Then adblock is just as bad as a text-editor. You can use a texteditor to change the html of a website you saved to your pc. Its only illegal in the moment when you do it (and redistribute it again?), not the tool as such.
There was once one site, which blocked all firefox users, and demanded the adblock developer to put "adblock" into the user agent so he can just block adblock users instead of all firefox users.
9gag is a good example. They have stolen content, put a watermark on it and present it with a lot of ads and facebook embedding. They do not even steal it by themself, they let their userbase post stolen content there. This would not be such a big deal, sites like soup are just the same... users post images they found on the net, without thinking about copyright. But putting a watermark on a image where you do not own the copyright is not just ignorance, but intent. And then a lot of ads, and login only via facebook. That speaks for itself.
which is no problem, because the script is hosted on your server. so you can remove any parts which sends data (like "stolen" cookies) to other servers.
why whitelist, if you do not click anyway? the advertiser pays the site owner, because he displays ads, which means he gets payed by shop owners, because the users go there and by something.
If you do not click anyway, the shop owner does not profit, but he payed for the ad. In the long run he will detect that he gets a to low click ratio and maybe stop advertising with this ad-company. The ad-company serves the ad and pays for bandwidth and server costs, without raising the click ratio for the shop owner. So the company needs to lower the payments to the site owners in the long run, because the shop pays less, too. So if you load ads, but do not click, everyone loses.
So IF you want to support sites by whitelisting ads, you need to click there and buy something, too.
1) many advertisers are paying per click. 2) Of course the advertisers will notice that loaded ads are not relevant anymore and change there modell, when they still charge per "view".
If it would be that easy... bandwith is cheap, many people would just run a plugin loading ads and saving them to/dev/null to help you. Win-Win for them and for you... but the advertiser will force you to prevent this abuse.
there is even this misnomer "click fraud" for this.
have a look at adblock element hiding helper. I could just block the site-element containing the ads. Of course, you can randomize your html, too... its an arms race, and advertisers will lose.
and then i develop a plugin, which loads the content by emulating the js, but then displays it without your ads.
Worst case: rendering the page in the background just like any browser would render it in the foreground, then extracing the content a browser level (think of extracting text that is sent to the renderer), which is immune to any JS checking for adblocking. Of course, just like antivirus heuristics, or viruses checking for VM enviroments, you could try to detect this. But i would say, here is the client in the advantage of the arms race.
Just like any antivirus, your anti-adblocker will always be a step behind the adblockers. And they will even cooperate with each other, while advertising companys are competing with each other.
if many people start doing so, the adblock-plugins will adapt in some way. maybe via the placement, or by remembering the strings or even by loading the image and checking if its an ad. But you add complexity and unclean code to your website.
you can offer a website. The first i get is some html, then i may choose to load css, images, javascript and so on. What if i decide just to load html and css without the rest? You offer content in some form, i decide how to render it. And my renderer may filter ads.
you cannot win the war. Adblocking is mostly a way to stop anoyances for the user. This means, if you do such checks, then there will be some adblocking technique, which renders the "correct" page in the background, then extracts the content and displays it without ads. Same situation as before, but both sides need more resources to keep doing what they want to do. So just accept it... some people do not want to see ads, and they will block them.
make sure somebody noticed you were there. Then argue, its their problem, because you are wearing the badge as required. Nobody told you not to damage the chip (of course you do not tell them you damaged it, as long as no one asks).
the point is, noone should render vendor-prefixes in non-debug mode. But there may be an additional non-standard features prefix, like just a single dash -border-radius: 5px. Of course this would hurt a little bit at start, but who uses -webkit now must expect it being that way, because inofficial is inofficial. The real effect will be: div{ -webkit-border-radius: 5px -ms-border-radius: 5px -o-border-radius: 5px -moz-border-radius: 5px -border-radius: 5px border-radius: 5px }
but okay, at least there is the common inofficial prefix included, then. Of course using the non-prefixed version in your markup now is wrong, but i doubt many webdesigners will get this.
in most cases you do not have a chance to successfully "hack back" anyway. The typical hacker victim is much more vulnerable than the typical hacker himself.
its the safari browser, which renders the experimental properties even when not in some kind of debug-mode. Properties with vendor-prefix should be disabled in all browsers by default, and only be enabled on developer-machines.
Bullshit. Because Apple can do on the -webkit- Prefixed properties whatever they like. And so there may be undocumented behaviour, subject to change anytime. So you cannot just implement somebody else's prefix-properties in a good manner.
But on the other hand, you can implement it as good as possible and you will see there are no big surprises in implementation of stuff which actually is cross-browser but with three different prefixes until its signed off by w3c. But when there are problems, noone is to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
Then adblock is just as bad as a text-editor. You can use a texteditor to change the html of a website you saved to your pc. Its only illegal in the moment when you do it (and redistribute it again?), not the tool as such.
There was once one site, which blocked all firefox users, and demanded the adblock developer to put "adblock" into the user agent so he can just block adblock users instead of all firefox users.
9gag is a good example. ... users post images they found on the net, without thinking about copyright.
They have stolen content, put a watermark on it and present it with a lot of ads and facebook embedding.
They do not even steal it by themself, they let their userbase post stolen content there.
This would not be such a big deal, sites like soup are just the same
But putting a watermark on a image where you do not own the copyright is not just ignorance, but intent.
And then a lot of ads, and login only via facebook. That speaks for itself.
i think text ads are okay. but if you do not notice them, they cannot make profit.
which is no problem, because the script is hosted on your server. so you can remove any parts which sends data (like "stolen" cookies) to other servers.
if you need to solve (ad)captchas before getting the content, then the users will leave. All of them, not only the adblockers.
strange comments there, recommending 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1.
Just try it with some service running on your host, like
$ ssh 0.0.0.0
This will connect the service, via any interface on your pc.
why whitelist, if you do not click anyway?
the advertiser pays the site owner, because he displays ads, which means he gets payed by shop owners, because the users go there and by something.
If you do not click anyway, the shop owner does not profit, but he payed for the ad. In the long run he will detect that he gets a to low click ratio and maybe stop advertising with this ad-company. The ad-company serves the ad and pays for bandwidth and server costs, without raising the click ratio for the shop owner. So the company needs to lower the payments to the site owners in the long run, because the shop pays less, too.
So if you load ads, but do not click, everyone loses.
So IF you want to support sites by whitelisting ads, you need to click there and buy something, too.
1) many advertisers are paying per click.
2) Of course the advertisers will notice that loaded ads are not relevant anymore and change there modell, when they still charge per "view".
If it would be that easy ... bandwith is cheap, many people would just run a plugin loading ads and saving them to /dev/null to help you. Win-Win for them and for you ... but the advertiser will force you to prevent this abuse.
there is even this misnomer "click fraud" for this.
have a look at adblock element hiding helper. I could just block the site-element containing the ads. Of course, you can randomize your html, too ... its an arms race, and advertisers will lose.
and then i develop a plugin, which loads the content by emulating the js, but then displays it without your ads.
Worst case: rendering the page in the background just like any browser would render it in the foreground, then extracing the content a browser level (think of extracting text that is sent to the renderer), which is immune to any JS checking for adblocking.
Of course, just like antivirus heuristics, or viruses checking for VM enviroments, you could try to detect this. But i would say, here is the client in the advantage of the arms race.
Just like any antivirus, your anti-adblocker will always be a step behind the adblockers. And they will even cooperate with each other, while advertising companys are competing with each other.
as long as ads are usually loaded from a dedicated domain (and IP), there is no problem.
if many people start doing so, the adblock-plugins will adapt in some way. maybe via the placement, or by remembering the strings or even by loading the image and checking if its an ad. But you add complexity and unclean code to your website.
the vendors seem to think, that advertising is useful to them.
you can offer a website. The first i get is some html, then i may choose to load css, images, javascript and so on.
What if i decide just to load html and css without the rest? You offer content in some form, i decide how to render it. And my renderer may filter ads.
you cannot win the war. Adblocking is mostly a way to stop anoyances for the user. This means, if you do such checks, then there will be some adblocking technique, which renders the "correct" page in the background, then extracts the content and displays it without ads. ... some people do not want to see ads, and they will block them.
Same situation as before, but both sides need more resources to keep doing what they want to do. So just accept it
i do whatever i want, the website owners do the same. We will see the result. supply and demand, you know.
make sure somebody noticed you were there. Then argue, its their problem, because you are wearing the badge as required. Nobody told you not to damage the chip (of course you do not tell them you damaged it, as long as no one asks).
but how do you know, he thinks of a decimal ten?
the point is, noone should render vendor-prefixes in non-debug mode. But there may be an additional non-standard features prefix, like just a single dash -border-radius: 5px. Of course this would hurt a little bit at start, but who uses -webkit now must expect it being that way, because inofficial is inofficial.
The real effect will be:
div{
-webkit-border-radius: 5px
-ms-border-radius: 5px
-o-border-radius: 5px
-moz-border-radius: 5px
-border-radius: 5px
border-radius: 5px
}
but okay, at least there is the common inofficial prefix included, then. Of course using the non-prefixed version in your markup now is wrong, but i doubt many webdesigners will get this.
> GTK+ (GIMP Toolkit) is a cross-platform widget toolkit for creating graphical user interfaces.
in most cases you do not have a chance to successfully "hack back" anyway. The typical hacker victim is much more vulnerable than the typical hacker himself.
its the safari browser, which renders the experimental properties even when not in some kind of debug-mode. Properties with vendor-prefix should be disabled in all browsers by default, and only be enabled on developer-machines.
Bullshit. Because Apple can do on the -webkit- Prefixed properties whatever they like. And so there may be undocumented behaviour, subject to change anytime. So you cannot just implement somebody else's prefix-properties in a good manner.
But on the other hand, you can implement it as good as possible and you will see there are no big surprises in implementation of stuff which actually is cross-browser but with three different prefixes until its signed off by w3c. But when there are problems, noone is to blame.
> GTK hasn't been GIMP-specific forever
It was started as toolkit for gimp. Guess what the G stands for in GTK+.