ad people equating seeing their ads with speech and censorship.
Lying assholes.
See, nobody is limiting your freedom of speech, because nobody is in any way obligated to watch your ads. We're certainly not obligated to let you run scripts, set cookies, or perform analytics on us.
Randal Rothenburg is a self-serving idiot who thinks his desire to sell a product somehow confers an obligation on us to hear about his product.
Which means I'll block the shit out of any and all ads while I have the technology to do so, because you're not paying for my bandwidth, you're not taking responsibility for the malware you serve, and you're not compensating me at all for anything.
Fuck you, and your belief that your business model in any way imposes an obligation on people who don't give a shit about your business model.
Sorry, this is a guy who profits from selling ads with his panties in a bunch about someone who profits by blocking ads, and acting like his fucking rights are being trampled ... you have no fucking "right" to push content to my machine if I've identified you as a parasite. And thankfully, in Germany at least, the courts have agreed.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I wonder how he would feel if I came into his home and started randomly shouting my opinions at him and hacking his computer?
False analogy. You visit the web page, and not the web page visits you.
I agree. Plus, I paid for my computer, and I pay for my bandwidth. Therefore, I AM THE ONLY ONE THAT GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS DISPLAYED ON MY COMPUTER! Ad-blocking is self defense. Far too many ad servers are infected with viruses and malware/spyware. These bastards are pissed because we are blocking their ads, but this didn't happen in my case (and many others) until their ads became extremely annoying and headache inducing! Not only that, but their ads (if not blocked) slow down the loading of the web pages that I want to see, waste my (capped) bandwidth, and waste my time and attention.
The advertisers and their organization are trying to make those of us who block their crap out to be criminals, but they are the REAL criminals, stealing what should be private information, stealing people's bandwidth, time and attention, and using it to further their greed at internet users expense, and against internet user's best interests.
As far as I am concerned, these advertisers (especially the ones complaining about ad-blocking) are EVIL BASTARDS and they can EAT SH*T AND DIE!
Don't steal content by not watching ads, you internet scumbags!
They consider their ads to be content, so "don't steal content - don't watch their ads" would be more apropos.
Each internet ad
that lies to me
is a damn fine reason
to block and not see.
You don't own my eye balls
I am not your product
Get strung up by your balls
We don't give a f*ck.
You don't care
about what we want
so why should we give
a sh*t about you, stupid c*nt?
You don't like
our freedom to decide
not to watch your crap?
Go commit suicide.
Or die in a fire,
upload it to youtube
view counts will soar,
advertise sunblock, you n00b.
We really don't like
your ads that are spam
No, not even
With green eggs and ham
I will not click them,
not with my mouse
I don't want them
even in my house
So it's plain to see
Mr. I. A. B.,
You're p*ssing in the wind
And we all can see.
Burma Shave
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
false analogy analysis. you visit website. ads from other websites shout at you on the site you visited.
There's no such thing as an 'unfalse' analogy. Every analogy is false in some parts.
This analogy has truth though: blocking some types of speech from coming into your ears and eyes doesn't make you 'freedom hating.' There is no first amendment requirement that people listen to you.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's not my problem if a company is built upon a faulty profit model.
If they didn't interrupt,
block my view,
stop my train of thought,
jump my page up and down and around...,
give me viruses,
eat up precious bytes that *I* must pay for with their video and audio...
If they did what they do in newspapers. Stay in little, quiet, static sized blocks, doing nothing but waiting for me to click if I'm interested, there would be no adblockers, nor need for any.
The online advertising industry has brought this on themselves. They have nobody but themselves to blame.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
No, actually, it's much closer to the truth to say the web page visits you.
Remember, when you "visit" a web page, all you're doing is sending a request to a server saying "hey, please give me a copy of this document". The server sends that document in response, and you view it on your computer. You are morally, ethically, and legally free to choose which parts of that document you accept onto your computer and load into memory.
Your web page is a guest in my home. An invited guest, but a guest all the same. It will obey my rules if it expects to stay.
Random untrusted executables are THE attack vector for malware.
Advertising that forces you to accept executables from a wide array of random untrusted sources are forcing you to completely forgo any sort of security precautions.
I've had colleagues taken out of action for days for browsing the wrong site with the wrong browser. This did not include any destinations that would be obviously suspicious.
The industry really only has itself to blame for escalating the abusiveness of advertising. They work hard to earn everyone's distrust and hate.They should spend some of that effort on being less obnoxious. They employ enough effort at psychological manipulation.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Of course, nobody in the soviet bloc or even china has ever experienced communism. They experienced totalitarianism
Communism + Reality = Totalitarianism
I have every right to censor what content I do or do not want to see. I have every right to mute annoying TV ads, skip them, or walk away from the screen, and with my personal computer and internet service, if I want to use - what could arguably said security-focused - tools like AdBlocker to help prevent my internet connection (be it landline, or the much more usage-sensitive wireless/mobile options) from being bogged down with awful, intrusive, and annoying ads, and secure myself against the ad-space that is regularly exploited by malware and the like, that's my right.
The advertiser has every right to speak, to put their speech out there for all to hear, and to not have to fear government censorship (within certain limits). They do NOT have any right to force me to hear their speech when I don't want to, especially when it is not just on a public street corner somewhere I can choose not to go, but is being piped into my home. Just as I have the right to choose who I let in my front door, I have the right to choose who and what I let in my internet doors. If the hosting site suffers too much and doesn't like it, they can always consider a subscription service, or building their content in a different way, and then I can choose to get my content someplace that exercise some restraint over their advertisers and keep it reasonable.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
> I am sure that morally and ethically ad blocking is wrong.
> I am not sure that you are legally free to block ads.
So closing your eyes, turning your head, going to the bathroom (or some other room), pressing the mute button, OR using software that effectively does the same thing -- so you not watching the ads -- is now a moral / ethics issue???
Are you REALLY *that* fucking stupid???
Repeat after me: It is not my problem to support your broken business model.
When are we going to have a sudden outbreak of common sense ???
Maybe we could start with:
Ads are immoral. Ban the fuckers.