Your online advertising policy?
Displaying poll results.25726 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8478 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7207 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
This poll brought to you by an anonymous reader! (Score:1, Funny)
We assume this is not Marco Arment (https://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/09/18/194217/creator-of-top-ios-ad-blocker-pulls-app-after-two-days), but you never know ...
If you have a poll idea, submit it (through the regular submissions system, with that big button that says "Submit" near the top of the page) with some sample answers, or even without. The more current-events-ful it is, the better.
Re: (Score:1)
The cynic in me wonders just how big of a wire transfer Marco received from Google this morning!
NoScript (Score:5, Informative)
NoScript, not AdBlock, takes care of it all for me. I have no issues seeing ads, and sometimes I may even click some of them if they are interesting enough. But Flash ads, those fake CSS/JS popups and those that generally hinder my browsing experience and/or make my browser grind to a halt, well... those are not welcome at all.
Re:NoScript (Score:5, Insightful)
I have huge issues with ads .. primarily because there's usually a dozen or more other sites doing analytics in your average web page. I've seen some sites with as many as 30-40 external sites all trying for their take.
If a site serves their own ads, fine, I can live with that. But third party shit, cookies, javascript and all that other garbage? Aggressively blocked. Flash? It's not even enabled on any browser I use.
My Chrome has Script Safe, Ghostery, HTTP Switchboard, and Disconnect in it. Crap like the Facebook buttons, or score card research, or the google tracking crap ... or literally dozens of other sites ... those sites get blocked entirely.
The tracking and other shit isn't just ads, it's dozens of companies who feel entitled to my data to monetize it.
Fuck them, I'll just refuse their traffic entirely. I don't care if the site loses ad revenue. I sure as hell didn't consent to all of that tracking garbage.
It's a bunch of parasites and assholes, and I am not interested in any of that.
Re: (Score:3)
I have huge issues with ads .. primarily because there's usually a dozen or more other sites doing analytics in your average web page. I've seen some sites with as many as 30-40 external sites all trying for their take.
Realize that there are more "Analytics" sites that silently analyzes your browsing out there than ad sites.
Re:NoScript (Score:5, Interesting)
I do realize that. But I block both the ads and analytics with equal contempt.
It's all the same shit as far as I'm concerned ... I just have my browsers reject all that extra garbage. If it isn't a functional part of the site, it's crap.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW - look at uBlock and uMatrix. They're the successors to the combined block and matrix blacklist for HTTP Switchboard and have a few nice improvements.
Re: (Score:2)
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm/ [mvps.org]
I've been using this for years on everything I can. It won't block ads served from the same server, just ad servers, and bad sites.
The actual problem (Score:3)
Call me when your hosts file can block outbound connections directly to IP address of server (no DNS involved).
Alpha Peter Kilo and his myrmidons will *mysteriously* "seem not to have noticed" that comment. Because of course they cannot simultaneously answer it honestly and advocate hosts files. They'd have to admit that hosts files can be a solid part of a multi-layer approach but cannot cover everything, thus other tools should also be used. But they hate that idea. They are hosts file purists. They are like religious fundamentalists -- no other doctrine can be tolerated. Even if it wants to coexist with the
Re:NoScript (Score:4, Insightful)
If a site serves their own ads, fine, I can live with that. But third party shit, cookies, javascript and all that other garbage? Aggressively blocked
This. First party ads where the owners of the sites are held responsible for their content, type, UX interaction, destination, and delivery is the only way I will interact with ads. 3rd party ad networks are just lazy, malware filled cesspools.
1st-party ads (Score:2)
First party ads where the owners of the sites are held responsible for their content.
Yes, there are advantages to 1st-party ads. But be aware of their downside: The publication then has to have greater contact with advertisers to tout what the site can offer them, and to assure them of value-for-money. This takes resources away from editorial, and creates a greater risk that editorial will be skewed to make the advertisers happy.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fuck them ..."
It almost sounds like you've fucked yourself about as much. If a site has so much of that shit running that it won't even scroll right and generally sucks, I just don't go back. No way I'm going to bother with all that shit you talked about just for this Chrome appliance. The machine works for me, not the other way around. It's sort of a matter of principle too. They can't be trusted, and I don't need to be hanging around them.
You're reminding me of people that don't answer their phones if th
Re: (Score:2)
I use uBlock Origin, it does what Adblock Plus does but without the memory/CPU hogging.
Re: (Score:2)
call me when Hosts can stop Windows Update/CEIP from calling home.
Dickwad.
Re: (Score:2)
but.. but... but you're pushing Hosts like it's a fucking miracle cure for all ills! You mean it CAN'T do what I'm asking? A simple preventative measure that instead I have to go through all that bullshit to stop?
Fuck Hosts. It's fucking useless.
(you honestly think if it were ANY good EVERYBODY would be using it? You wouldn't even have to spam it. It comes with Windows yet people go elsewhere for the functionality you promise! What a fucking joke you are and what a fucking colourless pachyderm Hosts is. Fuc
Re: (Score:3)
NoScript is great, I use it often, but it has some problems with poorly-written JS. If you go to some sites (like ikea.com, click on product detail page) Noscript will hang or take a long time to load.
What I would REALLY like is for Firefox or Chrome to add a simple button (or allow me to customize and add it myself) in the toolbar next to the other prominent buttons. Click the button and JS is turned off. Click it again and JS is turned on.
Bonus for allowing a whitelist so any site whitelisted by me gets t
Re: (Score:2)
QuickJava lets you add a simple button to enable/disable javascript (and Java, Flash, Silverlight, and more). It doesn't let you whitelist, as it's a set of simple toggles, but it's quite convenient.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
I turned most of its buttons off, but the javascript one comes in quite handy, and I can keep flash completely disabled except in the rare cases I want it for something.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually don't use adblock or noscript, but I just avoid sites that are willing to subject me to unreasonable advertising. I figure there's always somewhere else I can go for the content, and more clearly indicate to the sites when they can and cannot get away with nagging me with advertising.
So long as I'm using a blocker, the provider may have a less than clear picture of exactly how much I hate their advertising, and the arms race of pop-over ads and junk ever continues.
Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
I block them all and will continue to do so until a site guarantees that they will serve up only static images hosted on their site, then I will white list that site. My rules are:
1) No scripts.
2) No cross-site anything.
3) No movement or sound in the ad.
4) Ads are served from the same server as the content with no delays.
Basically make it like an ad in a dead tree periodical. I've never heard of somebody catching TB because the typesetter had it, but we sure get viruses from the digital equivalent.
I realize that this will never happen. But I an fantasize.
Re: (Score:2)
My rules are:
1) No scripts.
2) No cross-site anything.
3) No movement or sound in the ad.
4) Ads are served from the same server as the content with no delays.
5) No practical web browsing.
I'm cool with just whitelisting plugins...
Re: (Score:2)
5) No practical web browsing.
Indeed. My brother uses NoScript. I see him reload new pages every damn time because of it. Most sites nowadays you have to whitelist before they even work with NoScript enabled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I block them all and will continue to do so until a site guarantees that they will serve up only static images hosted on their site, then I will white list that site.
Web browsers have been hacked with malformed image files before. You can do whatever you want, but that's a Bad Idea(tm). The only Good Idea(tm) is to block all unwanted content, period the end, because you cannot trust it.
If sites go under because they cannot display ads, oh well. Bye! Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out. We'll find something better to do with our time.
Re:Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always found the "I only block ads because of tracking/overly intrusive animations/malware" perspective inadequate. Fine, yes, that's enough reason to block them, but do you really consider that the only one?
Personally I find advertising and marketing undesirable in and of themselves, and I'll block any and all forms of advertising for as long as it's technically feasible for me to do so.
It kind of freaks me out that anybody actually thinks they should feel guilty for blocking advertising. I know I'm going to be way to the left of the majority here on this, but I see advertising as nothing more or less than corporate propaganda, often designed to make me feel bad about who I am and give me the impression that some companies product will make me feel better about myself.
Everybody spouts the "I don't click on ads, they don't affect me" line. I always said "advertising doesn't effect me", but I'm not sure any more that that's really true. I remember one of the first times I was consciously aware of this effect as a teenager, standing in line at a shop. There were two, basically identical, chocolate bars next to the checkout, one of which was heavily marketed towards women, the other towards a more male demographic. Obviously, as a man, I almost instinctively picked up the one marketed towards me. And afterwards it just kind of struck me "why the hell did I do that, I know both of those wrappers almost certainly contain chemically identical substances". I came to the conclusion that , I'd almost subconsciously chosen the one marketed at males, for fear that the man working the checkout would think me somehow odd for making the other choice.
If you think about that's how advertising really works. It doesn't seek to get you to believe anything at all about $product, because that's way too hard, you're not an idiot, right? It seeks to convince you that all the other idiots out there already believe $thing about $product and will judge you on that basis. Enough of that belief will create the fact. Hence the society you see around you, where people work long hours doing stupid and destructive things in some bizzare quest to acquire products to achieve and maintain social status.
I see advertising as a campaign of propaganda directed against us, for most of us that campaign started before we were old enough to think. I believe that campaign has profound effects on us and our society far beyond merely irritating us while browsing the internet or influencing a purchasing decision towards one product or another. I'd encourage anyone to try and limit the reach of this campaign towards themsleves and their children for their own psychological wellbeing.
Re:Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
I see advertising as a campaign of propaganda directed against us, for most of us that campaign started before we were old enough to think.
I agree, and have felt the same for quite a while. It is also interesting to see the moralizing campaign against ad blockers: YOU are a thief for enjoying our content and taking the bread out of our mouths. The mass scale manipulation is viewed and accepted as the norm without question and new techniques for manipulation are being developed while advertising is filling almost every part of the public and private sphere (except, possibly, our dreams). Is ad blockers a first step in pushing back, or just a reaction to overtly intrusive and annoying advertising that is technically easy?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with most of what you say, except the part where you put all advertisers as "Big Corporation". Really, it's not like that. Yes, when you think "ad", you think Coca Cola, McDonalds, GIANT billboards, Superbowl Ads.. but no. It's not all about that.
I run a small bookshop. I'm basically forced to pay facebook for advertising, but it works. I sell the books (comic books from Marvel and DC and others), but I pay for the ads. I get no help from them.
We could be turning this into a discussion about consume
Re: (Score:2)
I run a small bookshop. I'm basically forced to pay facebook for advertising, but it works.
What's your strategy to reach those who block ads? SEO? Submission to vendor listings on comic websites? (Paid listings are ads, but as classified content, aren't normally blocked.)
Re: (Score:2)
Propaganda, indeed. Television has been doing it for many decades....
Re: (Score:2)
It kind of freaks me out that anybody actually thinks they should feel guilty for blocking advertising. I know I'm going to be way to the left of the majority here on this, but I see advertising as nothing more or less than corporate propaganda, often designed to make me feel bad about who I am and give me the impression that some companies product will make me feel better about myself.
Unless you're very wealthy or live self-sufficiently, smart shopping can make a non-insignificant contribution to your happiness. Yes, all ads spin, but do you have access to sufficient independent sources of advice to take their place, excluding media that uses ads to charge you for that advice? If not, you may still be relying on less intrusive forms of advertising, such as company websites and their search-engine listings, information placed at point-of-sale (not like your chocolate priming), classified
Re: (Score:2)
I block them all and will continue to do so until a site guarantees that they will serve up only static images hosted on their site, then I will white list that site. My rules are:
1) No scripts.
2) No cross-site anything.
3) No movement or sound in the ad.
4) Ads are served from the same server as the content with no delays.
Basically make it like an ad in a dead tree periodical. I've never heard of somebody catching TB because the typesetter had it, but we sure get viruses from the digital equivalent.
I realize that this will never happen. But I an fantasize.
The ads on the website for the company I work for meet all those requirements. We aren't entirely third-party free as we do use conversion tracking from google analytics but we don't use google ads and the analytics is completely unrelated to our ads.
The ads themself are completely static with no sound, no movement, and no tracking. Just static images served from the same server as our other content. From what I've seen a lot of medium size sites are this way. The small ones just slap google adwords on
Re: (Score:2)
The ads themself are completely static with no sound, no movement, and no tracking. Just static images served from the same server as our other content. From what I've seen a lot of medium size sites are this way. The small ones just slap google adwords on their site and are done. The large ones have all kinds of scary tracking stuff but many of the medium size sites actually have a salesman that sells individual ads, creates the ads, etc.. just like old school dead tree magazines.
Your site's ads may be static, but because you need to divert your user's attention away from your content to the ads, the ads will tend to use colours and layouts that catch the eye, which will annoy those not currently interested in buying the advertised product, those who don't want such desire to be enflamed, or those currently concentrating on your content (which may be about different topic, or may be giving more independent advice about the product category than the ads).
Plus compared to advertisi
Re: Your claim is false (Score:2, Insightful)
That's right.
If I shoot someone, the gun did it.
Re:Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually the reason most people do it. Advertisers poisoned their own revenue ground and slaughtered the goose that lay them the golden eggs.
There have always been people who block ads. On principle. But they are few and far between and don't matter. At all. They had to be quite computer savvy and had to know what they're doing to be blocking ads efficiently. We're talking pre-2000 era here. Most people didn't mind ads, they accepted the banners and even the flashing ones that surrounded their content.
And then advertisers went overboard. With popups, popunders, pop-your-eyes-out flash ads that started to make up more than 50% of the total traffic. For no other reason than "because we can and you can't do shit against it". We want you to see our ads, and that's easiest done if we flash enough to cause seizures and blare into your ears about how great our product is! What you wanna do about it, if you want to visit that page, you HAVE TO endure our ads! Just like on TV and radio!
Nope.
Not even close.
Because here we can actually block out your ads. And more and more people did it. Until it now actually IS a problem to the ad industry because you today have more people blocking that crap than actually seeing it. And one has to ask: why? How did this come along?
Did people suddenly become security and privacy conscious? Please. If Facebook is no clear "you're fuckin' kiddin'?" as an answer, what is?
Did people suddenly care about their traffic and surfing habits? Closer, but still nothing that would make the average Joe Surfer stop for a moment to go search for ad blockers.
No, installing ad blockers is not a big issue. It's fairly trivial. Yet there are far more trivial things that people could do to improve their surfing experience that they don't do.
So can you imagine just how much ads have to piss people off that THE MAJORITY now goes out of their way to block them?
Dear advertisers: You fucked up. You drove us to installing ad blockers. And now they're here. And we have zero reason to disable them again.
You slaughtered your golden goose. Hope you're happy now.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to add to the comment by linking to a view of some of the most poisoned ground, but I turned adblock off and the site (a local newspaper in the UK) crashed Firefox. Works fine when all the shit is filtered out.
Aw hell, if you want to see how bad it gets, this is a generic report on cricket with no media associated with the story, apart from the text itself. Please, there's nothing 'malware' about this, it's an exemplar from a local newspaper and shows why Adblock is so necessary:
http://www.bri [bristolpost.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't noticed their development over the years, but one day was testing a new browser without Adblock and I actually screamed. The number of trackers hold the record for me (by some way) for any regularly visited site.
There's a whole chain of newspaper sites (30+) with exactly the same template. One assumes that the owners said "If they're not going to buy the papers, let's make reading our news as miserable as legally possible".
Re: (Score:2)
There have always been people who block ads. On principle. But they are few and far between and don't matter. At all. They had to be quite computer savvy and had to know what they're doing to be blocking ads efficiently. We're talking pre-2000 era here. Most people didn't mind ads, they accepted the banners and even the flashing ones that surrounded their content.
Hah. That brought back some memories. I can't be the only one who ran JunkBuster back in the days of dial-up modems. It was a filtering proxy because at that time Netscape (this was pre-Firefox) didn't have a good plugin for ad blocking. It only had one disadvantage: it had to download the entire page before it could send the filtered page to your browser, so you sacrificed partial/gradual rendering in exchange for pretty good (at the time) ad blocking.
Re: (Score:2)
At some stage a decision was made to monetise ads by how many times they're served, not by how many times they're actually effective (e.g. clicked on).
Actually, that's fairly sensible. The point of ads is to inform/remind people of your brand. Before the Internet, that's how all ads worked. People pay obscene amounts of money to get their ads shown during the Superbowl, and nobody can click on those! If you only have to pay for click-throughs, then you're getting most of your advertising for free.
And I'm not actually sure which model most encourages intrusive advertising. If you're only paying for clickthroughs, then having your ad be an annoying popup th
I block all flash ads (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I don't have Flash installed at all - which keeps me off Chrome - and if an ad-site gets to be too annoying in some way, it gets an entry in my "hosts" file.
Oh, and I go through my cookies occasionally making those from all recognisable ad-sites expire at the end of the session. Maybe I should use private-mode more.
Block everything of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't feel guilty at all blocking all the garbage these days, especially with the amount of malware being served by ads. If anything it makes me feel better that it's one less thing I have to worry.
Re: (Score:2)
I have actually started to go a bit easier on ads. Video ads OK as long as they start with the volume off and do not excessively block the content, banners and the rest, apart from full page ads with no content, gone right there and unlikely to ever go back to that web site. Quality of the product or service must be reasonable, start advertising crap at me and you are gone. Choice of content they are willing sponsor also counts, sponsor questionable dishonest sites and you lose me, across the whole internet
Re: (Score:2)
I have actually started to go a bit easier on ads. [...] I forgot monitor and target me and you gone for ever
I've detected the problem. You're getting old, and going senile. These two statements are completely at odds. The whole point of the ad networks is to track you and target you. If you don't get that by now, you probably cannot be helped, but I'm telling you anyway.
If you don't want to be monitored, tracked, and targeted, then the only sensible conclusion is to install Ghostery, Noscript, and Adblock (if not still more hardcore tools like uMatrix) and to deny all ads with extreme prejudice.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you have a problem with English comprehension http://www.thefreedictionary.c... [thefreedictionary.com], just to be clear it is the one listed under thesaurus (not some kind of dinosaur) "Adv.1 a bit - to a small degree; somewhat; "it's a bit warm"; "felt a little better"; "a trifle smaller". I come across many sites running scripts which launch content based ads, sometimes, not often, just sometimes useful.
Block 'em All! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, I ALREADY paid for this bandwidth I am using. Therefore, I SHALL decide what gets shown or what does not get shown on my desktop. I did not invent the advertising monetization model being used, so too bad for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough choices, or at least no nuance (Score:5, Interesting)
I whitelist sites I support but ALSO some ad networks I don't mind because they present ads respectfully.
But even the "whitelisting" sites I don't let everything through, including most trackers - if it slows down page load much it is out.
Also on principle I don't allow Google ads through anywhere.
I use Ghostery for blocking on the desktop and really like the degree of control it gives you (and ability to quickly enable/disable anything blocked on the fly).
I disagree (Score:2)
Ghostly by its nature is collecting info on what people block, so as blocks are added they will propagate to my local desktop long before I would know to add anything to hosts.
So to a lot of your questions, yes Ghostery is doing a better job (for me) than a hosts file would.
I agree things like AdBlock in the past, have been slow vs. hosts (which is why I don't use AdBlock after a brief trial). But that's why I like Ghostery, because there is no apparent slowdown like there is with AdBlock.
Also the really n
The content stupid, not the spin dancing around it (Score:5, Interesting)
My goodness. About three-quarters of Slashdot users (or at least poll voters), don't bring them any ad revenue, other than the draw they may create for the rest through the content they donate. And the rest may see the ads, but unless they find them useful, they're ultimately worthless to consumer, publisher, and advertiser.
There is an alternative. Slashdot's content provides enormous value by providing a forum where people learn about products (among other things) — knowledge that affects users' purchasing much more than the ads around it, which spin by their very nature. How can Slashdot unlock the value inherent in helping people make decisions, without locking their content through a subscription, or by continuing the low-traction strategy of trading money for minor perks?
I propose [rbate.com] (1), allowing Slashdot comments to be marked as helpful or very helpful, (2), allowing people to search, tag, and annotate all the helpful content they find across the Web and elsewhere, so they can use it to guide their purchases, (3), offer people cash rebates on their purchases, which when claimed provides an easy way for purchasers to indicate which content led them to that purchase (and ended up not being misleading), (4), paying these "helpers", both via donations from rebates (in return for Kickstarter-like perks — but there's no entry of credit card details), and well as via payments from the makers of the products that have been bought, in acknowledgement for the helpers' effective contributions to the sales (but unlike affiliate links, the helpers aren't involved in the sale, and they can still be rewarded just for pointing out flaws in an alternative product), and (5), allowing helpers like Slashdot to share some of this revenue with the users who created the helpful content, spurring better content, and growing the site.
There's also (6), allowing the same for non-market-related content, so Slashdot (and perhaps the comment author) can get a rebate donation for an interesting post about physics.
Re: (Score:3)
I propose we all give up on stupid web forums and go back to usenet.
Usenet did have the advantages of speed because of its local cache, a common user interface for every forum, and the concept of unread messages.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot already monetizes the site. People pay to get their articles posted here. Why do you think you see multiple posts from Mojokid (HotHardware), theodp, etc every day? They aren't getting there by merit.
Given that Slashdotters are renowned for not looking at TFA, I'm not sure that such product placement would be good value for money, except perhaps for the Google love the links would bring.
Missing option (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
/etc/hosts (Score:5, Insightful)
I blacklist domains I don't like in /etc/hosts (with blacklists seeded by MVPs's hosts file). It's simple, and I don't have to trust or rely on anyone else's software.
Advertising works. Ad-supported websites survive. These statements are demonstrably true simply because ads and ad-supported websites exist, even though I block ads. So, my opting out of this obnoxious system hasn't broken anything, and thus the argument that I have some moral obligation to opt in fails. If advertisers and websites want me to put up with ads, they need to create ads I will put up with. They have not. Until they do, they don't get my eyes.
Not their target demographic (Score:4, Interesting)
I block absolutely everything. Ads, social buttons, privacy lists for analytics tracking.
In terms of ads, I have never intentionally clicked an ad and never will. As such, I don't fit the target audience for PPC ads and so may as well block them. Even for the rare remaining PPM ads, I make a conscious effort to avoid companies whose ads I see too often. I've actually abandoned a couple of brands for inundating me with advertisements in public spaces where I cannot avoid them. Frankly the publishers should be happy I don't see their ads. I might gravitate towards a company via word of mouth or a real-world encounter, but will avoid companies shoving their stuff in my face.
I just don't use social buttons, and the amount of network requests being made for them is ridiculous. As an example, the ShareThis addon used by many sites uses an average of *16-18* tracking pixels on every single page the share button is used, purely to track analytics. That's an additional 15+ requests made on a single page, so that ShareThis makes money selling your data. It's absurd. Plus I'm not a fan of being tracked, so it's a bonus to prevent facebook/twitter/pinterest from tracking my internet usage across the entire internet.
Blocking analytics via privacy lists is for the same reason: stop tracking me. If you truly need to understand your demographics and traffic patterns, then obviously your business is not sustainable from a simple "here we are, come visit us" standpoint. Stop trying to micro-optimize every little aspect of your visitors. I firmly believe that any business that is dependent on ads or analytics to survive is not a real business. I don't support pseudo-businesses. Start a real company that provides a valuable service that people will seek out on their own without being drawn in. All these companies who don't have a self-sustaining reason to actually exist don't deserve to have a chance of having me as a customer.
I've heard over and over again the marketing explanation wherein my subconscious doesn't understand what is happening with all the ads, and that I fall prey to them even if I don't think I do. Guess what? The simple fact that marketing assholes believe this to be true just makes me take careful note of every ad I see, and place them on a greylist and eventually a greylist.
Fuck advertising. If your company can't survive without you, close your business.
I block all adds, *except those* that ... (Score:1)
I don't allow Google Ads etc. because they track. I don't allow sound ads, drop-over ads, nor pop-up ads etc. because what the fuck. Here's a solution for the mediacorps: go back to loading jpg ads and place them in sidebars, and everybody'll be happy. Don't try to be greedy and shove ads through our throats, because we'll just block them.
And to the online ads/marketing industry: you ov
Re:I block all adds, *except those* that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck this shit. I'll also block JPG, GIF, PNG, SVG and any other format supported by my browser. I do NOT want ads. Not even text ads. I don't want ads that move, or that don't move. I do not want ads.
Do you host a website? Cool. Pay for the damn host yourself. I do. I don't show ads to my blog readers, and neither should you. No, I don't have any sympathy for you, Web 2.0 blogger, typing from your mac, and sharing shit from your iPhone on Instagram. If you have money for a mac or iphone, then you're doing well. Same way I don't feel bad about blocking ads from Google: if you're making billions a year (and avoiding taxes), and throwing money away like crazy in "Campuses" and other colorful bullshit, then FUCK YOU, I will leech as much as i can from you.
Most ad-supported sites are trying to convince you that "ads keep the internet free, and without ads, it will disappear". LOL. You know what will disappear? Facebook. Stupid cat picture sites. Basically, time wasting websites. Google will remain, but will have to turn into "Freemium". The remaining 99% of the internet, the websites that were always there, will remain there. And everyone will have to pay for their own hosting.
Re: (Score:3)
Also: screw idiots like LinusTechTips. Spoiled idiots with more money than sense, who are just funny on camera, and are just a showcase of shit they get for free from their sponsors.
If they die with youtube, I won't even care.
Re: (Score:2)
Monetisers will continue to monetise, and we'll get a subscription-based Internet. Have fun with that.
I block by host... (Score:2)
The Alternative? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, are they also a necessary evil?
Seeing how Internet worked just fine before ads came along, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for one, instead of trying to sell ad space, try to get a real fucking job. Make something, and SELL IT. Do something and CHARGE FOR IT. But if all you want to do is host funny cat photos and expect to be paid for it, screw you. If you want to get paid for content, write a book.
Revenue streams my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
You made your bed... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't feel sorry for sites and advertisers, they did this to themselves.
If you keep pissing through the mail slot, don't expect any sympathy when you stand outside with a full bladder and find the mail slot nailed shut.
Blick all but... (Score:1)
I use uBlock. I put "Blocked all of them - feel great about it".
However, I would use a blocker that let through decent ads, you know ones that don't track you, ones that are simple and static. I don't even mind if they come from a 3rd-party site (though I prefer same origin sure, to cut down on network traffic and so it's easier to verify) if I have some assurance the ads are decent. I appreciate sites are trying to make money. I hate TV ads too, radio ads less so, though strangely I don't mind ads at the m
None of the above (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't feel bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Because I have never intentionally clicked on an ad ever. AdBlock is doing the same thing my brain does, except more efficiently. It also has a benefit for the advertisers and site owners: it doesn't make me enraged at them for serving me extremely annoying advertisements that are completely irrelevant to my interests. So, advertisers and site owners should be thanking AdBlock because it is improving their reputation among people who get annoyed by advertisements.
Actually, I have been aiming to cut down on my random web browsing lately -- maybe I should turn off AdBlock and make all of my favorite sites so unbearable that I never go back to them again.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Need Ads, Only Sponsors (Score:2)
It's not the advertisers you're sticking it to, though. You're taking revenue away from the content producers, so that eventually that content will go away.
Not necessarily. I've noticed a lot of the "content" I enjoy online is videos and music made by younger people that treat it as a gig. They don't throw ads in your face, they ask for you to buy stuff from their store (think funny t-shirts) or "donate" to them. Probably "sponsor" is a better word than donate. Many of them seem to be moving to using special websites like Patreon [patreon.com] to raise income to support their creative projects. I gladly chip in a couple bucks a month on something like that if I really enjoy
Web advertising is little different than spam (Score:2)
Text-only web browser on Android? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I try to endure ads, I really do (Score:2)
went even further (Score:2)
Feels great (Score:2)
I don't want to see any ads. If you don't want me to see your website without ads, block me.
Why I changed my mind. (Score:2)
Up until a few months ago I had absolutely zero ad-blockers. My feeling was that if a site abused my browser I'd just stop visiting it, otherwise I did not want to deprive them of revenue. So what happened a few months ago? I got a phone call from my mom. She likes to visit cooking blogs and one threw up a modal window that claimed to be a message from Apple saying her computer was compromised and that she had to call a phone number to be advised on how to correct her machine.
Luckily my mom didn't fall
Blocked origins that host bad ads? (Score:2)
I don't white-list first-party sites, I black list advertisement companies. Any origin that pushes an add with autoplay audio or pop-up gets perma-blocked on all sites.
Don't block most, but annoying blocked at router (Score:2)
In general I don't block ads; but if some site, java script or the like annoys me enough I will block it at router. Currently I have some auto-play video scripts blocked, some scripts that randomly convert plain text into ad links, and for a while blocked a tracker that really slowed done the webpages. I've also blocked sites ocassionally if their ads or behavior was too annoying. For example I blocked Gizmodo a while back because of that stunt they pulled with TV remotes at some tech conference. In those c
Block them all, always (Score:2)
The ads companies don't give a shit about my privacy. I don't give a fuck about their revenue. Can't get simpler than that, right?
Bill Hicks on marketers. (Score:2)
Bill Hicks: if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself. [...] there's no rationalization for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, okay. Kill yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously.
No this is not a joke, you're going, "there's going to be a joke coming". There's no fucking joke coming. You are Satan's spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. [...]
I know all the marketing people are goin
alternatives (Score:2)
We live in a time where "there is no alternative" has become a mantra to push through any policy that interested parties want to push through. It has become so obvious in politics that it's a running gag and it's true for ad-supported online business as well.
I block any and all ads and feel good about it, and I will support any and all initiatives that limit or outlaw advertisements in general, both online and offline. I'm a bit fan of the Sao Paulo approach.
There are alternatives. There always are. If you
I block ads with AdBlock Plus because.... (Score:2)
....the big problem with online ads is that they use Adobe Flash, Oracle Java, etc. to render the online ad--and that results in dramatic slowdowns in rendering web pages, not to mention ending up being a vector for malware attacks.
If we are to solve this problem, the following needs to be done:
1. All ads must be created using HTML 5.0.
2. No autoplay of any media file. Only with user interaction can any media file be played.
3. No animation in the ad.
4. Ads must be limited to a reasonable banner size.
5. Stri
I would welcome ads if.. (Score:2)
They actually informed me about the existence or features of products I am in the market for
The vast majority of ads are wasted on me
For example..
I love craft beer
If I saw an ad for an interesting IPA that I had never tasted, I would look for it next time I went beer shopping
Ads for BudMillerCoors are ignored, completely and totally. I am not their customer. No amount of advertising, of any form, would ever make me their customer
I hate when people... (Score:2)
...treat the subject line as part of a sentence. One of the few things that's actually more annoying than ads! :)
I find that ads often do inform me of the existence or features of products I'm in the market for. Which is why I block flash and (most) third-party cookies, but not much else. (And I might stop blocking third-party cookies if there weren't so freakin' many of them!)
I'm eligible to opt-out of advertising on Slashdot, but I've never bothered, not because I'm blocking ads, but because Slashdot actu
Re: (Score:2)
Allow plain ads (Score:2)
Not an option above. I don't block ads, but I do tightly control javascript through a whitelist and don't allow flash or java. The ads I get are few and relatively unobtrusive.
Ads are collateral damage (Score:2)
Ads are collateral damage in my personal war for a good Internet experience. I hear some people saying that there's absolutely no place for any kind of ads on the Internet. I respectfully disagree with that. Some say they're corporate propaganda. The people who say that are just as likely to be selling something themselves--albeit a philosophy rather than a product. I've found that philosophy can be just as big a time and money sink as products.
There is a place for ads in media, a place that has been l
The Advertisers can ${verb} themselves (Score:2)
The advertisers can blame themselves for this.
At first there was the web. Unsoiled and uncontaminated by ads. Great websites emerged. Ads came along to help pay the bills.
Then came all of the despicable things that go with advertising.
There are no limits to what advertisers will stoop to. Nothing too low, too slimy, or too shady. There is no shame.
First it started with deceptive 'punch the monkey' type ads. Almost a form of phishing. Try to con the user into clicking t
All or none? (Score:2)
Ok, ok, I know, don't complain about polls, but sheesh, my only options are "all" or "none"? It never occurred to you that there is ground between those two extremes!? WTF?
Yeah, Cowboy Neil checks incoming ads for me, and blocks some of them, after consulting various white- and black-lists that I have set up. (I don't trust third-parties to make these lists for me). He screens all flash (advertising-related or not) that isn't on my white-lists. (And I wish he'd learn to do the same for some of the new HTML5
The reason I block (Score:2)
The number one reason I block all ads is because ads started to serve out trojans and viruses. Until that happened, I allowed ads through as a reasonable cost to view content. When the websites failed to provide the most minimal of oversight, they lost all rights to make me view ads.
I wish you guys would go talk to (Score:2)
hacker news [ycombinator.com] all of these start up minded assholes things you're a thief for ad blocking. I didn't rent you space in my head. Fuck you =)
I know there is substantial over lap between here and there but the cultures are very very different.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Linux is free. LibreOffice is free. For a great many years the whole internet was free.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you american? Please tell me you are so I can pull out the "In my country we have free healthcare" and hear you whine that it's not really free because you pay for it with your taxes.
Linux is free. LibreOffice is free. For a great many years the whole internet was free.
Linux is free, but most contributions are by people getting paid for it. Most by redhat, a lot by Microsoft.
LibreOffice is free, but was paid by Sun
The whole internet was free, but paid by universities.
Nothing is really free.
Re: (Score:2)
No, microsoft is a tiny contributor, only in one year did they make a significant number of contributions which was 2012 where they made 1 percent of all contributions mostly having to do with making Microsoft tech(mostly hyper-v) work with kernel (largely useless to most of us)
Free means no cost to me, you misunderstand the concept.
I donate to two open source OS that I use, I choose to make it non-free for myself.
Re: (Score:2)
First, in NoScript I whitelist those sites that appear to take responsibility for their content. That leaves lots of unrecognized domain names in the list of forbidden-to-script. Ghostery has perhaps three out of the thousands of trackers enabled, and Facebook isn't one of them.
I also use /etc/hosts liberally; for example, I added "127.0.0.1 avg.com" this morning.
Re: (Score:2)
0.0.0.0 www.taboola.com
0.0.0.0 cdn.taboola.com
0.0.0.0 api.taboola.com
0.0.0.0 www.outbrain.com
0.0.0.0 www.answers.com
0.0.0.0 perfectlytimedimages.com
0.0.0.0 yourdailydish.com
0.0.0.0 www.yourdailydish.com
0.0.0.0 brainjet.com
0.0.0.0 zergnet.com
Re: (Score:2)
there's a bit more than eight, some nice lists out there to add to end of hosts files
http://pgl.yoyo.org/as/serverl... [yoyo.org]