Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Browsing your website does not mean I want your spam

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 251 posts

Re: Browsing your website does not mean I want your spam

#201

Post by yAnonymous »

cyberferret wrote: post #127

I am really beginning to hate browsing the web these days... Especially poop up dialogs asking for my email as soon as the mouse cursor leaves the active browser screen. With an average of 20 browser tabs open, while one is loading I often go to click on another to check on something, and this instantly triggers a flurry of popups begging me to stay/subscribe. Also the retargeted ads that follow me everywhere now. MO…

>Especially poop up dialogs asking for my email as soon as the mouse cursor leaves the active browser screen

I've been thinking of creating a public uBlock filter list for websites with newsletter overlays/popups...

Re: Browsing your website does not mean I want your spam

#202

Post by amelius »

timlyo wrote: post #196
amelius wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although I suspect this would just start a new style arms race of obfuscation similar to adblock, etc. We could use AI to detect and remove ads, perhaps combined with collaborative filtering.

And what would the advertisers do next? That would just further the arms race.

I don't think so. If a really smart AI cannot detect the ad, why would a user be able to consciously detect it?

AI will perhaps push ads into the subconscious space. But an arms race will make ads more and more subconscious, until they basically disappear.

Re: Browsing your website does not mean I want your spam

#203

Post by mSparks »

mSparks wrote: post #123
arnaudlaudwein wrote: post #73

This is legal[1] in Europe if you consented to receive marketing emails from "partners" of a website you subscribed to (through an opt-in, not an opt-out checkbox). You subscribe to website X, you opt-in to offers from third-parties, and this allows X to share your e-mail address with Criteo. Then Criteo sends you marketing e-mails for the account of Sears ( but they surely don't share any PII with Sears - the e-mail…

Quick vent. I'd much rather lawyers just kept of the internet entirely.

And for the avoidance of doubt.

That is nothing so much against lawyers, the are essential in the real world where land is a finite resource.

But the better solution to problems in an environment when CPU ticks are not a finite resource, and bandwidth is nowhere near capacity are technical and educational problems, not legal ones.

Re: Browsing your website does not mean I want your spam

#204

Post by dawnerd »

userbinator wrote: post #148
JohnTHaller wrote: post #70

I've been getting more spam lately from "legitimate" companies. One of my email addresses leaked from a major open source project I corresponded with. Harvesters found it and now sell it to every small business and entrepreneur marketer you can think of. I get spam from CDNs, off-shoring companies, SEO/SEM, marketing, you name it. Lots of them use sketchy services like reply.io to make it seem like a real person sent…

I've always pondered sending the following curt response to this type of not-quite- really -spammy (as in Viagra-ads) spam: Fuck off. ...or something even more offensive for greater catharsis, but then I worry it will just cause them to send even more, knowing that the address is "live".

I do that but only with recruiters from LinkedIn. It's hilarious when they get really upset and either call to curse at me or send a bunch of angry emails. Emails of course just get forwarded to their main contact. That'll teach them.

Re: Browsing your website does not mean I want your spam

#206

Post by dawnerd »

ellisv wrote: post #62
techsupporter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the + notation is twofold: First, not all places accept the + character; second, you've now revealed your actual e-mail address (since foobar@gmail.com is just as valid as foobar+dontspamme@gmail.com). I use a subdomain with catch-all, like me.example.com. Everybody is fine with subdomains and then I can use companyname@me.example.com. Using that format doesn't expose my actual e-mail address and mak…

> First, not all places accept the + character Additionally you cannot send an email from foobar+dontspamme@gmail.com. If you aggressively use the + character for legitimate signups but need customer support they may not be able to find your account as easily (e.g. "we couldn't find an account associated with e-mail foobar@gmail.com").

I've been able to. Just set it up as an alias.

Re: Browsing your website does not mean I want your spam

#207

Post by jimsug »

FussyZeus wrote: post #33

I just love the amazing "Terms of Service" that all of these ad companies have, letting you know that by virtue of loading an HTML page you've consented to have your personal information of ANY caliber spread all over their ad network, their "partners" networks, and to anyone else with a buck and a server, and immediately absolve themselves of any responsibility for what that might mean in terms of information fallin…

The legal enforceability of browsewrap is questionable. Certainly if it's not prominent enough, it would be a weak argument.

Re: Browsing your website does not mean I want your spam

#208

Post by anc84 »

kristianc wrote: post #191
zer0gravity wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no core privacy premise of the internet, and certainly not one that everybody used it signed up for. Sure there isn't. The internet is just a jungle where predatory animals can hunt you down if you go in their teritory. They say we've exited from the jungle once, but apparently the jungle is still in us. Besides ad blockers, we need more plugins to help us mark these animals and keep us away from them. A n…

This works really well for me, and avoids the overhead of using a browser plugin: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

hosts file blocking will never be as good and complete as add-on based blocking. You cannot block on DOM, you cannot block specific things from a host but let through others, etc. Not to mention that it is much harder to toggle if you need to.

Re: Browsing your website does not mean I want your spam

#209

Post by a_imho »

I know there are a couple of solutions out there, but what exactly stopping the main email providers to offer on demand proxy addresses for one's main account? I think there is a legitimate demand for it, but not enough to actually sign up for yet another service.

Re: Browsing your website does not mean I want your spam

#210

Post by cyborgx7 »

yAnonymous wrote: post #201
cyberferret wrote: post #127

I am really beginning to hate browsing the web these days... Especially poop up dialogs asking for my email as soon as the mouse cursor leaves the active browser screen. With an average of 20 browser tabs open, while one is loading I often go to click on another to check on something, and this instantly triggers a flurry of popups begging me to stay/subscribe. Also the retargeted ads that follow me everywhere now. MO…

>Especially poop up dialogs asking for my email as soon as the mouse cursor leaves the active browser screen I've been thinking of creating a public uBlock filter list for websites with newsletter overlays/popups...

You should do that. I'd probably use it.
Post reply on HN