No advertising is acceptable. I will block all ads. You should too.
Speculating on how some particular pattern recognition versus spam war will go down is not easy. Certainly, the advertisers are doing all they can to force their bullshit into the eyes of those that don't want it, but ultimately, your PC, your rules.
I agree with your points, but maybe not your conclusion. The computer user DOES determine what displays, because he will determine which programs are running. While an advertiser could absolutely push ads through the current blocking schemes (at relatively great cost), the amount of effort needed to remove that on the end users side will ultimately be feasible and worthwhile. The advertiser needs to get a return on investment, so any of his workarounds will be met with both user hostility and sophisticated solutions that will be disseminated rapidly.
A fair response, but with DRM being added to firefox (and always present in Chrome) we're getting close to a place where Jimmy-Bob can't compile a version of Firefox or Chromium that does what you would expect.
I'm sure everyone has seen APK ("crazy hosts guy") flooding pretty much any topic on this.
There's ups and downs to host based blocking. But one upside that I hadn't considered until reading the Mozilla statement is that the existing web browsers have a lot of pull- if these "guidelines" become enforced, then ublock origin would be removed from the firefox store. You probably won't see this until chrome and firefox can both do it at about the same time, but it definitely looks like we are seeing a slow moving attempt to try to stop actual adblockers from running.
A hosts method isn't subject to this kind of "guideline". In general, an external binary / firewall isn't.
Anyway, interesting. We may need to explore executable options in the future. This seems yet another push for "acceptable ads" being shoved in everyone's face.
Your post calls it to mind, so I'll bring up a side rant I have about self driving anything, that never seems to have a place to go.
Pretend we, after massive investment and development, have self driving cars that work well and work almost everywhere.
Suddenly, Professor Light or whoever comes up with a new type of vehicle. What this is exactly doesn't matter, but the self driving cars don't understand it at all- they think it's a pedestrian when they should think it's a vehicle, and it's a technical challenge.
No matter how great Professor Light's MegaVehicle X is, now it won't sell. It's now up to him to somehow solve the problem for all the self driving cars- and of course, they aren't in the market for the new vehicle, and they are established as fuck, so the new better vehicle simply never is allowed on the roads.
If this seems a bit too sketchy, pretend that no one had invented motorcycles or bicycles or semis, and that all the development made assumptions based around that. The moment you try to add those to a real street with fully human drivers, it's fine- but do that with self driving cars and you'll be begging congress for a trial in Nevada and trying to convince investors that you can make the four competing driving systems recognize what a motorcycle is, and that the market will be people who don't want to own a full car. And then you have to get people who make cars for a living to support that.
The self driving car thing will paralyze the ability to innovate a goddamned thing in the transportation sector.
If you bought a product because you wanted it to be the best in that line, then the upgrade rate is definitely a consideration. It's not particularly rational, but remember that these products are also status symbols and in some cases jewelry, so at the very least being *predictable* is a boon for consumers.
> Companies should regularly update their products to use the latest tech.
The problem here is that you get a bunch of subversions, and it's much harder to find your problem. When you have an issue, going to a forum for "iphone 6" is going to be helpful, but if the iphone 6 spanned several subversions that all require different debug / fix steps, then you can't figure out what you actually have any more. You end up with one of the downsides of the "build your own PC", without getting all the upsides of doing that.
Is it intentional? I mean, it keeps happening that older phones are messed up with newer upgrades. If it's been happening for years, the difference between testing your new version less on older hardware and actually being mustache twirling villains planning to force an upgrade is not really relevant. It certainly happens, and it doesn't get fixed, and you can't use an older version.
Plus, many apps will stop working with newer versions, meaning that the stuff your phone does now it won't be able to do in four years- unless you upgrade the OS. Since the OS upgrade is a giant risk, there you go.
My experience with Apple products has been- when the product is new, an OS upgrade is safe and fun and gives you more stuff. Once it is over about two years old, it's suddenly risky to press upgrade- you will assuredly lose *something*, most often battery life. Ios 8 shredded my battery life under ios6. It was absolutely immediate and unmistakable. They did get around to (mostly) repairing that after a bit, but the phone went from lasting a work day to not at all doing that, and that was a pretty bad situation.
How is this really on topic? If you're in the market for a 6s, you might be:
> A compulsive Apple consumer who buys every edition on launch > A head of family who replaces whichever the oldest phone is out of himself, his wife, and his kids, every year. > Someone who buys phones only when his old one breaks, and his iphone 3 just broke. > Someone who buys phones every three years, and his last model was bought in 2012.
The first category might puzzle you, but the others shouldn't, and all would be interested in knowing which processor is in their new or potentially new 6s- at least, if it has real world ramifications such as battery life as a variable.
> Nobody gets all nuts about the fact the Chrysler/Ford/GM/Honda/VW/Mercedes/etc bring out new models every year; often with slight improvements, usually with other changes you may or might not like
Car analogy! Let me expand on it:
You buy a 2012 Honda is 2012. The 2013 version looks like a nice upgrade, but you don't need it. The 2014 version has stuff you would never want. You have the option to upgrade your car into a 2014- it won't be new like a 2014, but it will have all the ups and downs that the 2014 models have. You choose not to, because yours works for you. Then in 2015, you find out that everything before 2013 won't work on interstates starting in March, and also you can't buy a 2013 any more. Suddenly, your car does a lot less than it did when you bought it- your choice to "upgrade" is being made for you, or you can watch your capabilities diminish with time. This isn't about new roads that only work with 2015 models- this is about, you can't do the thing in May that you could in February.
He could be using any of the many apps that insist on running under ios8 or ios9, for instance. I've had games refuse to run under older versions of OSes for sure, I can't imagine its just limited to that. To be clear, the case I'm discussing is: > You buy app X under version A. > The OS updates to version B. > After a bit, you find you can't do anything with app X, because it no longer accepts logins from devices with version A > You must upgrade to version B to keep using X.
Invoking autoimmune disorders sounds like a poor idea in pets, and a nightmare in humans. That's what this is. And that's before you get to the possibility that you could absolutely have a future organization that has the desire to eliminate human births, but doesn't have the will to kill humans (and also, that would get them stopped faster), so they use a tech like this. The fact that it's being developed doesn't mean that will happen, but the fact that it's possible should be at least a bit scary.
If it allows ads, it's an ad allower. We want an ad blocker. We probably need a term for that that actually means that thing, given that Ad Block Plus and now Ad Block are both in cahoots with advertisers.
We are trying to talk about products that block advertising, with no trickery, deception, or payola. It's not controversial- just which ones do that? Sadly, the only thing that has been added to my original list of ad blockers that work out of the box (uBlock Origin and uBlock) was the APK Hosts Engine, from slashdot's favorite insane robot (and I'm pretty sure that's only a solution for Windows). Maybe the list of ad blockers not bought and paid for really is that small. That's a sad thing for sure, if true.
Websites still get paid only if they get paid somehow. We don't need to solve their economic problems, or support the advertising industry. If everyone blocks ads, then I guess we won't have to see ads. Anything beyond that is wild speculation, and more importantly, not our problem.
> It is only fair that I take up their space, time, and bandwidth, right?
If you cared you'd have a gold star by your name and be a subscriber. You either believe ads work on you, in which case, viewing them seems a really indirect way of getting the money to the sites you care about, or you believe ads don't work on you, in which case, you believe you are ripping off the company paying for the advertisements.
Anyway, trying to find adblockers that block ads. Changing topic to something something support the existing economic whatever is offtopic and silly anyway.
I said "spamposting". The word has more meaning than just marketing. Certainly, on most forums you get IP banned for posting the same text over and over again, and the offense is called "spamming".
My main concern with a hosts based method is that if *everyone* moved to that, advertisers would sidestep around it. Already they are looking for ways to avoid the existing generation of ad blockers by injecting ads that appear to be served from the main server- once the ad servers solve "trust issues" with the "content" guys, they'll be able to have the server you think you want data from scoop an ad up and serve it with the content. While that will require the addon guys to do more work, it will shut down the hosts solutions completely.
That being said, obviously hosts solutions are effective. I never disputed that. But I made a post saying "list things with no acceptable ads", and there's a lot about the apk engine I can't easily google. I have no idea what is (and is not) added to its blocklist, for instance.
Well, no, that doesn't count. That's the whole point of a list- find ad blockers that block ads without needing some technical workaround. We're trying to list adblockers that will never listen to a list of "ok ads". It's ok that you think that a "good advertisement" is one that just hacks YOU (while not also hacking your machine). But that's not what I want. I want advertisements to never be displayed in any capacity. Tools like these actually accomplish this goals- the ones that take payola to some degree aren't what I posted for.
Score +3, Troll? For asking for a list of adblock options that don't accept payments for advertising? Pretty incredible lol. I mean, it's an article about that very thing!
It's amazing that people don't want anyone talking about how to support and use products that don't allow an "acceptable ad list", as determined by a company that takes payments from advertisers- or more relevantly, an adblocker that defaults to not blocking ads.
So far we have uBlock Origin, uBlock, and maybe the start64 apk list? Hard to have a conversation about that last one though, with apk spamposting everywhere.
I don't know. I don't prefer host blocks because they break a lot of the web, and if they become ubiquitous they will be very easy for advertisers to work around in ways that make content retrieval very difficult. A programmatic solution has a lot of problems, but ultimately represents a more customizable way of getting the web the way the user wants to view it.
But APK isn't wrong. He's on a crusade, which makes him a giant sink of wasted text and nonsense, but he's not wrong. Deus Vult!
Yes, it's vastly difficult to uncheck a box. As represented by the fact that all the guys that accept payola insist on that "default on" position. This is because they know that most users won't change the default, so it is a VERY hard request indeed. If instead they had a box that defaulted to blocking all ads that you could SET to ads that they have been paid to consider allowable, then very few users would set that up.
It's hard, it's dishonest, it's unreasonable, and we should support adblockers that block ads, because ads are awful!
But thanks for downvoting me (and don't kid yourself, it wasn't modded down, it was downvoted) and then posting as AC to shill for these fucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Will noscript continue to work? That's the only 100% mandatory one IMO, and it sounds like they might be working to keep noscript available somehow.
I think we'll need those features for the next generation of in-browser ad blockers, though. I dunno that for sure.
No advertising is acceptable. I will block all ads. You should too.
Speculating on how some particular pattern recognition versus spam war will go down is not easy. Certainly, the advertisers are doing all they can to force their bullshit into the eyes of those that don't want it, but ultimately, your PC, your rules.
I agree with your points, but maybe not your conclusion. The computer user DOES determine what displays, because he will determine which programs are running. While an advertiser could absolutely push ads through the current blocking schemes (at relatively great cost), the amount of effort needed to remove that on the end users side will ultimately be feasible and worthwhile. The advertiser needs to get a return on investment, so any of his workarounds will be met with both user hostility and sophisticated solutions that will be disseminated rapidly.
A fair response, but with DRM being added to firefox (and always present in Chrome) we're getting close to a place where Jimmy-Bob can't compile a version of Firefox or Chromium that does what you would expect.
It's not a battle. The computer user determines what displays.
And that is NOT ads, thanks.
I'm sure everyone has seen APK ("crazy hosts guy") flooding pretty much any topic on this.
There's ups and downs to host based blocking. But one upside that I hadn't considered until reading the Mozilla statement is that the existing web browsers have a lot of pull- if these "guidelines" become enforced, then ublock origin would be removed from the firefox store. You probably won't see this until chrome and firefox can both do it at about the same time, but it definitely looks like we are seeing a slow moving attempt to try to stop actual adblockers from running.
A hosts method isn't subject to this kind of "guideline". In general, an external binary / firewall isn't.
Anyway, interesting. We may need to explore executable options in the future. This seems yet another push for "acceptable ads" being shoved in everyone's face.
Advertisements are malicious. They are not content.
Your post calls it to mind, so I'll bring up a side rant I have about self driving anything, that never seems to have a place to go.
Pretend we, after massive investment and development, have self driving cars that work well and work almost everywhere.
Suddenly, Professor Light or whoever comes up with a new type of vehicle. What this is exactly doesn't matter, but the self driving cars don't understand it at all- they think it's a pedestrian when they should think it's a vehicle, and it's a technical challenge.
No matter how great Professor Light's MegaVehicle X is, now it won't sell. It's now up to him to somehow solve the problem for all the self driving cars- and of course, they aren't in the market for the new vehicle, and they are established as fuck, so the new better vehicle simply never is allowed on the roads.
If this seems a bit too sketchy, pretend that no one had invented motorcycles or bicycles or semis, and that all the development made assumptions based around that. The moment you try to add those to a real street with fully human drivers, it's fine- but do that with self driving cars and you'll be begging congress for a trial in Nevada and trying to convince investors that you can make the four competing driving systems recognize what a motorcycle is, and that the market will be people who don't want to own a full car. And then you have to get people who make cars for a living to support that.
The self driving car thing will paralyze the ability to innovate a goddamned thing in the transportation sector.
If you bought a product because you wanted it to be the best in that line, then the upgrade rate is definitely a consideration. It's not particularly rational, but remember that these products are also status symbols and in some cases jewelry, so at the very least being *predictable* is a boon for consumers.
> Companies should regularly update their products to use the latest tech.
The problem here is that you get a bunch of subversions, and it's much harder to find your problem. When you have an issue, going to a forum for "iphone 6" is going to be helpful, but if the iphone 6 spanned several subversions that all require different debug / fix steps, then you can't figure out what you actually have any more. You end up with one of the downsides of the "build your own PC", without getting all the upsides of doing that.
Is it intentional? I mean, it keeps happening that older phones are messed up with newer upgrades. If it's been happening for years, the difference between testing your new version less on older hardware and actually being mustache twirling villains planning to force an upgrade is not really relevant. It certainly happens, and it doesn't get fixed, and you can't use an older version.
Plus, many apps will stop working with newer versions, meaning that the stuff your phone does now it won't be able to do in four years- unless you upgrade the OS. Since the OS upgrade is a giant risk, there you go.
My experience with Apple products has been- when the product is new, an OS upgrade is safe and fun and gives you more stuff. Once it is over about two years old, it's suddenly risky to press upgrade- you will assuredly lose *something*, most often battery life. Ios 8 shredded my battery life under ios6. It was absolutely immediate and unmistakable. They did get around to (mostly) repairing that after a bit, but the phone went from lasting a work day to not at all doing that, and that was a pretty bad situation.
How is this really on topic? If you're in the market for a 6s, you might be:
> A compulsive Apple consumer who buys every edition on launch
> A head of family who replaces whichever the oldest phone is out of himself, his wife, and his kids, every year.
> Someone who buys phones only when his old one breaks, and his iphone 3 just broke.
> Someone who buys phones every three years, and his last model was bought in 2012.
The first category might puzzle you, but the others shouldn't, and all would be interested in knowing which processor is in their new or potentially new 6s- at least, if it has real world ramifications such as battery life as a variable.
> Nobody gets all nuts about the fact the Chrysler/Ford/GM/Honda/VW/Mercedes/etc bring out new models every year; often with slight improvements, usually with other changes you may or might not like
Car analogy! Let me expand on it:
You buy a 2012 Honda is 2012. The 2013 version looks like a nice upgrade, but you don't need it. The 2014 version has stuff you would never want. You have the option to upgrade your car into a 2014- it won't be new like a 2014, but it will have all the ups and downs that the 2014 models have. You choose not to, because yours works for you. Then in 2015, you find out that everything before 2013 won't work on interstates starting in March, and also you can't buy a 2013 any more. Suddenly, your car does a lot less than it did when you bought it- your choice to "upgrade" is being made for you, or you can watch your capabilities diminish with time. This isn't about new roads that only work with 2015 models- this is about, you can't do the thing in May that you could in February.
He could be using any of the many apps that insist on running under ios8 or ios9, for instance. I've had games refuse to run under older versions of OSes for sure, I can't imagine its just limited to that. To be clear, the case I'm discussing is:
> You buy app X under version A.
> The OS updates to version B.
> After a bit, you find you can't do anything with app X, because it no longer accepts logins from devices with version A
> You must upgrade to version B to keep using X.
Invoking autoimmune disorders sounds like a poor idea in pets, and a nightmare in humans. That's what this is. And that's before you get to the possibility that you could absolutely have a future organization that has the desire to eliminate human births, but doesn't have the will to kill humans (and also, that would get them stopped faster), so they use a tech like this. The fact that it's being developed doesn't mean that will happen, but the fact that it's possible should be at least a bit scary.
Nice! Ok. This is an Adblock Plus fork, with the allowed ads feature removed (and of course, it works for Palemoon). Thanks, didn't know.
If it allows ads, it's an ad allower. We want an ad blocker. We probably need a term for that that actually means that thing, given that Ad Block Plus and now Ad Block are both in cahoots with advertisers.
We are trying to talk about products that block advertising, with no trickery, deception, or payola. It's not controversial- just which ones do that? Sadly, the only thing that has been added to my original list of ad blockers that work out of the box (uBlock Origin and uBlock) was the APK Hosts Engine, from slashdot's favorite insane robot (and I'm pretty sure that's only a solution for Windows). Maybe the list of ad blockers not bought and paid for really is that small. That's a sad thing for sure, if true.
>Websites still get paid only if
Websites still get paid only if they get paid somehow. We don't need to solve their economic problems, or support the advertising industry. If everyone blocks ads, then I guess we won't have to see ads. Anything beyond that is wild speculation, and more importantly, not our problem.
> It is only fair that I take up their space, time, and bandwidth, right?
If you cared you'd have a gold star by your name and be a subscriber. You either believe ads work on you, in which case, viewing them seems a really indirect way of getting the money to the sites you care about, or you believe ads don't work on you, in which case, you believe you are ripping off the company paying for the advertisements.
Anyway, trying to find adblockers that block ads. Changing topic to something something support the existing economic whatever is offtopic and silly anyway.
I said "spamposting". The word has more meaning than just marketing. Certainly, on most forums you get IP banned for posting the same text over and over again, and the offense is called "spamming".
My main concern with a hosts based method is that if *everyone* moved to that, advertisers would sidestep around it. Already they are looking for ways to avoid the existing generation of ad blockers by injecting ads that appear to be served from the main server- once the ad servers solve "trust issues" with the "content" guys, they'll be able to have the server you think you want data from scoop an ad up and serve it with the content. While that will require the addon guys to do more work, it will shut down the hosts solutions completely.
That being said, obviously hosts solutions are effective. I never disputed that. But I made a post saying "list things with no acceptable ads", and there's a lot about the apk engine I can't easily google. I have no idea what is (and is not) added to its blocklist, for instance.
Well, no, that doesn't count. That's the whole point of a list- find ad blockers that block ads without needing some technical workaround. We're trying to list adblockers that will never listen to a list of "ok ads". It's ok that you think that a "good advertisement" is one that just hacks YOU (while not also hacking your machine). But that's not what I want. I want advertisements to never be displayed in any capacity. Tools like these actually accomplish this goals- the ones that take payola to some degree aren't what I posted for.
Score +3, Troll? For asking for a list of adblock options that don't accept payments for advertising? Pretty incredible lol. I mean, it's an article about that very thing!
It's amazing that people don't want anyone talking about how to support and use products that don't allow an "acceptable ad list", as determined by a company that takes payments from advertisers- or more relevantly, an adblocker that defaults to not blocking ads.
So far we have uBlock Origin, uBlock, and maybe the start64 apk list? Hard to have a conversation about that last one though, with apk spamposting everywhere.
Go to Firefox or Chrome store and get "uBlock Origin". Then use that.
I don't know. I don't prefer host blocks because they break a lot of the web, and if they become ubiquitous they will be very easy for advertisers to work around in ways that make content retrieval very difficult. A programmatic solution has a lot of problems, but ultimately represents a more customizable way of getting the web the way the user wants to view it.
But APK isn't wrong. He's on a crusade, which makes him a giant sink of wasted text and nonsense, but he's not wrong. Deus Vult!
Yes, it's vastly difficult to uncheck a box. As represented by the fact that all the guys that accept payola insist on that "default on" position. This is because they know that most users won't change the default, so it is a VERY hard request indeed. If instead they had a box that defaulted to blocking all ads that you could SET to ads that they have been paid to consider allowable, then very few users would set that up.
It's hard, it's dishonest, it's unreasonable, and we should support adblockers that block ads, because ads are awful!
But thanks for downvoting me (and don't kid yourself, it wasn't modded down, it was downvoted) and then posting as AC to shill for these fucks.
You'll have to deal with more of a broken web with a custom hosts file, but it is a more solid option.