Adblock Plus Blocked From Attending Online Ad Industry's Big Annual Conference (arstechnica.co.uk) 442
An anonymous reader writes: Adblock Plus has been uninvited to the upcoming IAB Leadership Summit and is having its registration fee refunded. The company was informed of the cancellation in an email with little explanation. A company blog post reads in part: "Unfortunately, the top brass at the US IAB don't want us coming to their Leadership Summit next week in Palm Desert, California. We attended last year, and we signed up again for their 2016 meeting including paying the hefty entrance fee. We were fully confirmed and they even listed us on their website as a participant. Then this week we got one of those sudden emails that land in your inbox innocently, then floor you with something weird, unbelievable or ridiculous when you click on them. This one came from an unfamiliar IAB address, and it informed us that our registration for the summit was canceled and our fee refunded."
What was the subject line in the email? (Score:5, Funny)
"La la la la la la la I can't hear you!"?
Re:What was the subject line in the email? (Score:4, Funny)
From: apk@iab.com
Re:What was the subject line in the email? (Score:4, Funny)
LOL. APK has also been discouraged from attending this conference (indeed, any conference or gathering of more than two people) for years, due to his aggressive attitude towards, um, advertisements.
Re: What was the subject line in the email? (Score:4, Interesting)
They are fools. Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
APK hasn't been spamming Slashdot lately, there's no reason to make fun of him at this point. If he has decided to stop posting his advertisements here then do your part and leave him alone. If he wants to make meaningful comments like other Slashdot users (stop laughing) then that's fine, let him. No reason to poke him if he's not spamming.
Re:What was the subject line in the email? (Score:5, Funny)
No reason to poke him if he's not spamming.
Indeed, these people know not the forces with which they meddle.
/ and then pull out the hard disk and burn it on a pyre of sage and thermite.
I bet they don't even realize that, like the dreaded Candyman, if you say "APK" five times at the top of a Slashdot thread, he will appear in your HOSTS file and can never be deleted.
The only way to get rid of him is sudo rm -rf --no-preserve-root
Re: (Score:3)
of course he's welcome to participate. I would suggest he post under a different name tho (as he probably has done all along). It's fair to say that his spam posts have reached the point of performance art, and his notoriety is deserved, and it's ok to poke fun at that.
Re: What was the subject line in the email? (Score:2)
Well, since Microsoft ignores hosts for some addresses it may not work in all cases. Some sites shares host when it comes to wanted and unwanted content too.
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like I did speak too soon. So, I'll follow up with this, in case anyone wants to help discourage the spam here.
APK includes this line in his spam:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified its source is safe [link removed] ) hosts & recommends it [link removed]
He refers to this forum post [hosts-file.net], which is a complaint about his spam here on Slashdot, with the admin saying he would have a talk about the spam. The signature identifies the admin as Steven Burns, and lists it-mate.co.uk as a site he runs. The it-mate.co.uk contact link points to this form [mysteryfcm.co.uk]. Anyone seeing APK's spam here should contact Steven Burns through
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>, due to his aggressive attitude towards, um, grammar, formatting, communications, and sanity.
FTFY
IAB (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And their action shows that they can't take a "No" at the door.
Re:IAB (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but you'd think they'd at least be willing to listen to WHY they've pissed people off so badly to the point more people are using this stuff.
I mean, you can choose to not be aware of the fact that you serve malware and compromise people's computers like some self entitled ass ... or you can try to figure out WTF you're doing wrong.
In this case, it sounds like a bunch of clueless idiots not being willing to understand why people are now actively taking steps to block them.
AdBlock isn't "the enemy".
Terrible ad practices and non-existent accountability for delivering malware is. Bad management of our personally identifying data is. Not understanding we no longer wish to be tracked by 20 entities on every web site we visit is.
The IAB feels entitled to this stuff. Which means the rest of us will, without any remorse, actively deny it to them.
I don't owe brightcove or scorecard research a damned thing, and I never will. The sooner they stop acting like spoiled children the more they might understand the mess they're in.
Re:IAB (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a gathering of evil sociopaths. They don't care about why people don't like what they produce. We should be happy these monsters are in advertising, because otherwise they'd probably be driving around in vans kidnapping people, torturing and murdering them, and then eating the remains in cannibalistic orgies. These are evil people.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a gathering of evil sociopaths. They don't care about why people don't like what they produce. We should be happy these monsters are in advertising, because otherwise they'd probably be driving around in vans kidnapping people, torturing and murdering them, and then eating the remains in cannibalistic orgies. These are evil people.
Sounds like the plot of a game that should really be made. Or at least a book.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, I'll be moderate. Only some of them would turn to van-based kidnapping and cannibalism. The rest would probably just stealing your wallet, swindling little old ladies or selling fake wart remedies on late night television. I apologize to all the sociopaths, not all of you enjoy eating human body parts.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, I would expect that the Nazi Party would disinvite the Anti-Defamation League.
Re: (Score:2)
I so wish I had a +1 to give. Bravo!
Godwin's Law got Lampshaded there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is/was their opportunity to work with Adblock (as the representative/proxy for the people who block the ads) to figure out a way to make ads acceptable to people so they don't want/need to block them.
Like a lot of people, I'm not against tasteful advertising. I will stop blocking when it comes [back]. But block the content I navigated to see, shove auto-playing audio and video down my throat, and create just generally annoying ads with lots of flashing, etc., and yes, I am going to block your ads
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. ABP seems to be more open to discussion than other adblockers. They have an "acceptable ads" policy with guidelines and an optional whitelist.
If they don't want people to go full "fuck off", they better play along.
simple explanation (Score:5, Funny)
they have adblockblock installed.
Kim? Is that you? (Score:2)
Congratulations, guys! (Score:2)
ABP folks, this is a strong indicator of success. Time to consider charging users for licenses in some way. You're winning. Good luck. Almost every individual human entity using the Internet is on your side, even though they may not know it yet. I'm shooting $20 your way today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's "Adblock, Inc"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i'm not. ads are a pain, and clicking through is auto-reflex now... but in the same measure, who's going to generate revenue for the companies behind these websites? say we reach the state you're looking for, everybody has blocked 100 percent of ads, or a large percentage. who's going to pay to put an ad on a site that nobody sees? how do you propose reddit generate revenue? all those aggregator sites?
do we go to a subscriber model? that's even more of a pain in the ass. we've already heard the death kn
Re: (Score:2)
The whole ad funded anything model doesn't make sense. Does anyone watch the stupid ads before youtube clips? Does anyone even see them? Why do companies pay to force these ads in front of people who don't want to see them? I've never bought anything based on a youtube ad. How much less would products and services cost if the companies weren't wasting so much on advertising?
Re:Congratulations, guys! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, people do. I'll even watch the occasional one that's interesting. I watched the one from the government claiming that the bridge out of the city isn't about to crash down into the river, because it's (darkly) hilarious that I live in a place where governments buy ads like that.
One thing you realize when you watch a few of those ads is that the content is right up front, in that first five seconds you can't skip. They're going for literal "impressions," eyeballs transferring their name and logo to brains. Apparently that's all you need to convince people to buy your crap.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
who's going to generate revenue for the companies behind these websites?
how do you propose reddit generate revenue? all those aggregator sites?
Revenue isn't a fundamental right. The network was better when it was all hobbyists & researchers.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't block ads. (Score:3)
I don't block ads. I don't have a problem with ads as such. I do block scripts unless I feel the domain has some degree of trustworthiness. No ad servers have any degree of trustworthiness whatsoever.
Sites like forbes.com, which will not show you anything but their "Give us carte blanche to ream you with malware laden ads or you can't see our domain" splash page can die in a fire for all I care. I'm not doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
I do the same. I just run noscript. I have for many years.
This really has the same effect as ad blocking since most ads these days are JS.
Simple choice for advertisers though... just make your ad text or image based and you are fine.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are fine with viruses and having your bank account compromised go right ahead.
It is dangerous NOT TO run as malware gets on pcs through ads these days. Forbes is a reason to use it. It is sad but I need to protect myself and as soon as advertisers start flipping out the sooner they can police themselves.
After all why should they change. They get free money and do not care about infecting users.
Re: (Score:2)
Forbes won't dare show that page to the Googlebot. Change your useragent and Forbes.com is a pleasant read.
Badge of honor! (Score:2)
eom
I hate that I am using AdBlock (Score:5, Interesting)
I use AdBlock. I wish I didn't have to. I do not mind websites using advertising to finance them making quality content I want to read. As a former open source developer, I know it takes real money to make quality content -- "for fun and for free" is a fantasy pirates made up to justify downloading something they ought to pay for.
For years, I could block annoying animated ads without resorting to adblock. First, I changed Netscape binaries to make the string “netscape2” “notscape2” so that animated gifs would not loop. Then, when I moved to Firefox, I used about:preferences to stop animated gifs from looping and used the flashblock plugin to block animated flash ads. But now, the annoying animated ads are using Javascript. Since NoScript has issues with blocking legitimate content, I have installed various forms of adblock (I have used adblock, adblock plus, and ublock)
They work, but they by default blacklist all sites, which I don't like. Sites with non-intrusive ads should be rewarded with page views. Sites with intrusive ads should be punished with all ads blocked from their site. I end up whitelisting a site I haven't been to and reloading the page; I will un-whitelist them if there is a single animated ad on the page.
The web is killing the publishing industry, and I do not agree with the notion that we are entitled to content without paying them, either directly or by looking at ads. But animated ads are just to distracting for me -- I can not read an article which has them -- and have no analog in print media, so I need to block them. I just wish I could do so by blocking only the animated ads.
Re:I hate that I am using AdBlock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> and I do not agree with the notion that we are entitled to content without paying them,
So let's discriminate against the poor instead. /sarcasm Great strategy for sharing knowledge!
Repeat after me, It is not my problem to support your broken business model.
It is not about entitlement, it is about the right to view, or not view. Are you one of those people that feel unethical when you got to the bathroom / kitchen / fridge / etc. when an ad appears? Using software (or hardware) to control what appears
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The web is killing the publishing industry, and I do not agree with the notion that we are entitled to content without paying them, either directly or by looking at ads
I'll continue to view whatever I can get my hands on and blocking ads. If they have a problem with that they can look into implementing technical solutions to require me to pay or whatever, or they can pursue some legal thing, or send a thug to break my kneecaps (basically the same as legal solutions), or go out of business and leave the web to everybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
The web is killing the publishing industry
Is it? That means that the web is more profitable than traditional publishing, and there's nothing to worry about.
Conversely, if adblocking is killing [the profitability, and hence sustainability of ] the web, then the web isn't really killing the publishing industry, and there's nothing to worry about.
Explain to me how it can be possible for the web to kill the publishing industry while being unprofitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to me how it can be possible for the web to kill the publishing industry while being unprofitable.
I think you can somehow insert Goldman Sachs into the equation and then everybody loses money....except Lloyd Blankfein.
Who likes Ads? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't they a permanent annoyance?
One goes to a site for a certain purpose - to look/find/do something.
Then there are movements, popups, slideshows aside from the permanent - please give feedback/survey later-ones...
Visual beggars for attention, distractions, from the original purpose requiring extra effort and time to avoid/ignore/eliminate.
Who likes/needs those?
Suckers! On a very large part of the Internet, defying the original purpose of this great idea.
Born to be killed.
Looks like... (Score:5, Funny)
...they got ad blocked.
YEEEEEAAAAAHHHHH!
Think of the children! (Score:3)
IAB where advertisers learn from the Porn industry on how to implement effective click bait by using jail bait.
Business model has to change. (Score:3)
The problem with online ads now is how much CPU/battery/data they use up. Since people are desensitized to them now, the advertisers respond by making the ads more interactive, flashier and in-your-face, which eats all these resources. Your computer needs to run a million JavaScript snippets that go out to all sorts of web addresses to collect content, update cookies, etc.
I don't run ad blockers at some, simply because I'm not really bothered by them that much. But on my work PC, which is on a very slow connection (proxy server in another country,) I have to run them to make browsing tolerable. The problem is that if ads go away, people will need to pay for content. I doubt many people are under the illusion that Google is giving its massive amount of (very helpful) services for free. Given how helpful Google is to my daily work, I'd gladly pay a monthly fee for a "do not track me" version. But how many others would do the same?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that if ads go away, people will need to pay for content.
Good. Then the amalgamated pile of shit that teh intertoobz has become will shrink by quite a lot. Because most of the internet ain't worth shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Are you ready for an internet consisting of only user forums (like slashdot) and the remaining 1000 paid-only sites?
A good chunk of the internet contains low-quality and free content (like those free newspaper stands in downtown). If you want high quality content, go to a bookstore or music store and pay $$$.
Re: (Score:3)
Really?
Really.
Are you ready for an internet consisting of only user forums (like slashdot) and the remaining 1000 paid-only sites?
My core use of the internet is mainly science and hobbyist sites. No Facebook, no Twitter, My antisocial media is Slashdot. I've bought from eBay, but not exclusively.
A good chunk of the internet contains low-quality and free content (like those free newspaper stands in downtown). If you want high quality content, go to a bookstore or music store and pay $$$.
And that book isn't going to make me look at ads for things I'm not wanting either.
This is not like "Die Internet, DIE!!" What i'm saying is that the standard model of put up a website, get some advertisement network to serve up ads, some innocent, and some malware, is badly broken. You can be served with so much junk, your browser
Was the conference in Russia? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Exciting New Technology! (Score:2)
Will Adblock plus respond with an Adblock Plus Blocker Blocker?
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the "Trace Buster" from The Big Hit
It would be a shame.... (Score:2)
If/when these people left the convention to grab a bite to eat, or get drinks, that people came up to them and gave them sales pitches for things (movie scripts, viagra, sex toys, etc.) or if people knocked on their hotel doors late at night, to do the same..
Hmmmm (Score:3)
So, the headline states : "Adblock Plus Blocked From Attending Online Ad Industry's Big Annual Conference"
Online advertisers have a conference where they gather, yet ISIS attacks innocent civilians instead?
Re: (Score:3)
Sharks don't eat sharks. It's professional courtesy.
/etc/hosts anyone? (Score:2)
As an old-schooler, I've been using a modified hosts file [someonewhocares.org]. Are there any distinct advantages to using ad-blocking software over a hosts file?
Re: (Score:2)
As an old-schooler, I've been using a modified hosts file [someonewhocares.org]. Are there any distinct advantages to using ad-blocking software over a hosts file?
Ad-blocking software updates the list automatically. Typically some sort of script needs to be used to do this with a host file.
I've been thinking about switching to the host method myself. I'm looking to use the very host file you posted on my router. Since I am a networking novice, I haven't figured out how to do that yet.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They will eventually I think. Right now it's a lot of work for them. They already get tons and tons of free money by sucking at other people's bandwidth, it would just hurt the bottom line if they reinvested in R&D. So yes, the advertising industry is just as short sighted and incompetent as everyone else in the "tech" industry.
More practically, it's a big change in their model. They exist as a third-party, loosely integrated with another site. They sell the idea to the content creator that they on
The last group (Score:2)
Doe the IAB have a wish for the internet to continue to be viable according to their model? If so, then it is critical that they come up with a paradigm that gets people to accept advertising. The present day Internet is now darn near unusable. The few occasions I have accidentally fotgotten to turn my ad blocker back on, it felt like I was on a 14.4K modem. NO! I did not pay for a fast line to be served that shit sammich.
And on my smartphone, It doesn't take much time to r
Keep your friends close, your enemies closer (Score:2)
Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. No?
I wouldn't want to have been the AB+ rep attending, left alone in the corner feeling like a pork pie at a Jewish wedding...
It was an act of kindness.
Badge of Honor (Score:2)
I'd print that email out, frame it, and hang it on my wall.
Kudos to you, AB+!
Firefox already has built-in ads. (Score:3, Informative)
I recently used Firefox for the first time in ages (I've been using Chrome, like everyone else).
I quickly learned that Firefox now comes with built-in ads! I don't know what the technical name for the page is, but it's the one that's a grid of panels. Several of them were goddamn advertisements! They were totally irrelevant to my wants and needs, too.
I couldn't fucking believe it. How the fuck could somebody at Mozilla think it was a good idea to stick ads in the browser itself?! Holy fuck, Firefox became p
Re: (Score:2)
A new browser is coming to protect us from ad tracking and the like..
https://brave.com/ [brave.com]
Re:Firefox already has built-in ads. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hysterical much, Chicken Little? They aren't even ads... they are the same pre-populated bookmarks that Mozilla has always shipped. The only change is now they tile bookmarks on the default homepage, a feature that is actually popular with causal users. Power users don't use the default homepage anyway.
Re:Old Habits Die Hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
ABP is not going away
At least for Firefox, ABP is very dependent on Mozilla continuing to develop a browser that supports 3rd party add-ons. While this feature clearly makes their browser more appealing to people, ABP could be effectively shutdown if Mozilla cooperated with the Ad Industry and Content Providers in such a way that prevented their add-on(s) from working.
Re: Old Habits Die Hard (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Old Habits Die Hard (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No. That would force them to make ABP a proxy server but that's about it. Meanwhile, Mozilla would further damage themselves and their shrinking market share.
Re:Old Habits Die Hard (Score:4, Interesting)
The recording industry was (partially) saved by Apple, who with iTunes, came up with a way to buy music that was less hassle than stealing it. That doesn't mean that the industry's model didn't take a huge hit - it did. And they're still able to make money from streaming sites and (golly!) radio.
Ad Block is, yes, threatening the Ad industry. But they're a more serious threat to online content in general. Advertisers have other places to get their messages out, but online publishers are stuck with online publishing (duh). Without advertising to fund it, the only other model is to charge for it. But iTunes had a much more salable product - people knew what songs they wanted, and there was no place else to get essentially the same thing as a recording by popstar X. So most online publishers can't charge, either. The only thing left is 'native advertising', which kind of ruins the content by hiding ads inside it. Not a rosy situation.
I say this as an AdBlock user, as well as a DVR user. Which doesn't say much for the argument that's about to kill Union participation at the Supreme Court. Given the chance, people won't pay - even if they 'know' they're getting benefits that might be threatened by their freeloading. But apparently Justice Kennedy thinks government workers will gladly fork over union dues once they become optional. Maybe so, since the union is directly working for their interests - as opposed to ad-supported media that are mostly just acting as bait for advertisers. But still...
I do have AdBlock set to allow some non-intrusive advertising. So far, so good. I haven't been tempted to turn that back off.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, apparently Slashdot doesn't have non-obtrusive ads, since I see no ads at all on the site. When I've visited Slashdot on a public computer, it's chock full of the nastiest, blinking-est shit. Why is that SD?
Re:Old Habits Die Hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Online advertising wouldn't need to be destroyed if it wasn't focused on being as annoying as possible to grab attention.
Maybe companies should focus less on loud, bandwidth-hogging, un-mutable videos, pop-overs, pop-unders, anything Flash, and focus on making stuff people want to buy.
There are no commercials for Ferrari, Lamborghini, or Bentley. Beater dealerships, on the other hand...
Re:Old Habits Die Hard (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt you'd be welcome at an ad industry conference with that attitude either. You're suggesting companies concentrate on engineering and customer service instead of marketing? Madness!
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt you'd be welcome at an ad industry conference with that attitude either. You're suggesting companies concentrate on engineering and customer service instead of marketing? Madness!
I'd be burned as a Witch and defecated upon. Vigorously.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be burned as a Witch and defecated upon. Vigorously.
Go on....
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.milliondollarhomepa... [milliondol...mepage.com] ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
If I could get shoes that don't break on that "running on my toes" joint after three months, that would be awesome. Trick is it's not the same for every given shoe size. I'd pay double or more for a shoe that would last a couple of years at that joint, since getting the rest to last that long is a given.
Re:Old Habits Die Hard (Score:5, Insightful)
What? So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?
Well, yeah, assuming of course that for some reason an increasing majority of users have decided to use the product that blocks TVs (fantastic analogy, BTW). This is what is happening in online advertising: users have decided they are better off without it. Of course, that is their choice to make. If that means they can't access forbes.com, then people will keep things like that in mind.
Adblock plus is literally in the process of destroying the business of online advertising.
Don't be obtuse. The coffin of online advertising was designed, perfected, and manufactured by the advertisers. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it. Use of tools like Adblock is the inevitable conclusion to the abuses and overreach that online advertisers have been doing for the past couple decades. You might as well whine about popup blockers or spam filters. Once a technology like that gets abused, you can bet your ass that another technology is going to be developed to block it. If advertisers don't like that then they probably should have started their self-policing campaign before ad blockers really caught on. As it is, they're starting to realize that their tricks are going to be caught, and only now are they crying foul. They did this to themselves, if the attendees of the IAB's conference want to blame someone for the state of their industry and their business model all they have to do is look around the room. The most surprising part of this whole affair to me is that it took so long for ad blockers to become mainstream, but I'll chalk that up to the fact that IE did not have an ad blocker for so long. The rise of browsers supporting extensions has opened up the general public to ad blockers. Adblock Plus was released in 2006. Advertisers have had a decade to understand that people don't want to see ads and think about how they can co-exist peacefully, but instead they used that decade to figure out how to force more and more ads down peoples' throats. They made that decision, so now they get to deal with the consequences. I don't think you're going to see a lot of people shedding a tear for advertisers.
why would a group of advertisers want to have anything to do with them?
You would think advertisers would want to hear from the other side, particularly on ways they can come to a compromise. Apparently, you would be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up. i think it's fair to want to block components of websites that can inject viruses into your computers, make the page load slower, and are generally annoying. it's also fair for a site like forbes to block access when an adblocker is present, which I'm fine with. i'm not going to try to find a way around that.
Perspective (Score:4, Informative)
the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.
The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.
It's a problem of perspective (again the BSD's freedom vs. GPL's freedom debate all over...)
For ME AS A USER/READ:
- I just click on a link, I don't pay, I get content, It's free (for me as a end-user, reader).
- If I don't use adblock : it's the same (from my point of view).
- If I do use adblock : it's also the same (minus all the flashing/blking/noisy/fullscreen annoyance)
- If I do use uBlock AND privacy badger : it's also the same (though my identity doesn't get stolen).
- If I do use uBlock AND privacy badger AND NoScript : it's still the same (though It's much harder to drive-by corrupt/infect my browser, at the cost of slightly broken UX)
No matter what, I still get my content simply with clicking, no payment required. It's free (as in beer. Gratis).
It's for the publisher that things change:
- if readers don't use anything : the publisher seemingly handed content for free, put actually get money back by selling the crap out of its users.
- if readers uses AdBlock / uBlock, etc: the publisher handed something out for free, and doesn't get much back, beyond some marketing analysis of readership, that can still be sold for money to sponsors
- if readers use uBlock, PrivacyBAdger, NoScript, Tor, etc. : publisher is screwed. They did hand content for free as usual, but this time they can't sell anything about the user to make some buck.
But from the users' point of view, nothing change the price paid for the content. It was 0$ before ad blocking, its still 0$ after.
So the argument that "suddenly the users discovers they can haz something for free" that was mentioned above is invalid.
They already got it for free (i.e.: gratis, without needing to pay any dollars) before.
What change is their experience of the web :
- before, it was an awful place with marketeer trying to push obnoxious ads as hard as possible. Making the result, distracting, ugly, noisy, not user friendly, slowing down loading time, and costing a fucking lot more on bandwidth. (actually costing more than what the publisher makes up, but that's another debate).
- after : web is finally a bit saner place, where you can actually get the content you want and nothing useless more.
You can have security vulnerabilities by visiting an ad-free page that uses JavaScript. Hell there are exploits in CSS.
That's why the more paranoid people don't stop at AdBlock/uBlock but keep other blocking of Javascript and plugins: NoScript or Flashgot, etc.
Re:Old Habits Die Hard (Score:5, Insightful)
So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?
Don't talk crap. Adblock doesn't prevent people from using their web browsers.
A closer descrition: "If somebody is making a technology that prevents TV's from showing advertising, the TV industry should adapt to people not watching ads."
Well, let's look at the situation: We've had DVR's that can skip commercial for nearly a generation now.
Some of the more forward-looking companies in the TV industry has adapted to a model that has no ads: See Netflix, Amazon Prime video, and Hulu +'s ad-free option.
Each of those networks produce their own highly-rated, highly-watched content.
There are, of course, incumbents who refuse to adapt.
Ironically, the ones who refuse to adapt are all advertising companies: the old TV and cable networks. Their refusal to adapt is well described in their anger/frustration that Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon do not report their viewerships (ie. "ratings").
Well, let's think about that for a second: What are ratings for? They're to provide a value for how much an advertising slot during the show should cost.
Well... Netflix doesn't show ads, so what is the point of ratings? Netflix knows how many people are watching, and they know what it costs to stream. As long as they've got a profit, and their customers are happy, why do they care what advertisers think?
It's the advertisers trying refusing to change their habits, and refusing to accept that consumers are so tired of advertising that consumers prefer to pay directly for content than get it "free" with commercials.
In the same way, internet consumers are sick of being monitored and assaulted all of the time by intrusive advertisers who continue to try to force increasingly unpalatable advertising upon consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
>forced
This is contrary by definition. A user decides to use an optional piece of software. No one is "made" subject to anything, and a victim card needs to be played a lot louder these days, after the chronic offendees we saw in The Year of the SJW.
The software happens to catalyze the status quo of an ecosystem, "the business of online advertising", indirectly. Expectedly, but incidentally. They are "made" subject to literally nothing - a void, an omission.
Interestingly, this re
Re:Old Habits Die Hard (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Adblock Plus is in the business of formulating acceptable standards for web advertising.
Right now what we've got is a mixture of Wild Wild West on crack and a whorehouse specializing in HIV positive girls where the nearest condom is several continents away.
Don't get me wrong. I support content providers' right to make money off of their content by utilizing a portion of my screen real estate and attention.
That, however, doesn't give them the right to completely take over the entirety of my screen real estate and pop un-avoidable video ads with full, loud audio.
Additionally, ad networks are an unmitigated clusterfuck of an attack vector on my machine. My generosity doesn't extend to having to burn multiple hours/days restoring a system because some rogue ad/network slid malware by my AV/AM systems and crashed my system. My time and effort is worth money too.
And come on. The Forbes Fuckup only happened.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org] about 2 weeks ago.
"Disable your ad blocker SO WE CAN SHOVEL MALWARE ON YOU!"
FUCK
THAT
NOISE!
The reason internet advertising is in such dire straights is the advertisers PUSHED it to this juncture. They kept coming up with ever more obnoxious, intrusive, downright DANGEROUS methods of serving us shit we really don't want to see. As such, people who want to actually be able to use their computers in a safe, effective manner, look towards blockers. So these ad assholes keep looking for ways AROUND ad blockers, coming up with things that are even more crazy-obnoxious, intrusive and dangerous. Hell, if they could, they'd force click-throughs too.
And what remediation do people get when malvertising kills their machine?
It's a bunch of buck-passing.
Site Owner: Oh it was the ad network! Fuck you! Have a nice day!
Ad Network Owner: Oh it was a rogue advertiser! Fuck you! Have a nice day!
Advertiser; Oh! It was a third party company we hired to get our name out there! Fuck you! Have a nice day!
Third Party Ad Company: *CHIRP* *CHIRP* (Basically, they're operating under another in a series of new names this week. Again. Fuck you! Have a nice day!)
As such, there is ZERO accountability in this "industry". It's ALL snake oil.
Basically, the internet advertising people don't want to settle on an acceptable ad standard.
Know why?
Because the profit margins are even shittier than those for their current obnoxious, dangerous crap!
This bit of shenanigans with ABP is just another nail the internet ad companies are driving into their own coffins.
Internet advertising is a nasty, STD'ed up whore. Ad blockers are condoms.
Re: (Score:2)
let's face it, practically nobody seeks ads out, but some ads make people willing to take action to get rid of them and some don't. Even the ad industry recognizes that it went too far and has inspired people to install adblock plus. It may be too late now, especially since they also failed to police themselves to prevent drive by malware ads, but had they listened earlier, perhaps they wouldn't face the problems they face today.
They're not going to find a solution to their problem by jamming their fingers
Re:malware block plus is what I want (Score:5, Informative)
This is what AdBlock plus is. They're not against advertising. They're against intrusive advertising. Websites can apply to get their non-intrusive ads whitelisted from the program [adblockplus.org], so that they show up anyway. (Note: the criteria being used is much akin to the way ads were displayed in newspapers and print magazines.) An overwhelming majority of AdBlock users who responded to their survey said that this was the way to go, because everyone knows the content needs to be paid for.
Re: malware block plus is what I want (Score:2)
On Linux, you install software from a trusted package repository.
On Windows, you install random crap from the Internet. The closest thing to a repository in the proprietary world is an app store. I believe Windows 10 might have one, though it's probably not well furnished at all due to it being initially designed for Metro apps exclusively.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to unregister it with the appstore. Otherwise it will be on the tiles for your kids to reclick to get it installed. FYI when an app is uninstalled it should be fully off your system. I mean apps BTW and not applications.
Did your kids get VLC from cnet or an internet search? Many will use SEO and get a legitimate version and put a trojan wrapper on it.
Go to pc settings -> user accounts -> and set your kids accounts to standard user. Then they can't install apps or applications. Weatherbug shou
Re: (Score:2)
easy for you
https://ninite.com/firefox-vlc... [ninite.com]
Ninite is a very cool speed/bulk installer Just [that app|those apps] get installed (or updated) no toolbars extra programs or browser hijacks.
if you have a few computers its worth it to stump for a Pro installer (btw you get extra choices in Pro mode including Flash)
Re: (Score:2)
Last time your kids installed VLC, they downloaded it from some sketchy site like CNet or Sourceforge that packaged it with a malware installer. VLC is available from videolan.org. Accept no substitutes.
The same applies to anything you download. If you can't verify the source of the download, don't trust it. Just don't install it. This is entirely on you, and that's not just for Windows. Windows makes it abundantly clear that it's your responsibility to keep your system clean when downloading new apps.
Linux users are easily lulled into a false sense of security by the combination of Linux being a low-payout target that isn't generally worth hitting and the relatively trustworthy apt/yum/whatever package repositories. But downloading from some crapware site is the same as downloading from some random repository. A Linux user that goes back to Windows will probably be much more likely to trust a download source than they should be, just because they've stopped thinking like a target. Prey, once tamed, can't be released back into the wild, or it will be caught and eaten very quickly. Linux users, once indoctrinated, can't be released back to Windows-land, or they will be flooded with malware very quickly.
TL;DR: You've changed, not Windows. Windows isn't any more vulnerable than anything else, it's just a bigger, juicier target.
What kind of messed up world where sourceforge is shady?? Most projects still are only hosted by them. How do I know if it is a compromised version or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Just the opposite, I would think. A Linux user that goes back to Windows is much more likely to only be installing applications from a limited number of providers that they have deemed trustworthy, having become accustomed to doing so in Linux.
Re: (Score:3)
That's fine. "Free" content is dishonest anyway. It's not free, the cost to you is just obscured. People now are wising up to the cost and deciding it's not worth it. Eventually everything will shake out, those sites that provide content worth paying for will figure out how to charge for it in a way people won't hate, and the rest will die.