Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:"cost online publishers" (Score 1) 528

Your original post said "cause the loss" of. My initial post explained that when I use ad-blockers, it does not, in fact cause the loss of any revenue, because I wouldn't go to the obnoxious websites unless I could do it with an ad-blocker. Your continual disavowal of whether using ad-blockers is good or not is not on point and has nothing to do with that.

Your new assertion about cost as a verb is also not on point, because (1) as I explained, there is absolutely zero loss of revenue here, and (2) even if you view it as "the failure to gain/win something", my posts make clear that it is the inane ads, rather than the ad blocker, causing this failure.

Comment Re:"cost online publishers" (Score 1) 528

Even if I were to stipulate that not receiving revenue might be a cost under some circumstances, under the circumstances where the ads are so obnoxious that the only way I would view the site is with an ad-blocker, then there was no revenue for them to receive anyway. Take away my ad-blocker, and I won't be visiting the site.

Believing otherwise is to think it's a cost to the farmer on the side of the road every time I drive by his truck without stopping to buy vegetables.

Comment Re:"cost online publishers" (Score 1) 528

We are discussing revenue that they are not currently getting, and that they would still not be getting if ad-blockers didn't work (because I find the ads so annoying I wouldn't be bothered going to the site).

If that's lost revenue, they the publisher is the one who lost it and it is up to them to find it again.

Hint: the solution is not technical.

Comment Re:Boolean filters are wrong (Score 1) 136

Apparently, the bulk of her case rested on unclear terms of service -- e.g. basically a contract dispute. (Well, that plus "misusing" her personal information, but as far as I can tell, the misuse was not handing stuff over to her.)

She settled out-of-court for an undisclosed amount (she probably didn't have to pay them for all the defamation she threw their way), and life goes on.

One case of unknown outcome 13 years ago in an area that would seem, on the surface, to be ripe for litigation, doesn't seem any more of a cautionary tale than any other hazard of going into business -- obviously companies want to do a good job on their TOS, but missing email just doesn't really seem to be an issue.

For example, there's nothing on wikipedia's email page or "online service provider law" pages about this, so, no, I'm still not convinced it would be a huge deal to tell people that you're dumping spam, and then dump spam.

Comment Re:Boolean filters are wrong (Score 1) 136

Depending on the operation of the service, it might be appropriate to analyze the message while the sender is connected and reject it immediately, or it might be appropriate to accept the message and analyze it later. If it is analyzed later and found to be spam, then (a) there is no need to deliver it to the user if the determination is conclusive enough; and (b) it should not be returned to the putative source.

This is not rocket science, but too many people running mail servers don't understand the backscattter problem, and are not helping the spam situation.

It's also not legal rocket science. Shit happens, and important mail gets lost/misdirected/classified as spam, and people survive.

Personally, I'd love to be on a jury where some idiot is blaming all the woes of his existence on the fact that an ISP didn't forward a particular message. I've never even heard of such a case; perhaps that's because even the hungry lawyers know better.

"Ask not what A Group of Employees can do for you. But ask what can All Employees do for A Group of Employees." -- Mike Dennison