Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Ad Czar Berates Adblockers As Freedom-Hating 'Mafia' (thestack.com)

Posted by timothy on from the strange-days-have-found-us dept.

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."

68 of 539 comments (clear)

  1. If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by Foxhoundz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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. :-)

    1. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If the government does it...it is censorship.

      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.........
    2. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder how he would feel if I came into his home and started randomly shouting my opinions at him and hacking his computer?

    3. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by dshk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      False analogy. You visit the web page, and not the web page visits you.

    4. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

    5. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      false analogy analysis. you visit website. ads from other websites shout at you on the site you visited.

    6. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by taustin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When the web page contains ads that include malware, in fact, yes, the web page does visit you. In much the same way diarrhea visits you after you visit the wrong hotel in Mexico.

      And since distributing malware is a very serious crime, the visiting public is entirely justified in protecting itself.

      Only an accomplice would argue otherwise. Since arguing otherwise makes one an accomplice.

    7. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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."
    8. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by hesiod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not my problem if a company is built upon a faulty profit model.

    9. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by Fragnet · · Score: 2

      I'm using Microsoft Edge at the moment which doesn't have an AdBlock yet (expecting Microsoft to make the appropriate platform available sometime 2016). The browsing experience without an ad blocker is fucking horrific. And this is what Randall "cock-juggling thundercunt" Rothenburg thinks my experience of the internet should be like all the time.

      What a twat.

    10. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    12. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by Tharkkun · · Score: 2

      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.

      False. You can become infected by visiting a website where they have a compromised flash ad. You don't need to execute anything today. But at the same time your employees did visit websites that weren't mainstream. It's those websites that rely on ad revenue from agencies not on the most trusted list that get you infected.

    13. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > 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.

    14. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      I remember a post on USENET after 9/11. Some spammer made a post declaring that by seeking to keep spammers blocked that we were the "real terrorists". Seriously, smoke hadn't even died down yet. USENET basically died due to spammers. That same mindset is alive and well in advertisers today. Anything that threatens their revenue is the greatest evil that they can imagine in the world. It is very difficult to make a moral distinction between spammers and modern online advertisers.

    15. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      There is a difference between not looking at the ad directly and blocking it.

      Not really. I don't use adblock, but I do use NoScript. It won't run JavaScript in my browser unless I allow it. Usually I allow scripts for ONLY the website I'm visiting. In practice, that removes most of the ads - I never see them. So the content host isn't hosting an ad at all, and they are not included in their content. Instead, they are asking me to allow my browser to go to some other random site on the Internet and download that content. If you want to show me an ad on your site, then, fine, show me an ad on your site. But I'm not going somewhere else to fetch it.

      If I remember well, devices which removed ads automatically was proven illegal.

      You don't, and they weren't. They are just impractical in the US. In Japan, broadcasters are required to send markers in their stream to distinguish between advertising and content, and those devices are fairly popular there.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    16. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think it is an irrevelant technical difference if the ad is coming from a google server or from a - maybe google - server leased by the web page creator.

      Clearly you have no idea how the Web works, based on your incredibly ignorant response. It's not an "irrelevant technical difference" at all - it's the key issue fundamental to the entire argument.

      now that the percentage of ad blocking users exploded I am sure that within one year a few web hosts start to proxy ads.

      No, you're wrong, they will never do that - it will cost them in server hardware and bandwidth to host all that advertising. It would create massive logistical issues with advertiser billing (not to mention new vectors for click fraud).

      I am afraid you will be the only one who will be happy with this solution.

      I really don't care - as I already stated. There are several web sites that have already lost my business because the obtrusive annoyance of their ads is not worth putting up with to consume whatever "content" they have. Hulu eventually wised up and started offering an add-free subscription service. Too late for me, because I had already cancelled my subscription because of all the annoying un-skippable advertising.

      You should stop posting on this topic - you're just going to embarrass yourself further.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    17. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      Flash is executable content, it is the same exact thing as a .exe on Windows.

      Your browser should not be executing anything.

      Ad blocking and executable (script) blocking are two different things but seem to be lumped together in these discussions.

      If you are afraid of malware, run a script blocking program like NoScript.

      If you don't like ads run an ad blocker like ABP.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    18. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > But saying that ads are somehow inherently immoral just makes you sound crazy.

      I was making a point. If one side is going to be stupid enough to try to use the excuse that ad-blocking is immoral, then there is no reason the other side can't be just as dumb and say ads are immoral.

      > Without advertising, we'd all still be living in caves.

      [[Citation]]

      > Can you imagine how long it would take to build any kind of economy if the only way anything could ever be sold was by word of mouth?

      And nothing of value was lost.

      The *best* kind of advertising is word-of-mouth (assuming people aren't being paid to be shills.) When my friends tell me about X, you can damn well bet I'm going to listen to the pros & cons. When some ad comes on TV I either mute / fast-forward, and make a mental note to never but their crap they are hawking.

      Advertising is a leech upon society. It is time we stop putting up with crap that invades our lives every chance it gets.

    19. Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... by Duhavid · · Score: 2

      And berate us when we use earplugs and sunglasses

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  2. One question by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when is advertising "content"?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re: One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when is advertising considered speech?

      Either way, you have the right to say it, I have the right to not listen.

    2. Re:One question by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      Since when is advertising "content"?

      Since the rise of advertising gave birth to for-profit ad-ridden sites. The advertising is the content, the article is the filler. If people would view a blank page with nothing but ads, it would make them even happier, but they are willing to generate cheap trashy eyeball-bait if need be.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    3. Re:One question by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ooooh, he's referring to his freedom, not mine. I see. It sounds like he believes that crap too, he thinks he has the right to advertise:

      The full speech begins with an overview of the development of the $600 billion online ad industry in the twenty years since the formation of the Internet Advertising Council in 1996, and includes ... direct comparisons between freedom of expression and freedom to advertise, citing advertising’s pivotal connection with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

      Here's what Article 19 says:

      Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

      So the head of the advertising industry thinks that Article 19 means that he's allowed to shove anything he wants at us, and we have to take it. Apparently he thinks that "freedom to ... impart information and ideas" means that the person on the receiving end does not have the freedom to reject that information. I wonder if he feels the same way about us, I wonder if he also thinks that other people have the right to shove whatever information we want at the IAB, and they have to take it.

      This is what happens when your only motivation, your only metric, is money.

      This is the head of a $50 billion per year industry referring to the people in charge of a $120 million per year company. Yeah, they're the ones just out for profit at the expense of morals and ethics.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:One question by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since a bunch of greedy assholes needed to make a spurious semantic argument which painted themselves as the victims.

      This is an ad exec, which means he's a master at being a lying bastard who excels in puffery, false claims, and unfounded assertions provided without facts.

      He doesn't have to be true, just muddy the waters and confuse some people into believing his bullshit ... the exact same as his "product".

      You really think the ad companies saying "boo hoo, we're being censored" don't know every trick in the book the lie, manipulate, and skew the response their way all the while knowing damned well they're full of shit??

      He's just pulling out the entire PR/marketing spin/baffle-with-bullshit playbook, because that's what he knows best.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:One question by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You really think the ad companies saying "boo hoo, we're being censored" don't know every trick in the book the lie, manipulate, and skew the response their way all the while knowing damned well they're full of shit??

      Yeah, I realize that he's probably slightly more self-aware than he projects. I do really enjoy seeing these stories though. I have never been a fan of advertisers, on any medium, and seeing these people start to fight back, and seeing places like Forbes block people using ad-blockers, it just shows that our efforts are being noticed. We're finally eating into their bottom line enough that they've decided they need to fight back, and I love that. Advertisers have seemed so tone-deaf and obstinate that it's been so frustrating trying to deal with ads, so the fact that they're feeling it in their pocketbook means that we're finally getting through to them, finally forcing them to pay attention. Especially the name-calling of the ABP folks, I enjoyed that part especially:

      Now, you may be aware of a kerfuffle that began about 10 days ago, when an unethical, immoral, mendacious coven of techie wannabes at a for-profit German company called AdBlock-Plus took to the digisphere to complain over and over that IAB had "disinvited" them to this convention.

      Ooooh yes, more name-calling! Nothing says "I'm about to make a fantastic argument" like some grade-school-level name calling. And why are they "techie wannabes", of all things? Because they're beating him at every opportunity. He's in an arms race against people who are on a level that he doesn't even understand, so he specifically picks that as the way to insult them. I love it, he's admitting that he's getting beaten at the technical arms race. Instead of trying to figure out new ways to get around the filters, their solution is to just block people using the filters. Here's what I love even more: he's going to realize that their only solution is to end up paying ABP for inclusion on their whitelist, and as soon as that check is written he's going to wake up and realize that ABP just failed after everyone left and now there are 5 other blockers that people are using that don't have a whitelist. Who is he going to call names then?

      On another note, I noticed this question in his speech:

      But since you are here, I want to take the opportunity to ask you a personal question - a question that may make you uncomfortable.

      Go on.....

      Sure, $50 billion in revenue is a great thing - for the businesses taking it in. But how will we create - and how will you, personally, contribute to creating - the next $50 billion in value... value to society, value to the culture, value to your family, value to your friends and neighbors?

      Yeeeesssss... considering the fact that your work is not valuable to any culture, and that your friends and neighbors probably secretly hate you and the work you're doing, how are you going to personally create that ... ahem... "value"?

      But if money is your only goal, then you risk falling into relativism - a pernicious trap, for you begin weighing all potential returns based on the single metric of how much more money you can make. Truth, beauty, fairness, justice, honesty, civic pride, neighborliness - they become means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. That is debilitating, and ultimately deadens the soul.

      There you go, Ad Guy, THAT was the message you should have been spreading 20 years ago when you started. Now it's a bit late to try and get everyone "on board" with doing things the right way. You've spent the last 20 years treating things like truth, beauty, fairness, justice, and honesty as means to a profitable end, and now I'd like to invite you to Sit'n'Spin while you think about how you've spent those last 20 years. Welcome to your funeral.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:One question by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Videos, pictures, and text advertisements are all referred to by the advertising industry as "creatives." Which makes sense in a way, because some artist or writer worked to make them.

      Want to know something else? You, the reader and user of the website, are referred to as "supply." Websites try to build up supply so they can fill the "demands" of advertisers. No joke. This sort of stuff is why I left the advertising industry and am never working there again.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:One question by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      how will you, personally, contribute to creating - the next $50 billion in value... value to society, value to the culture, value to your family, value to your friends and neighbors?

      I really hope that some day I have to seriously consider this question.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Dude needs to learn what censorship is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Dude needs to learn what censorship is. by myrdos2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Freedom is being able to view only the content that I want to.

      Exactly. Might as well say that the makers of foam ear plugs are engaged in censorship.

    2. Re:Dude needs to learn what censorship is. by fuzznutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the ads are the reason we are able to enjoy the freedom of free content. By blocking the ads, you are essentially stealing the content.

      I wondered how long it would be before some idiot threw this one out.

      Since you are obviously clueless, let me explain how it works. I connect to your site and request you to transmit a webpage to me. If you willingly send that page, I cannot be accused of stealing because I don't look at the entire thing. In fact, I revel in the fact that I block your ads. I am astonished at how bad the experience can be when you do not block. When I am asked to look at somebody's computer, the FIRST thing I do is install an adblocker. I have NEVER had anyone ask me to remove it.

  4. If AB+ were forced on users by beschra · · Score: 2

    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
  5. Is his address public? by neminem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  6. They did it to themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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")

  7. What nonsense by Kierthos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  8. This just in... by PessimysticRaven · · Score: 2

    "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.
    1. Re:This just in... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      "Advertising industry confirms ad-blockers are working."
      Or
      "Ad industry still in denial, thinks it owns your computer."

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Re:Only in America by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  10. It's not censorship if it's the user's choice by Lendrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. hey, son, jam that IAB right up your ass. by swschrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:hey, son, jam that IAB right up your ass. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, the irony, By refusing to show content to people who use ad blockers, they are the ones doing the censoring ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:hey, son, jam that IAB right up your ass. by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      more importantly, since when is advertising considered press or a protected form of speech and does this mean I have to allow [insert activist nutjob's opinion] to be plastered all over my computer.

    3. Re:hey, son, jam that IAB right up your ass. by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The First Amendment says you can broadcast it, but it doesn't say that listeners/viewers should somehow be forced to absorb it.

      The idiot in TFA hadn't figured that out yet, apparently.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:hey, son, jam that IAB right up your ass. by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      It does. We'll also be disabling your remote whenever a commercial comes on so you may not mute, change channel, or turn off your TV and thereby bypass your freedom. Although, not implemented in this version of FreedomTV, version 2.1 will secure you to your couch and deploy Clockwork Orange style specula to ensure you consume our freedomvertisements.

    5. Re:hey, son, jam that IAB right up your ass. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      I'm generally cool with is if a site doesn't want to let me participate cuz if my ad blocking is active. I can easily turn it off or white list the site if it is important to me, and also there's often content elsewhere.

    6. Re:hey, son, jam that IAB right up your ass. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      See episode 2 of Black Mirror, Fifteen Million Credits. Part of the story background involves having to pay to avoid advertising.

  12. Yup by wkwilley2 · · Score: 2

    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?
    1. Re:Yup by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't forget that it also helps protect you. Ads are a common vector for drive by malware attacks.

  13. Self serving idiots ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  14. Skip this ad to listen to Randall's speech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  15. Users? by rtkluttz · · Score: 2

    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.
  16. Yes, I'm the Mafia by jdavidb · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  17. Re:Oy vey! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  18. Good! by rannala · · Score: 2

    Looks like adblockers are working then.

  19. Hey, Randall by Jawnn · · Score: 2

    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?

  20. thanks for the recomendation by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  21. If ads didn't misbehave.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  22. Re:Only in America by retchdog · · Score: 2

    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
  23. Re:Only in America by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, nobody in the soviet bloc or even china has ever experienced communism. They experienced totalitarianism

    Communism + Reality = Totalitarianism

  24. Get your freedoms right by s13g3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  25. Advertisers dug their own grave by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

    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.

  26. Gosh, everyone's channeling Che these days. by hey! · · Score: 2

    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.
  27. Re:Only in America by currently_awake · · Score: 2

    Americans think Ronald Reagan was a left wing politician. They frequently redefine words to new-speak nonsense.

  28. Freedom of the Press by davesays · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  29. Re:Damn straight! Best adblocker & more = host by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

    Damn straight! Best adblocker & more = hosts

    Doesn't work, I still see this ad.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  30. Re:Only in America by mjwx · · Score: 2

    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.
  31. Re: Only in America by retchdog · · Score: 2

    My hovercraft is full of eels!

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  32. Re: Only in America by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    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 *