Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Rolls Out Code To Nullify Adblock Plus' Workaround (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Wall Street Journal issued a report Tuesday that said Facebook will begin forcing ads to appear for all users of its desktop site, even if they use ad-blocking software. Adblock Plus, the most popular ad-blocking software, opposed Facebook's plan and found a workaround to Facebook's revision two days later. Now, TechCrunch is reporting that Facebook is well aware of Adblock Plus' workaround and their "plan to address the issue" is coming quick. "A source close to Facebook tells [TechCrunch] that today possibly within hours, the company will push an update to its site's code that will nullify Adblock Plus' workaround," reports TechCrunch. "Apparently it took two days for Adblock Plus to come up with the workaround, and only a fraction of that time for Facebook to disable it." An update on their site says, "A source says Facebook is now rolling out the code update that will disable Adblock Plus' workaround. It should reach all users soon."
Facebook is for old people.
I happen to deal with teenagers frequently (no, I'm not their dealer, I teach computer lessons on the side) and most of them have "mostly" left Facebook now that their parents are there. They keep the FB account mostly so parents think they're still using it and don't pester them to know what they now use.
It's kinda scary to see kids around the age of 16 live a double life...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Evidently.
I avoid Facebook ads the easy way: I never go to the fb site. I call it "NoShit", it's cross-browser, cross-platform, and it doesn't even require installation.
That's my technique too. But seriously, what is FB thinking here? That people who engage in arms races because they really, really don't want to see ads are going to buy any of the products advertised if you defeat all their countermeasures and shove the ads in their face anyway?
It reminds me of the days of (landline phone) telemarketers. There was a market for devices to discourage them automatically. The telemarketers made great efforts to defeat those devices, also with automated systems. Their theory? That people who try to avoid telemarketing calls are all a bunch of timid push-overs who are afraid to say "no" to a salesperson, so if you can just find a way to get them on the phone, you'll make a sale. Can you really imagine that, in this rude culture? That someone would be so worried about the feelings of a pest-for-hire on the telephone when it's getting hard to find common courtesy in face-to-face encounters? But that's what the marketers wanted to think.
It appears FB is showing a similar level of arrogance. I hope that every user who doesn't click ads and doesn't buy things devalues the revenue they receive per ad. Wouldn't advertisers pay less money for ads with a lower click-through rate? Can anyone confirm if it works that way?
Teenagers are much more aware of their privacy than we give them credit for. It's mostly what's now the 20-30 age bracket that doesn't "get" it. Most teens I tend to work with (which are arguably a bit more security savvy than the average person, I have to admit) do care about what information they give out and it seems to become more and more a status symbol to get the worst targeted ads to show off just how much you managed to mislead the various companies trying to profile you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've already started clicking on every ad to hide it, and then choose offense / sexually explicity. Time to pollute their data set, and if they actually action on this feedback then that system will get broken if enough people also do the same.
Oh and I've started using FB on my phone because of the advertising. If they put up a wall then like other sites I've encountered doing the same then I will say "no thanks" and move on. There's just not enough value in FB at the end of the day.
Yes, they're so aware of their privacy they're posting nude pictures of themselves online, posting where they're going for vacation, posting how drunk/stoned they are, posting pictures, in general, of themselves at all kinds of locations and notifying everyone and everything about their daily lives.
Yes, they're much more aware of their privacy by showing the world everything about their lives.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Jesus never existed.
There are absolutely no contemporaneous accounts that speak of Jesus. Not a single one. As far as the historical record is concerned he just did not exist. There's not a single carving, sculpture, poem, painting, drawing or mention of him from the time in which he supposedly lived.
There is not a single mention in him in military records or dispatches back to Rome (and surely anyone who could command huge gatherings of people in a potentially disruptive province should be of interest). He is not mentioned in the records of Herod’s court nor is he mentioned in the records of the Temple or by any Priests. Surely if he was believed by some to be a prophet and others to be a false prophet some mention of the ructions he was causing in Judean civic and religious society should have been recorded. Some people like to point to the supposed letters of Pontius Pilate as evidence of Jesus’ life but these were a work of fiction.
Jesus is a composite figure assembled from many, many previous myths that all feature the same story line:
Horus was one of the many Egyptian Gods (3100 B.C.)
He had 12 disciples.
One was born of a virgin in a cave.
Like Jesus, his birth was announced via a star.
And three wise men showed up!
He was baptized when he was 30 by Anup the Baptizer.
He rose a guy from the dead and walked on water.
Lastly, he was crucified, buried like Jesus in a tomb, and resurrected.
Buddha, (563 B.C.)
Healed the sick
Walked on water.
Fed 500 men from one basket of cakes.
Taught a lot of the same things Jesus taught, including equality for all.
He spent three days in jail.
Was resurrected when he died.
Mithra, an ancient Zoroastrian deity with similarities to Jesus (2000 B.C.)
Virginal birth on December 25th.
Swaddled and laid in a manger.
Tended by shepherds in the manger.
He had 12 companions (or disciples).
Performed miracles.
Gave his own life to save the world.
Dead for three days, then resurrected.
Called “the Way, the Truth and the Light.”
Has his own version of a Eucharistic-style “Lord’s supper.”
Krishna, (around 3000 B.C.)
A Hindu God.
Born after his mom was impregnated by a God.
Angels, wise men, and shepherds were at his birth.
Guess what gifts they gave him? Gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
A jealous bad guy ordered the slaughter of all newborns, just as happened with Jesus.
Baptized in a river.
Performed miracles, including raising the dead and healing the deaf and blind.
Rose from the dead to ascend to heaven.
Is expected to return to earth someday to fight the “Prince of Evil.”
Osiris (around 2500 B.C.)
Killed and the resurrected after three days in hell. WTF? A common theme here!
Performed miracles
Had 12 disciples.
Taught rebirth through water baptism.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Tell the advertisers directly that if facebook forces ads on their users then you will boycott their company and its products forever.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"