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."
...then I must a sadistic communist, as I have a suite of self-made chrome addons that will identify Analytics platforms and trigger false events, among blocking specific ads. :-)
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.
He might have a point or two if use of AB+ weren't voluntary. As it is, how is my choice to block his content censorship? I call it editing a data stream.
It is unwise to ascribe motive
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?
Rothenburg characterized the Adblock Plus team as "operating a business model predicated on censorship of content."
As a consumer of content, I am allowed to pick the content I consume however I want. That isn't censorship.
I can't seem to get to one of the links, but I didn't see "mafia" in the first link, though click-bait headlines unsupported by actual content seem to be the standard at Slashdot these days.
Much is being made of the fact that these asshats declined to let AdBlock people attend their conference. But really people, do you really think that the MPAA folks would allow the Pirate Bay guys to attend one of their conferences? Really?
The whole "story" such that it is, is Dice / Slashdot click bait.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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.
"Moron says words and things that mean stuff and whatnot."
Or
"Advertisers hate things that prevent people from seeing advertisements."
Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
You know freedom of speech is evenly match with freedom to not listen.
No one is obligated to listen to anything you say, or do, or print.
Randall Rothenburg, ... accused adblockers of subverting freedom of the press.
(a) The First Amendment only applies in the US, and (b) only applies with regard to the Government. Why don't people understand this?
Rothenburg characterized the Adblock Plus team as "operating a business model predicated on censorship of content."
People have the right to determine what is/isn't downloaded to their own devices, using the bandwidth for which they pay.
There's so much wrong with Randall's "rich and self-righteous" comment that I don't even know where to start.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
-- Gandhi
First they march you through hundreds of miles of jungle without water,
Then they shoot you,
Then they disembowel you.
Then you lose.
-- Gandhi, had the Japs won WW2
It was really odd as I read this I was thinking to myself this sounds awfully a lot like the arguments that spammers gave me when they found out their account was turned off. Of course it's not fair to lump them into the same category as that because they place these ads on the sites and not just cram your own space full of stuff. I think this guy needs to take a step back though and really look at what some people are doing that may or may not be members and see it's a reason for the ad blocking. The over abundance/overkill of advertising on a web site. The advertisements that cause malware infections. The tracking that goes on. I believe Ad blocking would be less used if advertising were more responsible - even just by solving the malware issue alone.
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?
They're absolutely correct; the makers of Adblock Plus are engaging in censorship of digital advertising created by some others and allowing through the digital advertising created by some others, which isn't optimal and thus there are different solutions which do not opt for such fickle behavior.
However, the key part here is that it isn't by force, it's by choice of the enduser of the product; in direct juxtaposition of being on the receiving end of forced digital advertising delivery.
In almost all cases, in order for me to view content, I must first opt in, by only my visiting the site in question, to digital advertisements before I am able (if at all) to disable the advertising through payment. Instead of bitching, we just utilize these tools to (UBlock Origin is my preference) to censor our own content.
I mean, I get it; they are fighting hard to reduce that 30% of Europeans and 10% of Americans blocking ads but enough w/the rhetoric, please.
The subject of his keynote perhaps sheds some light on why ABP was uninvited from the event. It's like the IAB is declaring war on its own audience, instead of fixing the problems that caused not just a desire for but a need for ABP and similar products in the first place.
Of course a Jew would spew vitriol against any technology that threatened him from making even more millions.
Adblock is the single greatest thing that's ever happened to my measly 5/1 DSL plan.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
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.
BAM! Would you look at that a box I have to close to look at the website.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
It is a business model predicated on censorship of content.
That's why I choose to use it. To censor content.
If it was being forced on me, that'd be a problem.
It isn't. Long live censorship!
Rothenburg characterized the Adblock Plus team as "operating a business model predicated on censorship of content."
As a consumer of content, I am allowed to pick the content I consume however I want. That isn't censorship.
Exactly. As an owner of a TV remote, I am allowed to pick the channel I wish to watch. A TV remote isn't any more of a censorship device than an ad blocker is.
Tell ya what, Randall. How about we have someone step-up on stage right in front of you, take the podium, and shout to advertise that there are hot Russian brides waiting in this area for YOU.
Then, during your speech, we allow various individuals to talk over you to tell us the virtues of the X10 camera. You remember that, Randall? The X10?! Maybe we all want to hear more about that then whatever the hell you're talking about.
Then, finally, as you finish your speech, the convention security should invite passers-by to "punch the monkey". Better serpentine, Randall, because I have news for you: You are the monkey.
Not a single fuck was given by anyone else.
I don't know - looks to me like the world is giving them a LOT of f*ck yous. It's only because it's just on the internet that they're not accompanied by long greased poles, cattle prods, a rolled-up carpet, and a dumpster.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Where are the users when adblockers and advertisers duke it out? The adblockers only exist because we have a fundamental right to receive at our computers exactly what we ask for exactly where we ask for it from. I don't trust who CNN, slashdot or any company decides to trust to supply them with ads. I don't want content being pushed to my system from any server except the exact one I chose to receive info from. I reserve the right to use any program of my choice to make it so, whether it is "in-browser" adblockers, hostname blocking, blocking at the firewall, whitelists etc. Get over yourself advertisers, not a damn thing changed when we went from newspapers to web. You buy advertising at your own risk that people won't look at it.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
Online Ad Czar Berates Adblockers As Freedom-Hating 'Mafia'
Yes, that's me. I'm a jerk, and I'm the mafia, and I block your ads, and I'm the end of Western Civilization as you know it, and worst of all I don't even care.
What are you going to do about it?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
to speak , they do not have any right to be heard.
They are a criminal conspiracy that engage in unauthorised computer access, counterfeiting and click fraud.
Counterfeiting - Ads masquerading as download buttons leading to Click Fraud
They should face RICO charges.
Someone has ignored his sky-fairy bestowed right to make money by filling up our screens with flashy bullshit so he's going to scream, or possibly hold his breath until he turns blue.
Diddums.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
It was Tyranny caused by communism, idiot.
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.
... that speech is such an incredible mound of crazy that I don't even know where to begin.
When you get back to your office, look around you at work, and pay attention. For these are your friends and colleagues who are under attack. Their skin is black, and brown, and ochre, as well as white. They speak Mandarin, and Spanish, and Hindu, and Farsi, as well as English. They celebrate Diwali, and Kwanzaa, and Ramadan, as well as Christmas and Chanukkah. And they are under assault.
And when they are under attack, you are under attack. For they are the future of the American economy. They are the future of consumption. They are the future of advertising and media. They are your childrens’ classmates, your in-laws, the parents of your future grandchildren.
OK ... so who, exactly, has these fine folks "under assault"?
It is for this very reason – the virtuous circle that links freedom to advertise to freedom of the press to freedom of expression to economic freedom – that Article 19, the influential NGO, says: “The right to freedom of expression covers any kind of information or ideas, not only contributions to political, cultural or artistic debate but also mundane and commercially motivated expressions.”
And this is why I hate the ad-block profiteers.
Evil is revealed!
Shine, an Israeli startup trying to sell ad-blocking software to mobile phone networks, is backed prominently by Horizons Ventures, the VC arm of Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing, and run by his girlfriend. His other investments include Spotify and Facebook.
The latest ad-blocking company is a Web browser startup called “Brave.” It was launched by former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, whose last major investment was in banning gay marriage in California. His business model not only strips advertisements from publishers’ pages – it replaces them with his own for-profit ads.
Notice how quickly we went from cultural inclusiveness to blaming the Chinese and the Israelis (but gay marriage!)
They may attempt to dignify their practices with such politically correct phrases as “reasonable advertising,” “responsible advertising,” and “acceptable ads”; and they can claim as loudly as they want that they seek “constructive rapport” with other stakeholders. But in fact, they are engaged in the techniques of The Big Lie
I guess he knows the Big Lie when he sees it.
Well, in their race to the bottom and frenzy for investment, the ad-block profiteers seem more intent on killing each other than on killing advertising
Oh, God. It's the ad blockers who are in a race to the bottom...
But more importantly, an embrace of LEAN principles will bring this industry back to the rational center – focused on making money, to be sure, but cognizant that successful businesses require long-term attention to and concern for the users themselves. Remember that those users represent all races and creeds, and that their happiness success means your success and happiness, too.
Also, kittens! And babies! And kittens!
I haven't been running an ad blocker for a bit - I think I'm going to now. Ad blockers are a choice, not foisted upon us. Kind of the opposite of ads themselves. Also, as was stated earlier here; since when are ads content? Ads are the stuff we sift through to find content.
Looks like adblockers are working then.
I love my Ad Blocker!!!!!
I believe that we can agree that freedom is good. Right? You're free to riddle your site with shit that makes the user experience miserable, even dangerous. You own the web site, after all. By the same token, I am free to configure my software to behave as I see fit. If I want to configure it to make my visit to your web site suck less, it's my right. After all, I own that software, not you. One would think that an intelligent man like yourself would get that and, moreover, understand the motivation to pursue technologies like ad blockers and do a little soul-searching about how you're doing things. But that's not what's happening. Instead, you're lashing out at people and organizations that are solving the problems you created. Wake TFU, m'kay?
An *advertising* organization. Why is anyone here taking anything in that speech at face value?
i think you're confusing communist with socialist, or in bernie sanders' case, social democracy. if you took a poll of everybody in the world I think communism would be considered bad.
You can be absolutely sure that he runs Adblock on all his machines.
I agree, SJW is very relevant here and adds meaningful context to this issue./s
I had expected that this ad blocker software was ineffective and didn't bother with it, but after this high recommendation by someone in the industry I'm going to install it.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
To make sure I understand this:
* Ads that IAB members send to my browser are expression of free speech, and by blocking them I am violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ... umm, not sure what their speech counts as ... and by blocking them from attending the IAB is ... umm ... not violating something something?
* Real people from AB+ attending a conference are
No, I guess I don't understand after all.
Nope, no sig
iOS ad blocker app, here I come. What a freaking idiot!
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.
Because if I ever thought I could get away with it, I'd drag Randall Rothenburg (hell, include 98% of his entire industry in that) into a dark alley and kneecap the worthless piece of shit.
And I'd still hold the moral high-ground vs what he does for a living.
Many of my colleagues from former Soviet bloc countries have asked me, at some point, what in the hell Americans mean when they pejoratively call something "communist", because as far as they could tell it had very little to do with actual communism as they experienced it.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Of course, nobody in the soviet bloc or even china has ever experienced communism. They experienced totalitarianism and China still does. Many would argue that so does Russia. Regardless, we have not seen large scale communism in the world yet.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Okay; it had very little to do with the nominal communism which they experienced.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Always whining and never have anything intelligent to say except to make wild ass claims that THEIR rights are being violated and the constitution thrown out.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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
...complained about people taking self-defense courses, saying they infringed on his freedom to beat them up.
Not only have we not, we won't. Socialism can be a workable large scale system, Communism and communism cannot. Small-scale communism can work reasonably well, though it requires a charismatic leader and a strong belief system. The Oneida community worked for generations. I have not run across any example of Communism (i.e., Marxism) working. I believe that it is probably unworkable at any scale beyond, perhaps, the individual.
I expect that the next dominant form of government will be either a socialism or some variety of monarchy. Either may also be totalitarian, which is orthogonal to the democratic/monarchist axis. (So is socialism. Socialisms can be either democratic or monarchical.)
Please note: I say monarchy rather than dictatorship because persisting dictatorships inevitably turn into monarchies as the generations pass. Also note that I left out oligarchy. Oligarchy seems to be the persistent substrate on which these other distinctions float.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
User discretion isn't censorship, it's selective viewing. For instance, I can admonish them to fuck off, get cancer, and die, but can't compel their discretion to actually accept my imperative.
If you deliberately go and make your site display publicly accessible content, then it's hard to play a victim card when people publicly access it, incl. selectively. If you want your site conditional, make it fucking conditional and rope off the paywall.
Yet these websites choose not to for two reasons. The first is laziness.
No. Until now the percentage of ad blocker users were low. Web sites accepted that, saying that a non-paying user also has some benefit, namely he brings paying users. Today ad-blockers become so popular that the loss affects the bottom line. Moreover an ad-blocking user likely brings only other non-paying user, therefore he is a pure loss. I predict that within a year there will be serious changes and polite requests for ad-blockers to either subscribe or turn off ad-blockers become usual.
No. What will happen is people will stop visiting these websites if they can't block the ads. There's always other places to get the news, stories, etc.
And won't any time soon. The basic design is flawed.
Earlier today, I got that message from Forbes asking me to turn off my ad blocker. Not going to happen! If there's any "censorship" going on, it's from Forbes, not the adblocker.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Yes, I too laughed at this guy's comments. He's a self serving ass hole and sounds like he's uses the same script writer as Donald Trump.
However....
Let's look at this AdBlocker phenomenon, which is obviously having major effects on that industry if the big guys in it are screaming like pigs in an abattoir.
I've written a couple of Apps one of which is free to download but with IAP to unlock the juicy bits.
It's suffered from 1 star reviews telling me how much I suck not making it 100%, a few demanding I make it Ad funded instead.
Why write Apps at all when you can't make a living out of it?
So I just released an update with interstitial full screen ads to see if it generates better income and prevents user frustration.
If the money isn't coming in 2 things happen. 1) find revenue elsewhere OR 2) Pull the content /. a "pay wall" moan about an article?
If AdBlock+ is working that well it could cause long term damage to the quality and quantity of the content you are consuming.
How often do we see here on
AdBlock+ doesn't prevent Ads inside Apps?
So you may end up seeing content moving to Apps as a ring fence to force you to see their ads and give up your analytics.
I've personally not installed any ad blocking on my phone, tablet or computers as I don't find Ads a problem.
Sympathy for the Devil? Perhaps. Someone has to pay. I'm just saying it could be worse.
Small-scale communism can work reasonably well, though it requires a charismatic leader and a strong belief system.
Similar goes for basically any form of "government" though, even a total anarchy or a full blown dictatorship. It'll last as long as a significant portion of individuals (and/or the correct specific individuals, depending on what form is being used) in the community in question are on board with making whatever flavor of "government" or lack thereof work well.
Yes/No. If you want to follow "Starts with a Bang", you may not have an alternative to Forbes. Still, the argument is usually true.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Static text? Fine. The bandwidth required is so negligible that you would not even notice if you removed them from the page.
Static images? Fine. The bandwidth required is so low that you would probably not really notice if you removed them from the page. As long as they stay in their place and don't try to block the content I'm reading, this is fine most of the time.
Animated images, HTML5/Javascript, Flash, Java, Video ads? It's so much worst because those waste a lot of bandwidth, distract us from reading the page and waste CPU cycles and battery life.
If we want to buy your products and services, we'll notice the ad. If we're interested, we'll click on it. Otherwise, all you're doing is wasting everyone's time and ressources including your own.
There is the problem as it already exists services can ignore ad blocker, not allow ad blocker, or politely ask for you to turn off ad blocker with the option to subscribe for an ad free experience and as an online advertising firm this is a bad situation because it is going to cut into their revenue no matter which. They are left with finding a way to compel people to want to view their adverts such as adding value somehow or find away to get rid of ad blocker.
There's always other places to get the news, stories, etc.
I am afraid you are a bit too optimist. Most of the known web is ad supported. The only major site which is ad free is Wikipedia. But I do pay to Wikipedia every year. If you mean that you go to a subscription based alternative, than you are still too optimistic: in that case you and me are the only two people I know who intend to pay for an ad-free website. This will not be enough :)
I was watching a video of the Bundy crowd tearing down a SCADA camera at an electrical substation (which I suspect was a utility co camera they mistook for an FBI surveillance camera), railing against a federal government "that serves the rich and elite of this Earth."
Now this guy reached into his bag of insults for something to smear the ad blocker developers with and came up with "rich and self-righteous."
No wonder Bernie Sanders is doing so well; he was so far behind marching to his personal different drummer that now he's out in front of everyone else on the track. If it's a three way general election between Trump, Bloomberg and Sanders, Sanders will cream them. All he has to do is stand up on the debate podium, wave his hand in the direction of the other two and say, "I rest my case."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I guess I'm in cahoots with those darned censors, then. And since I'm the one who is the intended target of the content, I feel I have the freedom to avoid looking at said content. And if that content insists on me looking at it, I have the right to deny that intrusion into my field of vision. The right of the website operator to derive income from imposed content clashes with my right to look at what I want to look at, and only what I want to look at. I don't see any particularly obvious solution to this except ad blocking software. There's very little in the way of ad-sponsored content that I find valuable enough to subject myself to ads for products and services I have no desire to use. If I want something, I will search for it. I do not click through on ads placed on websites I visit - that's one thing ad operators can count on. In that respect, I am not a set of eyeballs they will get any return on. Their wares are dead to me.
Adds aren't comments or content, they are crap.
(on the Slashdot page)
Ads Disabled
Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!
the offer was immediately taken up.
Go well
Why do they seem to think they have the right to force my eyelids open ala-Clockwork Orange? You want my eyeballs buddy, it's gonna cost ya...
Don't steal content by not watching ads, you internet scumbags!
The privileged of reading this highly valuable post is a million dollars - which you now are in debt to me for.
Until your check clears, you stole from me first.
Until you feel guilt for stealing from me and decide to pay, I will not feel any differently towards you.
Now stop being a scumbag thief and go get a real job instead of leaching off humanity.
If I buy a newspaper, and I hire someone to remove all ads before I read it, is it censorship? No, of course not. I can do what I like with the newspaper, including burning it, using it in a bird's cage, etc...
When I request a web page, and the server sends it to MY computer, MY browser can render it any way I like. I can add an extension to remove all ads so that what's appearing on MY display, using MY computer, is how I like it. I can even write my own browser, and interpret and display the page any way I like, just like I can cut out every article in the newspaper et rearrange it any way I like.
What's the difference? Cutting out paper ads, or cutting out digital ads, when the data is on my computer I can do whatever I like with it (except of course I have to respect copyright, so I can't redistribute it).
Try it! Library of Babel
Americans think Ronald Reagan was a left wing politician. They frequently redefine words to new-speak nonsense.
It baffles me that in this day and age people still keep mixing Communism with Socialism.
yes, that is the conclusion most of them came to after a few years. they must have been brainwashed by the fluoridated water.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Also, it's just hilariously appropriate that this thread is now full of Americans railing on about the horrors of [Cc]ommunism.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Advertisers need to make their adds useful to the people. Allow people to specify what they want to know about, and have the add company search out deals and stuff that matches. It would be like Google, but automated, working to find products and services you want to buy instead of finding yet another cat picture.
Why doesn't his association just put up a webpage of all their content and wait for the page hits to come in? Surely, people cannot wait to see it. $$Profit?
Since where are a bunch of schlocky "hit the monkey" ad-mongers "the press"?
It's my computer. I have a right to use it as I see fit. I have a right to control what comes across my screen.
They do not have the right to infect my machine with malware just to make a buck.
Again, online advertising is a nasty whore with every STD known to man (and probably a few we haven't discovered yet).
Adblockers are condoms.
WRAP THAT RASCAL!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Your rights to publish revenue generating advertisements stops the moment that ad attempts to appear on my screen. The screen belongs to me. The hardware that runs it belongs to me. The bandwidth to retrieve your ad belongs to me (by virtue of the fact I am paying for it). What I choose to have appear on my screen is MY choice - not yours. If I choose to replace all advertisements of one-eyed midget Unicorns, that is up to me. If I choose to utilize a tool to prevent the ads from using my bandwidth in the first place, that is up to me. If I choose to blacklist all the IPs that your ads appear on, that is also up to me. You have every right to publish your ad. You do NOT have the right to force me to look at it.
Well, it was what USSR and China refereed to it, as did our politicians. Of course, from a true academician POV, it was never Communist, but totalitarian. As one that was part of the Cold war, I find it interesting to see how we continue to bring it up as Communism, and do not change our tune.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Advertisers need to make their adds useful to the people. Allow people to specify what they want to know about,
This is exactly what all ad companies try to do. And this is also exactly why many people hate them: this goes against privacy. In order to serve ads which are interesting to you they have to know what is interesting to you...
That's called "going long".
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
There are a tier of adverts in adblock plus that don't get blocked as long as they paid to recieve this special evaluation to be in the exemption list. The quote "operating a business model predicated on censorship of content" doesn't seem inaccurate to me?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
So, I just tried to use Adblock Plus, which people say it can block in-line advertising just fine and reliably. But, it keeps failing, it won't block the in-line advertising of APK (and APK is bypassing his own adblockng technology to advertise too).
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Doesn't work, I still see this ad.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Doesn't work. I just verified it didn't block this advert.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Of course, nobody in the soviet bloc or even china has ever experienced communism. They experienced totalitarianism
Communism + Reality = Totalitarianism
Extremist philosophy + power == totalitarianism.
It doesn't matter if it is a socialist or capitalist philosophy, both when taken to the extreme and given a modicum of power will result in a totalitarian regime.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
As with possible many of you I hated the quote above. I read the article looking for a good Twitter length summary and found there is more to it then what one might believe. Not to belabor things here is a quote toward the end. "Ad-blocking has been a consumer plebiscite; as former Mozilla executive Darren Herman noted at the IAB Ad Operations Summit a few months back, the software offered consumers a vote â" and they have voted no on chaos, opacity, and slowness". Sounds pretty insightful. I didn't agree with many thing therein but give it a read.
My hovercraft is full of eels!
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
You just can't tell the ads apart from normal content anymore. The ads, they're evolving...
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Totalitarian regimes are actually orthogonal to the communist/capitalist spectrum.
Except that there are plenty of examples of non-totalitarian capitalist countries, and zero examples of non-totalitarian communist countries.
this is not about freedom to express. It is about a freedom not to listen to someone else when they do.
Are you talking about the freedom of expression? The one that allows people to freely participate in groups of their choosing - and as you put, not of their choosing? It also lets people form groups to promote the interests of that group. This "SJW" crisis that you've manufactured is just groups of people who don't want to associate and private businesses saying "wow, it's in our best interests to promote this group of consumer!" What it sounds like you're talking about is the government mandating private business - which is what I consider the opposite of freedom.
I'll give you a quick test to see if your freedom of speech has been taken away online: step 1: go to stormfront.org, if it is still up, you still have freedom of speech.
Your test is simply asinine and unrealistic. Losing freedom of speech is does not require that you go to jail for saying something. It requires that a person becomes intimidated and afraid to speak. TFA is about ads having priority over your choice of what to see, read, and hear. On sites like Slashdot you will hear argument against this type of thing, but you won't be hearing it on the evening news. There are people who wish to control everything you read, see, and hear. It's about power, plain and simple.
I gave a hint at the connection between the controlled narrative and what we are seeing in media and politics. There is no "manufactured" SJW crisis, there is a fixed narrative which is being spread. You don't have to connect the dots or like the connections, but they are surely there. Anyone who wishes can listen to politicians, watch the evening news, and listen to the "extremists" which we are told don't matter and see the connections.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The difference is similar to the difference between jalapeno and habanero.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
If I had mod points then I would mod parent up!
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
He's a proof that the stereotype isn't a stereotype but truth.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It looks like an ordinary spam mail to me. Lot of links, blatant unnecessary highlighting of useless stuff to make it seem important. Rates high on my spam tagging.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
APK is just another spammer, not worth considering. It smells as fake as fake boobs.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Ever heard of Pinochet ? Extremes only work when enforced by a totalitarian government. Hell some totalitarians have enforced entirely opposite extremes at different times. Franco of Spain was a good example. In the 1930s he enforced fascism (a la Mussolini - a form of corporatism), after fascism fell in world war 2 he retained power by enforcing socialism instead. In the 1970s under pressure from Nixon he abandoned that and enforced capitalism instead until his death when his chosen successor (the last crown prince) shocked him by ending the dictatorship and instituting democracy. A brutal dictator. Three entirely distinct economic systems.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Andalusia. Unless an anarchist country somehow meets your definition of "totalitarian". Dont confuse your ignorance of something for its absence.
Hell parts of the USA was once anarchist socialist states: most notably quaker pennsylvania.
If you go by the common (but wrong) definition of socialism Americans know then all of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Brazil, Australia and New Zeeland are all examples (from a very long list) of socialist countries that are absolutely not totalitarian.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I'm not sure that I follow you APK, are you saying that your proof or evidence of me having multiple accounts is because I denied having multiple accounts? Or you're saying I have multiple accounts because it's obvious that you keep posting and referring to yourself in the third person? I don't quite follow your logic. This is what this feels like to me:
APK: What did you have for lunch today?
Me: I got a sandwich and some fruit salad, but I didn't finish all of the fruit salad because I didn't really like the cantaloupe all that much.
APK: Ah ha! So you are a cantaloupe farmer! You have an entire greenhouse full of cantaloupe! You can't deny it! The reason that I, I mean we, the reason that all of us know this to be true is because you said you didn't like it! And what color is that cantaloupe greenhouse that you clearly own and operate?! It's transparent! Check, and mate! Victory is mine!
Your logic and reasoning skills are far too impressive for me to combat, APK, so I guess I'll just ignore your trolling posts altogether and continue to report your spam.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Add blockers are great now. However, they aren't long for this world. I'd share my opinion here but I've already blogged about this:
Shameless plug for my blog: http://www.rhyous.com/2016/01/...
Pretty much, since scaling laws are quite important, but pure communism scales better than pure anarchy. I believe that the Oneida lasted as a pure communism until there were more than 200 people (or was that families?) involved. Then it segued into a socialism. It's still going, but I don't know what it's current social structure is.
But if your community is small enough, a charismatic leader and a strong belief system can make pretty much anything work. Most things can be made to work with a group size below 20.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It wasn't until news media sites starting loading 100's of ads all simultaneously that i had to get an ad blocker. They should have at least waited until the ads are in the scrollable pane of the page to load them. If they had done this, the ads would've loaded faster, the ui would have been smoother, and i would never have needed a blocker.
OK, let me be more explicit.
Certain sources of new/content may only be available on one web site, or one small class of web sites. You can't always find a version that doesn't require JavaScript or worse.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
But I just did, it didn't block the advertisment!
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
In a similar way to how Capitalism + Reality = Totalitarianism, although perhaps with a bit more delay, but with the advantage of, it seems, more public support??
I can only assume then that the Capitalist Totalitarians are a bit starter (playing for the longer game) than the Communist ones..
And I am not sure that is a good thing.
I can only imagine that you have an interesting meaning for 'Socialist' as well as an interesting meaning for 'Not Totalitarian', from your list of countries.
Oh, and not to mention, I am less than certain that 'Western Europe' has yet to form a single country, and try as I may 'New Zeeland' isnt on any of my
maps, but good try, I guess.
I suspect quite a few of the people in those countries (Australia especially springs to mind) would disagree with your views..
>I can only imagine that you have an interesting meaning for 'Socialist'
I always use the meaning in the dictionary - an economic system predicated on the principle that the workers own the means of production. Nothing to do with the state at all. Taxi-cabs are socialist. Worker-owned coops of all kinds are socialist. If anything, I always thought that using "state" as a substitute for "the workers" was a very bad idea - it doesn't actually achieve the goal, you still end up with bosses owning the means of production but now the very organ that is supposed to regulate industry and curb it's excesses ends up *being* industry - which leads to even worse abuses than under capitalism - there's nobody to enforce the checks and balances. But for this reason in that post I qualified my usage to "the meaning Americans know" which is roughly equivalent to "market regulation and lots of civil services". The kind of system Sanders subscribes to - which *is* in fact the same system you will find in all the places I mentioned. And only a complete moron would think I listed "western Europe" as a country as opposed to what I did list it as: a large collection of countries which has this thing in common.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I for one welcome our freedom hating Mafia overlords.
I do not have to listen, much as I am not legally or morally obligated to accept spamvertising or malware on MY computer system.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Alex, you schizo, if you want to make a post about host files, go right ahead. If you want to make the same post 35 times in the same comment thread, then go fuck yourself, because then you're a spammer. And, no, just because someone mods your post down does not give you some sort of right to post it again. The reason people mod your spam down is specifically because it is spam and they don't want to see it here. That's specifically why the moderation system exists, to get rid of spam and highlight the good comments.
You want to talk about Article 19 and free speech? Because you sound exactly like the advertising dickhead who tried to use that argument also. He thinks that Article 19 says that he is free to transmit any information, in the form of his unwanted advertisements, and people should look at them. You do literally the EXACT SAME THING. You think you have some right to post your spam advertising your software, and when someone mods it down you post it again, because you think that people should look at them. You are using the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT as the advertising dickhead that you're trying to block. But you don't understand that, because in your world you think you're in some grand competition of proving whether or not the hosts file is a valid method of blocking advertisements. And, for many purposes, it is a valid method, except obviously host-based blocking falls over when the content you want to block comes from the same host as the content you want to see. I have rules to block certain things from slashdot.org, for example, but that doesn't mean I want to block all of it. Hosts won't help with that situation, but for many other situations it works fine. But that's all you hear, you think this is some giant dick-waving competition about hosts files and it is not. Yes, using hosts files solves some problems (specifically, blocking content based on origin instead of the actual content). There are other problems it does not address. So fucking what? Stop shitting all over Slashdot in your stupid attempt to prove yourself right in a competition in which only you are engaged.
And, for the record, the advertising dickhead's interpretation of Article 19, the same interpretation that you use to think you have some right to have everyone read your spam, is wrong. That is neither the letter nor the spirit of what is written in Article 19.
I have no more respect for you than I have for any other spammer. I know the first rule when dealing with spammers, also: they lie. Spammers lie, it's what they do. You lie also, because you're a spammer. I know this.
Sorry, that probably confused you. Here, maybe if I refer to myself in the third person like you do then you'll understand why I don't like you:
amicusNYCL has no more respect for you than amicusNYCL has for any other spammer. amicusNYCL knows the first rule when dealing with spammers, also: they lie. Spammers lie, it's what they do. You lie also, because you're a spammer. amicusNYCL knows this.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Your quote above also says it's ok for me to post & you don't own /. either!
I never said it's not OK for you to post. Here, let me say the exact same thing I already said: if you want to make a post about host files, go right ahead. If you want to make the same post 35 times in the same comment thread, then go fuck yourself, because then you're a spammer.
It's OBVIOUS you represent these parties or are one:
Statements like these are why I know you're full of it. That's a false statement, but you think it's "obvious". You're full of it.
Fact - Nobody sane or not those adversely affected would bitch about hosts giving them more speed, security, reliability, or anonymity
I'm not bitching about hosts. Go ahead, find a single instance where I did. If you look at the post that you're replying to, in fact, you'll even see me say where it's useful. I'm not bitching about hosts, APK, I'm bitching about spammers. I'm bitching about you.
You'll LIE but YOU ARE LOSING to adblocking!
I'm "losing" to adblocking? Read my post history, genius, I'm a proponent of adblocking, I use it proudly to avoid advertisements and spam, such as yourself. I use multiple extensions to block various kinds of advertising and tracking (yes, including same-domain advertising). I educate my less-technical friends and family about the fact that they don't need to see all of those ads. I block ads on my mobile devices and my desktops. But look at you, you're proving my point by continuing to think that you're in some sort of competition with me about adblocking, hosts files, whatever. That's not why I fight you APK, I fight you because you're a spammer with a proven track record of spamming. You are the advertising scum that I block.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You have failed and I also believe you are either an advertiser, malware or botnet herder, or webmaster making monies from ads.
You can't even get your story straight, APK. A few days ago you're calling me an Adblock shill, today I make money from advertising. You're pathetic.
I've seen apk
Unbelievably pathetic. "If I type everything in one long paragraph, no one will know it's me! I'm so clever!"
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Lastly - I'd like to thank this gent
Aaaand now you're thanking yourself. I think we've gone full circle. It looks like I'm back to being an Adblock shill instead of an advertiser, and now you're also thanking yourself for posting.
ask Mr. Burn ... how many different people use it everyday
If I had to guess, based on what I know about you, I would say that you probably use 7 proxies to download your own software thousands of times every day. That would fit your behavioral pattern.
after I released my ware & pr'd it here
Is that what you call spamming? "PR"ing? Is that the term that spammers use?
attempting to first technically attack me
I haven't technically attacked you. This is still part of the APK Imagination Game.
Adblock shill, and you CLEARLY are?
Earlier today you said I was "OBVIOUSLY" making money from advertising. CLEARLY you are a very confused person.
I will continue to be true to myself and do so!
I have no doubt, APK. Spammers gotta spam.
You make me look GOOD
My friend, there are not enough psychiatrists and drugs on the planet to make you look good. You look like a child, that's what you look like. A narcissistic, sociopathic, egotistical child whose best friend doesn't actually exist.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I like to read the news on my iPad Mini and I don't use an Ad Blocker. The iPad Mini isn't the most powerful computer around and it gets pretty slow with one or two news pages in the background with all of the crap on web pages these days. If something takes too long to load, then I dump it to read it on a PC later on. If a page is cluttered with ads, I use reader mode. If there's an ad following me around because I shopped for something - then I don't buy the item. Dump the analytics, noisy ads, etc. Google's text ads are fine and they're often relevant. Video is unnecessary - I'm not really a video-person. If things are really bad, I cut and paste the text into an Emacs session and create a Kindle document to read later. Reading on the PC is easier because of AdBlock Plus or similar, and the PC has the resources to block all of the bad stuff or load the bad stuff and still perform. We shouldn't need high-end PCs, phones or tablets to read web pages though. More Ad crap is not better Ad crap. I think that ads could be done a lot better with some kind of global opt-in but I don't see it happening.
YOU WISH YOU HAD SOMETHING TO "SPAM"
Never in my life have I wished that I could be a spammer like yourself.
BUT YOU PROJECT YOU ACTUALLY USE PROXIES (for downmodding my posts, right? RIGHT!)
What's the point of using a proxy for downmodding? You can't see IP address information anyway. Why would I access Slashdot through a proxy? Is this more of your "outsmarting" me? You're brilliant!
ask Mr. Burn & see what he says as to the results of how many folks use my ware the past year or so from his logs.
Will he be able to tell me how many of those IPs are actually you running through a proxy to inflate the numbers? I bet you also post reviews referring to yourself in the third person. There's no way that Slashdot is the only place where you try to pass yourself off as someone other than you, I don't believe that for a second.
Every SINGLE ac poster on /. has to be me (according to you AmicusNYCL).
No, just the ones who use all of the exact same grammar structure, insults, name-calling, etc. Although, that actually does turn out to be every AC who responds to me backing you up. Weird how that works, huh? Why hasn't a single registered user posted in reply to me to back you up? Why are all of them ACs using the exact same kind of language and insults that you use? If there are so many people here who like your software, then why are you the only person replying to me in your own defense? I know the answer to that question, APK. What's the first rule when dealing with spammers? Spammers lie.
REAL others in /. registere users are QUOTED liking MY work
And not a single one of them has ever replied to me to back you up. It's always an AC using the exact same kind of language that you use. And you think it's so clever, too. That's your idea of what being clever and smart is.
IF you're not attacking me, then why are you bothering me @ all?
I'm trying to get you to stop spamming. Stay on topic, I'm not technically attacking you, which is what I said and what you accused me of. I'm not attacking your software from a technical point of view, I'm opposing you for the spammer that you are. If you stopped spamming Slashdot, and posted your advertisement only once in any comment thread, then I wouldn't attack you. I just can't stand spammers, I think they're pathetic parasites.
THE WAY YOU SHILL FOR ADBLOCK & TRY CUT ME DOWN MAKES IT FAIRLY OBVIOUS YOU'RE SOME PAID OFF SHILL FOR THEM or ARE ONE OF THEIR EMPLOYEES.
Sweet, APK, another "obvious" statement from you that is completely wrong. I'll add that to the list of reasons why you have no idea what you're talking about. I've never asked for nor received any compensation from the anti-advertising industry, and I've never done work on their behalf. I do this for fun, APK, just because I believe in it. I just want to see a world where people aren't forced to look at unwanted ads, like the ones that you post 30+ times per comment thread.
I like the fact that if I use your initials too many times in one post, it triggers the "lameness filter". Indeed, Slashdot, indeed....
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I don't think Slashdot is happy with you, this time I only had 1 instance of your initials and it flagged the text as being lame. Removed those 5 characters (including a comma and space) and the text is fine.
You're all the way back to trying to assert that I can't program again now, huh? Haha, you were doing that months ago. You don't like where this argument is headed so you're trying to fall back to the old standby, huh?
Mirrors of his site where you complained (& yes, I know it's you)
Wow, how did you know it was me? Was it when I told you that it was me? Truly, your intellect knows no bounds.
I 'spam'
Yes, I know you do. That's what I'm trying to stop.
You "oddly" (not) neglected to note I ONLY POST ON TOPIC, & IF OTHERS USE INFERIOR BROWSER ADDON SOLUTIONS which I show them the superiority of hosts doing more for less gaining them MORE speed, security, reliability, & anonymity (& not being clarityray detectable + blockable like all addons are mind you) FOR MASSIVELY LESS resources consumed on all levels!
It's still spam when you get downmodded only to come back and post the exact same thing over and over again. You've admitted all of this before when you were gloating about defeating the moderation system. We've already established that 1) you spam Slashdot and 2) you will continue to spam Slashdot. These facts aren't in question at this point. You're ignoring everything we're talking about now and trying to go back to "but, but..." with whatever old arguments have already been settled. That doesn't sound like a strategy to win an argument. I'm glad that you understand where you stand in this.
I don't see "the trolling b.s.'ing likes of YOU" adblock shill, doing better yourself!
Again, we already settled this months ago after many, many times of me telling you that I have no desire to identify myself to you. That hasn't changed, no matter how much you want to derail this and try to go back to old arguments.
Man - LOL, I even saw BOTH AdBlock's author & AB+'s author RUN FROM MY POINTS ON HOSTS by email 2x from 2 diff. accounts I sent them challenge in (after the said "hosts = shit" well, they wouldn't back it vs. me & RAN, lol)!
Who cares? Truly? How is this on topic to anything we're talking about? 1) You spam Slashdot. 2) You claim you will continue to spam Slashdot. 3) You constantly post as other people trying to support your own position (and then thanking yourself for posting). You don't want to talk about any of that, you just want to spout random statements or try to bring up old arguments. I get it, you don't have anything else to say. If that's the case, then just stop talking. You don't have to keep talking, you don't have to keep replying when you have nothing else to say. Seriously. Just stop. No, you don't have to reply to this either. You're done here, you've said everything you can think to say and now you're just repeating yourself. Go away. No one else is watching this, this thread is several days old and is about to be automatically closed anyway. Just stop responding. Find a hobby. Maybe try to meet a woman. Go for a walk. Go play one of your games and entertain yourself if you don't have anyone to hang out with, just stop trying to re-hash the same tired shit over and over again like you're making valid points about anything that we're discussing. You're not, you're not impressing anyone. I know you spam, I know you lie, you know I'm right. It's done, it's over.
Like every other weekend, I'm out of here until I'm back in the office next week. You have yourself a great weekend there buddy, have fun posting comments as other people.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Great holy armies shall be gathered and trained to fight all whom embrace evil. In the name of the Gods, ships shall be built to carry out our warriors out amongst the stars and we will spread advertising to all the unbelievers. The power of advertising will be felt far and wide and the wicked shall be vanquished.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I have no product I am advertising. I am however pointing out that yours does not block the one an annoying advert you've got all over this page, APK.
So, do you have schizophrenia?
I can tell you as someone that did serve in the military that barely anyone would know the ridiculous trivia you're quoting.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
It is an advertisement.
advertisement
noun: advertisement; plural noun: advertisements
a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Nah, I know the definition of advertisement.
advertisement
noun: advertisement; plural noun: advertisements
a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
None of which mentioned the capability to block the adverts I am referencing to.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
None of which reference the adverts I am speaking of.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Yeah, still not working on these advertisements.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Yeah, still not working on these advertisements, either.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Actually...
advertisement
noun
a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.
informal
a person or thing regarded as a means of recommending something.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I just pointed one out, repeatedly.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.