201–210 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irrelevant of OPs point. Disallowing an extension that a user might want doesn't seem like "your way"
It isn't "disallowed". You make a change in about:config.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about people who install a program to defraud advertisers. The complaint was, "we're sticking it to people who censor and use social control." "The rules" in this case are that censorship and social control (presumably) exist on the platform. If you don't like that, don't participate. But don't say, "OMG censorship" and use that to justify defrauding advertisers while continuing to use the free site tha…
Whoa! It's not defrauding advertisers, unless you want to claim that clicking a link on the internet without intending to purchase something is considered fraudulent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't work for reddit anymore, so I don't offer anything. But no, I don't think reddit offers that, as no site does. That's a perfectly fine excuse to run adblock, but my original thesis was that people say, "If you let me remove ads I'll pay" and those people are being disingenuous when they don't pay. It still doesn't justify the topic at hand, which is a program that attacks the ad networks and defrauds the adve…
No. The topic at hand is whether or not I'm allowed to run the program on my computer. And regardless of what argument you or any other business man 2.0 can proffer, I am. Because it's my computer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The topic at hand is whether or not I'm allowed to run the program on my computer. And regardless of what argument you or any other business man 2.0 can proffer, I am. Because it's my computer.
As I understand it, the issue is whether you can run AdNauseam on Pale Moon on your computer. Are there other browsers that allow you to use AdNauseam?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And there are so many ad networks out there that don't do tracking and have revenues high enough to keep a website afloat. I can think of exactly zero that fit that bill.
Then maybe ad networks aren't the solution. Maybe it's Flatr or a browser like Brave that automatically pays websites you visit a few cents worth of Bitcoin. The current solution of creepy privacy-violating ad networks must go, and alternatives won't develop organically until there is pressure on publishers to find alternatives.
You want to put pressure on publishers? Refuse to visit their site if you don't like the ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, no. How do you think nearly all small legit websites that aren't being bankrolled by a single passionate person stay up? Ad revenue. As an example, PortableApps.com isn't exactly small, but without ad revenue I'd shut it down. It doesn't make enough in donations and a handful of drive sales to survive.
Ideally we'd find other ways to bankroll websites. Obligatory snowdrift.coop plug here (best intro, though with outdated visuals, remains https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/intro )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, no. This sort of purposefully doing fake clicks at websites you're a fan of thing ups the chances of that website of getting banned from their ad network. Which is paying their hosting bills. Which simply puts them out of business.
That's exactly my purpose. I want all ad supported businesses to die.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoa! It's not defrauding advertisers, unless you want to claim that clicking a link on the internet without intending to purchase something is considered fraudulent.
Actually, a court of law take into account intent. Misclicking on a link is not fraud, but intentionally misclicking is indeed fraud, if you know if had an intended effect on the budget of the advertiser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't like the rules, you are welcome to not participate. Playing your ads in my browser is "the rules" now? If you want to claim it's "the rules", you need a paywall. Oh, you're not putting up a paywall? Fancy that. Do you offer legally enforceable indemnity against people getting malware from ads you serve? If not, then you can't really tell them not to block the ads.
We're talking about people who install a program to defraud advertisers. The complaint was, "we're sticking it to people who censor and use social control." "The rules" in this case are that censorship and social control (presumably) exist on the platform. If you don't like that, don't participate. But don't say, "OMG censorship" and use that to justify defrauding advertisers while continuing to use the free site tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoa! It's not defrauding advertisers, unless you want to claim that clicking a link on the internet without intending to purchase something is considered fraudulent.
Actually, a court of law take into account intent. Misclicking on a link is not fraud, but intentionally misclicking is indeed fraud, if you know if had an intended effect on the budget of the advertiser.