Slashdot Mirror
Every Major Advertising Group Is Blasting Apple for Blocking Cookies in the Safari Browser (adweek.com)
The biggest advertising organizations say Apple will "sabotage" the current economic model of the internet with plans to integrate cookie-blocking technology into the new version of Safari. Marty Swant, reporting for AdWeek: Six trade groups -- the Interactive Advertising Bureau, American Advertising Federation, the Association of National Advertisers, the 4A's and two others -- say they're "deeply concerned" with Apple's plans to release a version of the internet browser that overrides and replaces user cookie preferences with a set of Apple-controlled standards. The feature, which is called "Intelligent Tracking Prevention," limits how advertisers and websites can track users across the internet by putting in place a 24-hour limit on ad retargeting. In an open letter expected to be published this afternoon, the groups describe the new standards as "opaque and arbitrary," warning that the changes could affect the "infrastructure of the modern internet," which largely relies on consistent standards across websites. The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
Who could have predicted that consumer privacy would be a lesser concern than revenue flow to industry trade groups?
I bought a motorcycle helmet years ago, I still get ads for the helmet and others I researched. Fucking ads suck.
Unless Apple has a patent on it...
I have to manage enough other stuff and generally ignore cookies.
That said, cookies do show me what my wife is shopping for on Amazon, but I don't need to see that (it is funny to call her and implicitly talk about what's she's looking at, but that only worked a couple of times).
BlameBillCosby.com
This might just get me to use Safari.. The idea that advertisers have any right to users browsing habits is a concept that needs to be crushed.
Bout time a big browser grew a set.
If I have to see ads on a web site, my preference is that they are "generic and less timely and useful" since I'm going to ignore them anyway.
Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
The advertising industry is MAD! We're sooooo scared!
If they get too mad they may just deprive us of their services! God forbid if Adblock become irrelevant!!
If "Every Major Advertising Group" hates this, then it shows that Apple is probably doing the right thing :-)
These guys killed "Do-Not-Track" in the US and made a joke of "cookie laws" in the EU. Looks like now they have found a stronger opponent.
I hadn't thought about it, but all major browsers allow users to block third-party cookies. If they would only make this the default behavior, it would do a world of good. And piss of the marketeers even more.
The only problem I ever have is when I want to read comments on a site that has outsource them to an external service like Disqus. But then, that's usually a good reason to skip the site entirely...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I'm sure Apple is violating the TOS for all these advertisers.
Small violins, get your small violins here
18-core iMac Pro 3
Yes, Microsoft has a long history of enriching companies it works with to their mutual benefit.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Doesn't Chrome already have something like this? Or is this just an institutionalized ad blocker much like the plugin's you can d/l and install as extensions?
If it is just like the existing plugin's then more power to Apple for making it easy for everyone to have a ad blocker.
For all of the complaints people have about Apple, I feel the one thing that really sets them apart is their continuing effort to protect the user's privacy, even at the cost of software functionality. Siri has been lagging far behind other services, and at least some of it is due to her inability to track a user's preferences and habits. Apple is now introducing changes to the software that attempt to solve this by storing the information locally on the user's device so that government and law enforcement officials can't "demand" the data from Apple.
People do not want advertising. They do not want 'targeted' advertising, either. Find a different business model, marketers, we don't want the one you keep pushing.
Now if they only make it so the browser won;t report anything about itself that would be great !
This would force sites to serve up standardised HTML and stop all this fingerpritig by what your browser returns for starters..
Now if they also stop supporting javascript it would definitely be a browser worth using !
and no, I don't ever buy products I see advertised. I'm tired of being constantly manipulated.
Go the whole way and integrate uBlock origin and Safari may get back more users, especially from Firefox 57 refugees.
The idea that "consumers" want ads, much less that they want "timely and useful" ads is mistaken.
Ultimately though, I imagine it is good for Google, Facebook, and other advanced tracking providers; they can easily evade any tracking avoidance strategies... unless Apple decides to proxy everything via iCloud.
A twenty four hour time limit? That's about twenty three and a half hours to long!
Will turning off 3rd party cookies help. That is what I do.
Don't really run into much issues with it. If your site requires one, its prolly not worth visiting.
Apple doesn't subsidize their hardware by selling your private information to people.
Ever wonder why Google gives away Android?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
So on my Mac I have Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Firefox has a whole heap of extensions that help keep things tight so I'll use that in the darker regions of the net, and Chrome works well with Google Docs so that's pretty much all I use it for. Safari is my main browser and that's what I'm using now. For all the hate Apple gets they did kill Flash and if they can kill cookies then all the better, especially on mobile.
As others have said, Google is an advertising company and for all the good things about Android, that's the main thing that keeps me away. You would think though that the rise of AdBlock, and do not track, and cookie controls would be enough to tell these advertisers that we don't like what they're doing? Don't they track that stuff?
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
I have a great idea. Why don't I take responsibility for my user experience.
Companies might spend a little time working on simply the best possible products and I will probably be anxious to find you.
Set aside the "free" internet that is really funded by the loss of privacy (and an open door to fraud on all levels) and instead how about paying me for the ads you want to send my way. I will happily pay more for my internet experience - bye bye "free" internet. And I can use the money I get for the ads I choose to view to pay for my internet experience as I deem to improve it. No middle-man needed. I pay for facebook or twitter or email etc but all ad revenue can only go to the viewer. I pay GLADLY!
If you are an ad company, if your ads are the ones I value then I sign up for your ads. Other ad company ads I don't sign up for.
Or maybe I can just pay Apple to for similar features through a type of walled hardware garden where the browser is the gate-keeper. Or someone else.
I don't see any responsible adults exercising sensible guidance over the internet. I welcome some serous disruption. I have my wallet ready to pay for my early adopter ticket.
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} Mac.* RewriteRule .* - [R=404]
At least that way I don't get to see adverts for something I've just sodding purchased!
As has been pointed out, Google is an advertising company cubed and won't do this unless they're forced to. But Mozilla and Firefox (and it's descendants) could, and I hope they will. All the more reason to switch (back) to Firefox.
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
Utter and total BS! A better user experience doesn't involve ads.
Advertisers, just like lawyers, can GFTS!
If the advertising industry is opposed to this move, then I'm all for it. Fuck them.
The internet has ads?
Have you considered making actual software instead of apps? If someone has a use or need for an expense reporting app, they most likely have a PC of some sort. Just because it can be an app, doesn't mean it must be an app.
>"... overrides and replaces user cookie preferences with a set of Apple-controlled standards."
This says Apple is taking control away from consumers and dictating cookie preferences itself. I assume that Apple's next move will be to monetize its control over cookies. I can't figure out whether the advertising companies are complaining because they are upset that they will have to pay off Apple, or that they think that by complaining they will ensure that customers miss Apple's power grab and insist that they want this.
My guess as to the retargeting apologist's reply: "Have you bought another of the helmet as a gift for another biker in your circle of friends?"
Perhaps the biologists studying hippo butt leeches ? Because "yes, there are simularities."
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
It's in Apple's best interest to regulate the ads because in the end if usability suffers or if privacy issues arise it reflects badly on their product. Same thing with Google. Intrusive ads eventually discourage people from going on the internet or using their devices. Things neither company wants.
They said this before when Safari introduced Reader mode. Somehow the advertisers survived anyway. Next...
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
If timely and useful advertising is so valuable to us users, then why are they giving it away for free?
They should make us pay a subscription fee to get timely and useful ads.
And seeing what percentage of the population that signs up to pay for "timely and useful" ads would indicate whether the advertisers are full of shit or not.
Apple doing something good, amazing
Now if they also stop supporting javascript it would definitely be a browser worth using !
If web browser developers were to stop supporting JavaScript, web application developers would make native applications instead. And many such developers aren't going to have the resources to make and thoroughly test five versions of each native application, one for each of GNU/Linux, Android, Windows, macOS, and iOS. This means users will end up unable to use some applications that they would have been able to use had they been web applications.
Or should a developer deliver a Windows application that has been tested in Windows and Wine, expect GNU/Linux and macOS users to use Wine, and expect Android and iOS users to do without?
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
Won't somebody please think of the users? These ad groups are just trying to get them the information they need! *chortle*
I always get a kick out of it when these types of groups make it sound like they give a crap about the wellbeing of their cattle. Like anyone wants to see their ads in the first place.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Seriously, the amount of effort and energy I need to expend to avoid adverts and commercials is insane. I'm not just a bag of money to be obtained.
Letting lawyers and sales people use the internet was a big mistake.
Apple isnt interested in user privacy as much as it is interested in leveraging ad companies data and funds.
They'll "work with selected partners" to "ensure a superior user experience" while forking over the data for a fee.
Removing the 3.5 headphones jack is not the end of discreet listening, it's the beginning of better revenue. so will he end of cookies be the beginning of revenue.
Ad revenue is dead, long live ad revenue.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Since most donâ(TM)t use existing blocker apps like 1Blocker , which is already a much better option.
Safari Browser users are so few in the overall use of web browsers why would anyone care what Apple did in this context?
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
Issue closed as NOFIX: This is a feature not a bug.
Self-Destructing Cookies is a great Firefox plugin that sandboxes cookies and deletes them with a configurable interval. Thus, you can still use sites that break when you disable cookies. It also supports deletion of Adobe Flash ghost cookies, you probably have *never* cleared out.
Personally, I also use NoScript and Ublock Origin to further make life hard on the blackhats trying to pwn my browser, use me to gather data, or track me constantly. I prefer my web with passive content. Once you ask me to run code, I'm off the bus unless you have a really, really good reason, and let's be honest - you fsking don't have one.
So everyone can hear how upset you are about a marginal loss of ability to stalk users as they move from website to website.
Phone the press... demand they cover this very important issue before it's too late. Better still.. launch a public awareness campaign... after all stalkers have rights and are people too.
I can't believe that the ad agencies are still trotting this out:
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
It's almost as if they actually believe that spying on everyone is a good thing. But then, they also say this:
collectively representing thousands of companies that responsibly participate in and shape today’s digital landscape
Judging by their use of the word "responsibly" there, I'm thinking that they simply don't understand what words mean.
- Sites which demand removal of ad blockers are avoided.
- Pages which demand payment after a couple of paragraphs, showing encrypted content below that payment demand have their window closed.
- Unique email addresses used for any purchase or other web contact and deleted when they start sucking.
- The greatest sucker for me right now is opera-mini, whenever one opens a new tab or window _not_ with ssl, they bring up an ad page in your face instead the URL you entered - immediately hated and ignored, not even looked at.
- try finding a parts manual download for some equipment, welcome to internet hell. Impossible to wade through all the suckers and get what you need.They want a CC # for "verification" - OK give them one virtual with a pay limit of $ 1 and cancel the CC # if you don't like them, but still they can't get you what you actually are looking for. What a circus of suckers out there!
- You buy an item for $ 4, and be rewarded with emails sucking for "feedback", how do you like... Sometimes I reply that it costs $ 25 for my time, they never bought into it. Maybe put an email filter in for "content rejected" and bounce them?
What all this boils down to - kill those sucking sites by ignoring them - good luck! It only will get worse....
Don't be fooled people: When the first company existed there was no need for advertising. It was only when the second COPYCAT company was created to compete and therefore destroy the first ever company that advertising was created. An advertising company, being obviously not the first ever original company, is a bad thing!
It was turd polish at best
'The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."'
Bahahahahahahaha you know what I've never thought ever. "Hmmm that was a useful and timely ad. What a wonderful user experience."
To the Interactive Advertising Bureau, American Advertising Federation, the Association of National Advertisers, the 4A's and two others:
Your ads hurt my user experience.
Your tracking hurts my privacy.
Your infected ads hurt my computer.
Basically, you hurt people. If you disappear that will be a good thing.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
The only "standards" these guys are in favor of are the ones that line their pocketbooks. Do-not-track is a standard, and all these fuckers ignore it.
Apple should put it in raw, deep, hard, and repeatedly.
And that is why you should have worked on android. I get the whole apple deal, I do. Ive been involved with apps that both have made it on and ones that have not. We prefer android every time.
The parasite scream when you pull them off.
Well who could predict that the Cannibals would eventually complain about a food shortage.
Apple has never given any indication that they'd be willing to fork over user data. They've fought harder for user privacy than any other company.
No, not because they are better human beings, but because *that's what their business model demands*.
They make money by selling physical devices and they are judged by how well those devices work. They have every financial incentive to improve the actual user experience.
well...
There's a non-zero probability that you were somehow unsatisfied with your purchase, returned it, and are still in the market for a similar superior item.
yeah, that's still straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You forgot your sarcasm tag.
...so websites will support Safari less and less, if at all. Because a Safari user will bring in less advertising revenue than a Chrome, Firefox or IE user. Why waste time on a user that doesn't pay the bills? Like a coffee shop catering to the freeloaders.
I can't recall a single time in my entire internet history that I've ever purposefully clicked on an ad. Relevant or not, I blanket ignore them and always have. I've been trying to figure out how so many people use ads on the internets that they're a lucrative business.
I SEE them. Sometimes they're for things that I might actually want or use. But even when Google shows me exactly what I want in my search, I skip past the advertised slots. There's 1/100th of a penny they may not get, but there's a slightly weaker advertising profile they have on me.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
Microsoft works with people in the same way that a tapeworm works with people.
It's simple: don't push ads on me unless I'm already shopping. When I visit an ecommerce site, I expect to see ads. It makes sense. Anywhere else and it's a blockin'!
Even still, Amazon recommends all sorts of bullshit just because I looked at a particular item.
I was going to comment too. Apps are inherently ephemeral, they're going to be popular today and shunned tomorrow, they're highly risky. If you're entry level, or already financially secure, then it's probably ok to deal with apps. But anyone who wants stability should avoid basing their livelihood on them.
but goddamn, it's tshirt with a goat on it! Almost made me look it up on amzn and buy one. almost.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
In an open letter expected to be published this afternoon, the groups describe the new standards as âoeopaque and arbitrary,â warning that the changes could affect the âoeinfrastructure of the modern internet,â which largely relies on consistent standards across websites.
When will people learn that what is provided to a web browser is merely a series of suggestions? The browser can take the suggestions, or discard them, and there is only so much the server side can do about it. I've seen website refuse to show content to browsers that block JavaScript or cookies but that's fine, I don't have to go to your site.
If their advertising model can be broken with a web browser that provides a feature that people want then perhaps they should change their advertising model. Disposing of cookies that want to exist until the end of time is a place to start. Ignoring autoplay requests would also be nice. If I want to watch your video then I'll hit the play button, thankyouverymuch.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
. Getting additional personnel who are qualified at managing and selling ads for the site is prohibitively expensive and difficult.
waaaahhh! waaahhhh!!!! I don't wanna interact with people! I just wanna write PHP scripts all day! waaaah! waaah!
Yeah, that isn't going to happen, Mr. Chicken Little.
... the groups describe the new standards as "opaque and arbitrary"
Not arbitrary at all. They're specifically designed to target the advertisers.
Nope, no sig
The only cookies I allow with uMatrix are the ones set by the primary domain, all others are dropped.
but goddamn, it's tshirt with a goat on it!
Not just any goat. It's a goat powered by the C programming language. What programmer wouldn't want a goat C?
If the ads weren't so annoying this wouldn't be happening
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
... 'that the changes could affect the "infrastructure of the modern internet," ' ...
That sounds very desirable to me, I would really enjoy an internet that wasn't taken over by advertising. It seems like a lifetime ago when all you had to endure from websites were animated gifs from over zealous web designers.
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
One day in the near future Apple Safari users won't get to read about this stuff on sites like Washington Post, etc, that do paywalls and won't show you content if you are using ad blocking technologies.
I'm glad Apple is doing this, now Mozilla and Msft need to do this.
Chrome as sweet as it is as a browser will become 'that guy' that still relies on your personal data to even exist.
Google Facebook can go eat a bag of STDs.
I support Apple in this effort and will likely vote with my dollars in the months to come.
Finaly a move for the user and a move against the EVIL!!! Google gets 95% of their revenue from ads and from our data.
Yes Tim, this is the way. Google already pays Apple around 3 billions just to be the default search engine in Apple devices (it was 1 bilion few yers go).
Apples sells devices, you can choose... Google uses and sells your data and you can't choose (they own the WEB with AdWords).
Google is EVIL.
Chrome on Android doesn't do this
Fuck the ads!
Hmm yes. let's spend money supporting people that bring in no revenue.
Ghostery + hosts file + cookie monster = Yumyumyum internet. Next we need a way to get around "dynamic pricing" , we currently use 2 machine with one being via a VPN so we can price compare.
Meanwhile, Nabisco’s board of directors hold an emergency meeting to discuss the eminent demise of cookies and alternative confectionary marketing synergies.
They actually believe that pissing off potential customers is a good thing.
.... they're all mentally retarded.
Their logic is that people pissed off enough to be whining online about advertising industry practices are guaranteed to have noticed advertising, and people noticing advertising is Their Entire Point Of Existence.
Anybody with more than half a brain can see the obvious flaw in that logic, but like I said
This change will not impact me in the slightest:
1) I don't use safari aside from extemely rare occasions 2) I ALWAYS use a variety of STOP THE BULLSHIT ALREADY tools already, like uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, etc.
If the ENTIRE global advertising industry fell into a black hole overnight the world would be a better place, these people are pretty much the amoral unethical inhuman scum of the earth, up there with NeoNazis, the Alt-Right and friends.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
they are parasites and nothing of any value will be lost.
It's a miracle that advertising has existed for thousands of years without the ability to target people based on random bits of inaccurate data.
Every browser lets you delete/block cookies.
And the ad business uses supercookies & browser fingerprinting to try identify you even without cookies.
There was a new industry sprouting up. People were being paid to write junk articles for fractions of a BitCoin (a bit like Amazon Turk where you had to write five paragraphs on a holiday in Hawaii using chosen words a selected number of times). People were starting to complain about all they were seeing were these articles.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Anybody who claims that Firefox protects their privacy probably hasn't actually looked at Firefox's privacy policy.
Below are some excerpts from the Firefox privacy policy that is dated July 31, 2017.
Be sure to notice the type of information being collected and possibly even transmitted to third parties (including Google, some "Leanplum" company, a "mobile analytics vendor", and "certain developers"). We see terms like:
Here are the excerpts:
Have you considered making actual software instead of apps?
Mobile apps are still sofware. Sure they have a different form factor but often their audience overlaps the desktop market.
If someone has a use or need for an expense reporting app, they most likely have a PC of some sort.
Likely, yes. What about tradespeople and mobile support/salespeople? They all have mobile phones so that they're contactable. With the appropriate mobile app they can photograph receipts as they make purchases and send them to their accountants for up-to-date book keeping. (There are actually apps that do this already.) Beats keeping a pile of receipts in your truck that you'll probably lose or just forget about.
Just because it can be an app, doesn't mean it must be an app.
Totally agree. Apps are tools just like any other software and they should only exist to fulfill a purpose. Who'd want an integrated development environment on their phone, for example?
>infrastructure of the modern internet
Holy shit. The ego on these guys. The fucking ego.
YOU showed up to the party. Uninvited.
This is NOT your fucking party. This is not your house. And it logically follows the party will go on without you, because your implied dependency is bullshit.
You are unneeded. You. Are. Not. Needed. Stop pretending otherwise.
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
OMG! Goat C. GOATSE! I SEE WHAT U DID THAR CREIMER!
LOLOLOLOLOL
You've been flogging that hard for a week now - you're fond of calling people who criticize you "14 year old wankers," but it seems as if you're the one with the mentality of a teenager, tittering over how clever you are to refer to such a nasty image!
Seriously, man, what is your fucking problem?
Adblock can't do (or do as well) 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnet C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned/downed dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently (a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...)
ClarityRay defeats it
Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com...
AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions...
Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C's
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnet C&C's
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C'ss
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned/downed dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use
* ANSWER ="NO" OR as well vs. hosts (natively vs. illogically inefficiently "Bolting on 'MoAr'").
APK
P.S.=> Addons do less vs. hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + start w/ IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to work!
Ghostery (Advertiser owned) "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Criticism
If you piss off ALL the Mad Men, you've obviously done SOMETHING RIGHT!
In the past, I was willing to allow ads to show up on the webpages I visited. I knew how to block them, but I was sympathetic to the idea that most of the pages I visit are funded by advertisers, so it seemed fair. Then Facebook decided I desperately needed a Russian bride. That was the final straw and so from then on, I've blocked them.
However, I still feel like it is reasonable to support the websites that I want to visit. I'd be willing to pay a pittance, but until Google (because it'd have to be built into Chrome) decides to handle micro-transactions, it doesn't really work. Now that they're going to start doing a built in ad-blocker on Chrome, perhaps the time has come to suggest a Faustian compromise.
Dear Google: Step up your game and I will help you advertise to me. You already have huge amounts of data about me, so I'm willing to trust that you can handle my advertising preferences as well. I will give you permission to see my purchase history with my credit card companies and with my banking companies. You already have my search and email info, but I'll check a box that says you can use it so you can make the EU regulators happy. Give me the button on Chrome that says "Only ads from Google" and I will let you be the middle man on every online ad that I see. I will even do the same for my phone. Surely that's appealing?
In return, I ask four things:
1) Keep my data secure.
2) Let me unsubscribe from the ads that I find distasteful. I want to uncheck the "lots of skin" preference and know that no ad that I see will be of a scantily clad model. I want to uncheck the "wine and spirits" and uncheck the "marital aid" and uncheck the "boner pills" boxes. And please, please let me uncheck the "find a date (if you know what we mean)" box.
3) Make it super easy for websites to use your advertising to make money. If this doesn't work out better for the sites that want to be supported by advertising, then this will never be a winnable war.
4) Do not fail. I visit one site multiple times each day. I cannot get uBlock to consistently block their stupid video advertisement boxes. I'm never going to do business of any kind with that company and don't need to see them. Somehow, that website has so many hooks into them that uBlock can't seem to keep a consistent grip on the problem. I end up having to block them at the DNS level and that's a stupidly manual approach to the problem. If you do a good enough job of ensuring that I don't see irritating advertisements, I will not only accept advertising again, I will actively help you do it well.
The problem with blowing away your cookies every time you restart is that it breaks sites that use two factor authentication. Because receiving the verification code through SMS on a prepaid U.S. cellular plan costs money each time, sites using 2FA offer a "Remember this computer as mine" option. If you disable persistent cookies, you end up having to receive SMS every time. For whom would this be worth ten cents per day times the number of sites that one logs into per day?
Adblock can't do (or do as well) 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnet C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned/downed dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently (a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...)
ClarityRay defeats it
Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com...
AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions...
Today I am pro-Apple. Well done, Apple! I am hearing nice things about you for a change.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
... as when I got married in 1980.
We got mail (snail) offering us all kinds of deals on homeowner's insurance, local stores, and all that shit.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I couldn't come up with a better measure of success if I tried.
See subject: Adblock doesn't do the 1 job it has by default fully & its FAR less efficient & less effective.
* "Bolting on 'MoAr'" to do LESS (far less efficiently & effectively) = illogic logic...
NOW - 'nullrouting' via firewalls? Not effective vs. malware (they by FAR use host-domain names hosts stop, Windows' firewall doesn't, it uses IP addresses) &/or vs. ads (they change the IP address of a host-domain name an ad uses, you're "SOL"... period).
APK
P.S.=> Especially something that's NON-native (hosts are as part of the IP stack itself proven since 1973 iirc as to when hosts were added) in browser addons that SOLD OUT to show ads (& no SINGLE addon does as much as hosts does by itself)... apk
Wouldn't the end result be pretty similar to IE's Tracking Protection feature where the browser just won't make requests to domain's on the blacklist?
Fuck cookies, worry your ass over application cache, indexeddb and javascripting. Cookies are not needed anymore, nor have they been for many years now.
Why yes, medical marijuana could benefit you. Settle up with the receptionist!
Advertiser need to get over themselves. Ads in and of themselves ruin the user experience. It really doesn't matter what they are for.
I would shed no tears if every single advertiser went bankrupt and died on the streets after this. In fact, I would celebrate. As would pretty much everyone who isn't a covetous jew trying to get you to buy shit.
Getting the same ads about that one product you've purchased for the next 30 years.
Buy Your Motorcycle Helmet Again Today! and we'll come back tomorrow!
Who'd want an integrated development environment on their phone, for example?
Well, I do have emacs on my wifi phablet, does that count?
If I put tracking stuff on their computers, they'd call it hacking and use the CFA on me!
I love you APK
Pale Moon (and Firefox, I presume) allow you to block all cookies not in a whitelist. I have 20+ separate profiles, 1 for each site I frequent. In each profile, I whitelist the domain name, to allow login cookies, etc. Thus...
* each profile only has the bare necessary cookies
* you don't end up with doubleclick.net dropping cookies on profile A and profile B, and figuring out that
person X on site A == person Y on site B
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
> ..so websites will support Safari less and less, if at all.
so websites will support browsers-that-report-user-agent-Safari less and less, if at all.
FTFY. Now I suppose that the next round consists of the advertisers' buying a judge to rule that falsely reporting a UserAgent contravenes the CFAA, and gets you several years in prison.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
I will not be happy until advertising is recognised for what it is: pollution.
It reduces my life pleasure by being intrusive and obnoxious. It covers otherwise pleasant things up or distracts from them. It causes people to buy stuff that isn't any good and that they don't actually need.
The correct response is to ban advertising. No less an action will help.
Really hard to imagine what was supposed to be insightful about that wannabe tweet.
Anyway, if Apple is doing the right thing, it must be for the wrong reason. More likely it isn't even the right thing, but just a confusing slight of hand of some sort. Not like Apple would upset the apple cart that made them the most profitable inhuman corporate monster on the planet.
Remember: There is no gawd but profit, and HIS prophets are Apple, Gilead, Google, Exxon, and some big gamblers. I'm lumping the big banks and other financial gamesters under winning "gamblers" there. This list of profit's prophets for 2016 courtesy Fortune.
Capitalism? Long dead. All hail corporate cancerism and Pope Apple the First, Last, and Infinite.
Now a word from our sponsors! This joke has been brought to you by...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I believe yours [MachineShedFred's] is the most insightful comment in the entire large discussion, so it is noteworthy that you (so far) have received no mods for insight. I admit I searched backwards, looking for the "google" keyword rather than "insightful". However, after I reflected on my joke about upsetting the apple cart, I realized that the insight here HAS to be centered around the google as the explanation for Apple's action.
There were a couple of weak-kneed defenses of the google. Their fundamental weakness was that google doesn't mind if a few people opt out of cookie-land as long as the default is cookies, cookies, everywhere (along with the related advertising that makes the google's profits possible). It's rather similar to the divide-and-conquer strategy that the so-called Republicans used to destroy public education in America (so they could cultivate that bumper crop of Trump-voting mushrooms). They left a few good schools behind so the people who actually cared could hope THEIR kids might get one of those slots in a good school while the lion's share of the students went to obedience schools you wouldn't send your dog to. In this case, the google is willing to allow the escape of the few people who care that much about their privacy. Their only concern is that the lion's share of Internet surfers accept the devil's bargain of privacy for "free" websites, including the google's own websites.
Which is where your unmoderated comment fits in. This is a war to be the biggest, baddest motherphucker in the Valley of the Shadow of Death, just like they taught me in boot camp. We were supposed to be fighting for truth, beauty, and the American way of life, but Apple and the google just want bigger profits, and each of the inhuman corporate monsters would gladly destroy the other for a nickel more in profits.
I say it's a fake problem because it has no solution. Always a bigger number for the next profit.
Apple thinks they have a winning jujitsu strategy here. I still say they are upsetting their own apple cart, though their motives are an interesting mix of short-sighted pursuit of profit and the actually good idea of protecting human privacy and freedom, per my sig. Too bad none them understand the sig, and probably not you, either.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I agree that not only are most ads annoying, but they are useless as well. Last evening I was watching some guitar reviews and an advertisement about a guitar capo came up. I haven’t clicked on an advertisement in a long while. I found the product interesting and new. I would rather have an option to set that I enjoy gadget and music advertisements, instead of getting tracking cookies.
They must really enjoy tracking their users. I can't even access the article. Instead I get a page that says "Access Denied - Sucuri Website Firewall" with "Block reason: Bad bot access attempt." Running Adblock, NoScript and UAControl with default:block (send no User-Agent at all) probably doesn't endear my browser to them.
Good! If Apple manages to do this, they should be applauded.
Fuck advertisers, they're the scum of the earth.
Eat the rich.
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs.
â" Banksy
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Too bad it doesn't work. It doesn't stop your spam ads.
With effort I could figure out what you were trying to say but you have to be the dumbest person on the planet as your ability to write is that of a 3 year old.
Your hosts file stuff doesn't do what you promise either. It is a blacklist and any real security expert knows that blacklists are about the worst way of doing things. I guess it is just too hard for you to comprehend. So why don't you go spam reddit instead or see if Kim Komando will endorse your product as it would be perfect for that crowd.
And your hosts file engine is spammer owned
I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad
I like your host file system by Karmashock
(NEED MORE? Ask!)
* It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!
APK
P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ ... apk
Malwarebytes hpHosts' hosts/RECOMMENDS me!
Aryeh Goretsky/ESET/NOD32: hosts = good security http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7442373&cid=49747129/
Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491/ "Host file accessing the Internet - particularly browsing the Web - is actually faster... Spybot Search & Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans & other forms of malware"
OReilly hosts security -> http://oreilly.com/pub/a/windows/2004/03/30/hosts.html/ & hosts speed -> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/excerpt/winxphacks_chap1/index1.html?page=3/
Steve Gibson endorses hosts https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-045.htm/
Brocke Wilders of WILDERS' SECURITY does inferior clone of MY work http://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/hosts-block.378901/
APK
P.S.=> What's that you said on "real security"? apk
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/
I guess Safari users could install extensions to change the User-Agent to Chrome or FF, but I wonder how many people will do that. Seems like a pain. Does Safari even allow an extension to do that?
No complaints from me, I like APK's spam. Reminds me to use a host file. Also, his stuff is free - by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @09:31AM (#50947415)
* ... & w/ THAT quote? See subject: YOU have been "pwned", lol (easily)...
APK
P.S.=> Poor lil' UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous troll, what's it like being BEATEN @ EVERY TURN by "yours truly"? apk
I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad
I like your host file system by Karmashock
(NEED MORE? Ask!)
* It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!
APK
P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ ... apk
No these bullshit "agreements" don't seem to hold much weight according to everything I've read in my decades of not being a lawyer and not being your lawyer.
Saying you agree by continuing, agree by clicking, agree by accepting the cookie or whatever the fuck are stupid and made by people who don't know how computers work. Say we show up to court and I say "Nah I went on the website and the EULA TOS POS whatever was completely blank,,, maybe my connection was reset while downloading your EULA, maybe my browser has a glitch..I had some plugins installed, maybe you were doing maintenance on your web page... who knows?
But anyhow I didn't click the agree button because I was worried about the blank EULA so I changed the button to say you're going to give me a billion dollars instead of agreeing on the TOS and that by allowing me on the site YOU agree. Of course I'm not getting my billion dollars.
Tos is useful for explaining to speds like you why their behavior got them banned from a forum or something like that though.
No one is "owed" a business model - there are other interests that can trump any business' model.
I read this as
Every Major Advertising Group Is Confirm Apple is Doing Something Right
Having ignored Safari for a while, I'd say its about time.
If the advertising groups are complaining about this already, it is probably going to be very effective, so I am all for Apple and every other browser maker going ahead with it. Fuck them.
APK knows all about being blasted.
He gets his ass blasted by moose dick nightly.
He is after all the Ass Pounded King
See subject: Having your "StRaNgE PhaNtaSiEs" about me, AGAIN? Please - you're projecting your issues onto me!
APK
P.S.=> Rather than nigh-constantly trolling/stalking/harassing me (or trying to - you only make me LAUGH @ you everytime) have you considered making yourself YET ANOTHER (of your doubtless MANY fake accounts here) fake name for your FAKE LIFE? I say you ought to name it "TheProjectionist" (lmao)... apk
This. Apple is just establishing themselves as the gateway, and will then require payments.
After all, it is quite well established that Apple sees their 'users' as both the customer AND the product - happy to charge them, and sell them.
The only way this would be avoided would be for the method to be transparently published, so everyone could clearly see what Apple was doing
I wont be holding my breath on that.
The difference is important.
Advertising is making sure people know your product exists, and some features of it.
Marketing is convincing people to purchase it, no matter their needs or its features.
Advertising is almost completely dead, and involves very little money.
Marketing is massive and involves a huge amount of money.
This is about marketing, not advertising.