71–80 of 253 posts
It's a shame this is even receiving front page publicity. This is ultimately terrible for everyone except maybe a few anarchists that think they deserve every websites information for free while sabotaging the publishers who work to develop the sites. And if it actually were to take off, it would then be bad for the anarchists who no longer get that free access to the information they wanted. Who wins? Edit: Seriousl…
I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…
As for your other points, I am almost as paranoid as you.
I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…
I have installed ad-blocker; but the level is self-righteousness is the only nauseam thing here.
I'm pondering about creating a script that blocks users that use this one; if you weren't expecting a fight back you are delusional.
I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…
That's an extremely juvenile way to view your browsing rights and behavior.
The only reason I have installed ABP is google's youtube ads. All the other websites are suffering because of google's politics with youtube, since I encouraged all of my friends to do the same thing, just to watch youtube quietly. I would really like to use this project, though, on websites with paywalled articles, not on others, but I would never bother creating or maintaining a black/white list. So I might just go…
I know all the other websites are suffering because of this, but as a user, I don't really care, unless I get more problems than benefits.
I don't understand this, they say it prevents tracking but, actually, this helps ad companies track you since they will now know you will click their ads whenever you are visiting a certain site. With ad blockers that prevent the HTTP request, those third party sites aren't able to track you. The publisher can always track you but that won't be shared with their advertisers or networks. Disclaimer: I work in the adte…
I'm not endorsing AdNauseam, but the idea is that the information the ad companies track will be useless since the target person will appear to have clicked on every ad regardless of true interest in the product. For instance it will make it appear that a single, heterosexual male is interested beauty products or diapers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I often wonder what the internet would be like without ads. First of all, you're right that it would totally kill sites. Let's say it happens. What's next? I would be ecstatic if sites like BuzzFeed and Gawker died. That'd be great[1]. But it also kills good sites like Stackoverflow. That sucks. Right now people don't have to pay for content. Almost everything is ad based. Because of this people almost never pay for…
I would support this if I believed sites would start paying the people who write for them.
If you have to pay to access most sites, the only websites left would be owned by the already wealthy that can cover losses till they're big enough that people are willing to pay for the content.
This also does not corrupt the algorithms most adtech companies use by even a little bit. Weeding out the bogus clicks of people who would never, ever click on an ad anyway (because only those people would install this extension) does not in any way change the ability to project from the people who do click on ads.
And, as others pointed out, by 'clicking' on the ad instead of just blocking it, you provide information to the ad network anyway. If you really don't want to be tracked online, block third-party cookies (or clear your cookies at the end of the day), and turn off flash. (If you don't want to be tracked offline, call your congressperson, and good luck.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strongly agree. Ads (and even ads placed by primary distributors and authors) hijacked the internet without permission from browsers/surfers and routinely have additional negative consequences. The reader doesn't need permission to defend themselves.
Do ads in a newspaper "hijack the real world"?
[0] http://www.invincea.com/2014/10/micro-targeting-malvertising...