91–100 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sorry: I got so angry reading this, I accidentally downvoted you :/
Yet Apple puts huge ads in metro stations all over the world. They pick what's interesting for them - no ads on mac and iOS, and huge ad campaigns elsewhere
I'll be honest, I hate all ads, regardless of how good they are. I think it's creepy and fills my mind with things I do not want it to be filled with. For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what appears. I think it barely matters how good the ads are. I've only seen one single website that did ads right (they were perfectly embedded into a mosaic pattern of site functionality, things…
"For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what appears." My company makes most of its money off of advertising, I am broadly a fan of advertising (done well) myself, and yet.. I agree with your feeling at a core, technical level. I currently don't see how it's defensible to argue that a piece of software MUST render a certain stream of data in a certain way. This is not about copyright…
The Mozilla Foundation has come out against ad blocking: "Content blocking software should focus on addressing potential user needs (such as on performance, security, and privacy) instead of blocking specific types of content (such as advertising)."[1] This is sad. Their slogan used to be "Work for mankind, not for the man". But the Mozilla Foundation is ad-funded. They currently have a deal with Yahoo to make Yahoo…
The Mozilla Foundation has come out against ad blocking: "Content blocking software should focus on addressing potential user needs (such as on performance, security, and privacy) instead of blocking specific types of content (such as advertising)."[1] This is sad. Their slogan used to be "Work for mankind, not for the man". But the Mozilla Foundation is ad-funded. They currently have a deal with Yahoo to make Yahoo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but you do allow the presence of advertising on your TV or radio so why should web pages be different? That's the contract you agree to.
Ad-blocking is exactly the same thing as turning the volume off during commercial breaks. Or perhaps turning the TV/radio off, and then back on again afterwards might be the better analogy, since then you are not consuming the "bandwidth". If I wanted to hurt advertising, I'd create an extension that would fire a thousand click-throughs on their stupid ad, and vacuum up all their AdSense budget. Get a few million peo…
As for hurting advertising by your click though scheme - do you really think you're the first one to have thought of this? They have measures in place to identify and disregard this.
Ads will never go away and these ad blockers will soon become worthless if the advertising companies ever think they're a threat. There are so many easy ways to defeat ad blocking. This is why I despise Apple for trying to publicize web ad blocking while letting their ads be displayed in their little gated community. Apple is essentially ruining it for the people that do use ad blockers because we're going to reach a…
So your argument is that Apple is bad because they let the plebes in on this ad blocking thing? (Rather than leaving them for the techies who are a small enough slide of the population that they can slip under the radar?) I'd also argue that the way Apple implemented things, it actually takes more savvy to block ads on iOS than on a web browser on a PC. If it were just a default setting in Safari, you'd have a strong…
Ads will never go away and these ad blockers will soon become worthless if the advertising companies ever think they're a threat. There are so many easy ways to defeat ad blocking. This is why I despise Apple for trying to publicize web ad blocking while letting their ads be displayed in their little gated community. Apple is essentially ruining it for the people that do use ad blockers because we're going to reach a…
Ok, so when ad blocking was not possible on iOS it was bad, because walled garden, etc. Now, when iOS users finally have a choice it's bad again. Wonderfull logic. And nope, advertizers will not beat ad blocking.
Ads will never go away and these ad blockers will soon become worthless if the advertising companies ever think they're a threat. There are so many easy ways to defeat ad blocking. This is why I despise Apple for trying to publicize web ad blocking while letting their ads be displayed in their little gated community. Apple is essentially ruining it for the people that do use ad blockers because we're going to reach a…
Please. Anything the advertisers can come up with is easily defeated on the ad-blocking side. The only way the ad companies can get in is to convince ad blockers to let them pay and not be filtered ... which isn't a very good plan when there are open source ad-blockers. EDIT: If it was easy to bypass ad-blockers, the advertisers would already be doing it.
I'm fairly sure that if publishers removed popups (ads and subscription forms), ads that move the text while you're reading it, and autoplay video or audio ads, then most people would be happy. As it stands, readers are bombarded with ads that ruin the actual reading experience.
No, that wouldn't be enough. The real problem is profiling. It's spooky and most tech-savvy people dissent it. And they (aka we) are the ones that influence the general public as to adopting ad blocking technologies. It's one thing having Google serving me personalized ads which I know come from my search history, and a whole other having the same thing happening from various ad-serving companies with which I have no…
The Mozilla Foundation has come out against ad blocking: "Content blocking software should focus on addressing potential user needs (such as on performance, security, and privacy) instead of blocking specific types of content (such as advertising)."[1] This is sad. Their slogan used to be "Work for mankind, not for the man". But the Mozilla Foundation is ad-funded. They currently have a deal with Yahoo to make Yahoo…
How do the PR drones who write this stuff not instantly and repeatedly punch themselves in the face? I can probably count on one hand the number of advertisers who respect "performance, security, and privacy." Text and static image ads served from a first-party domain don't bother me, but web-wide creeps following my every move to "retarget" me with invasive annoyances and act as almost-but-not-quite credit reporting…
Fine, then Mozilla's argument is that we should block everyone except those. And that we also should block trackers not in ads as well (e.g. Analytics).
I'm don't see why this is so contemptible a statement, or why we should call a person a "PR drone" for writing it.
