R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | ???
What the hell? Considering the stance on various NN discussions, this particular act makes no sense! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits |  Some things to consider
The opt-out cookie is not a google.com cookie, it is a doubleclick.net cookie. I allow Google cookies on my systems but not doubleclick.net cookies. So the Google preferred opt-out method wouldn't work unless I made an exception.
I could use the Firefox add-on mentioned, but I have a better way. I use the Firefox add-on "Adblock Plus" along with a subscribed filter lists that blocks all Google ads along with Google analytics tracking cookies at thousands of sites. I use Easylist and EasyPrivacy at »easylist.adblockplus.org/
Of course Adblock Plus blocks more than Google ads. It blocks ads from all vendors on just about every site I ever visited.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| It's a totally different issue
The evil of schemes like Nebu-ad, Phorm et al. is that all the internet user's traffic is intercepted and analyzed, and there's not enough competition in ISPs to enable citizens to opt out of the wiretapping by going to another ISP. In the case of Google, anyone can opt out of the advertising scheme by blocking Google cookies and ad servers, without losing internet access.
For example, I put Google's cookies on my "deny" list (an ordinary browser feature, doesn't even require an extension), and on Google's new "Ad preferences" page it says: quote:
Cookies are disabled
Your browser's cookies seem to be disabled. Ads Preferences will not work until you enable cookies in your browser. How do I enable cookies?
If the relatively trivial matter of webservers tracking people is mixed up with the far more ominous prospect of ISPs data-mining the users, it tends to trivialize the latter and ease the political pressure that may save internet users from the worse form of spying. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Some things to consider
said by TKJunkMail  :The opt-out cookie is not a google.com cookie, it is a doubleclick.net cookie. I allow Google cookies on my systems but not doubleclick.net cookies. So the Google preferred opt-out method wouldn't work. I could use the Firefox add-on mentioned, but I have a better way. I use the Firefox add-on "Adblock Plus" along with a subscribed filter lists that blocks all Google ads along with Google analytics tracking cookies at thousands of sites. I use Easylist and EasyPrivacy at » easylist.adblockplus.org/Of course Adblock Plus blocks more than Google ads. It blocks ads from all vendors on just about every site I ever visited. So basically sites that provide you information and content for FREE you basically fuck them over? Yes ads can be annoying but fact is without a revenue stream the only other option for site to generate revenue is to charge subscriptions. I'd rather not have to pay for every site I want to visit.
Sorry but if I have asite and i'm letting you visit my site for FREE and ad are the way I genrate revenue you don't really have a right to block anything. I mean legally you can, but the "I wish to not be an asshole" law you can't. |
|
exocet_cm
I am the law
Premium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
clubs:  
·Cox HSI
·Suddenlink
·Cingular Wireless
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Charter Pipeline
1 edit |  said by BF69 :said by TKJunkMail :The opt-out cookie is not a google.com cookie, it is a doubleclick.net cookie. I allow Google cookies on my systems but not doubleclick.net cookies. So the Google preferred opt-out method wouldn't work. I could use the Firefox add-on mentioned, but I have a better way. I use the Firefox add-on "Adblock Plus" along with a subscribed filter lists that blocks all Google ads along with Google analytics tracking cookies at thousands of sites. I use Easylist and EasyPrivacy at » easylist.adblockplus.org/Of course Adblock Plus blocks more than Google ads. It blocks ads from all vendors on just about every site I ever visited. So basically sites that provide you information and content for FREE you basically fuck them over? Yes ads can be annoying but fact is without a revenue stream the only other option for site to generate revenue is to charge subscriptions. I'd rather not have to pay for every site I want to visit. Sorry but if I have asite and i'm letting you visit my site for FREE and ad are the way I genrate revenue you don't really have a right to block anything. I mean legally you can, but the "I wish to not be an asshole" law you can't. I have every right to block whatever content I do not want to be exposed to, including advertisements. Nuff said 
--
"I have measured out my life with coffee spoons..." - T.S Eliot
Check Out the Tech Bench »johndball.blaize.net/index.php/tech-bench/
Ma blog: »www.johndball.com |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Next.
In other news this month Google will be sued. And everyone thought they couldn't do no harm or anything illegal.
Time for them to go Bye Bye next! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to BF69
Re: Some things to consider
said by BF69 :So basically sites that provide you information and content for FREE you basically **** them over? Yes ads can be annoying but fact is without a revenue stream the only other option for site to generate revenue is to charge subscriptions. I'd rather not have to pay for every site I want to visit. Sorry but if I have a site and i'm letting you visit my site for FREE and ad are the way I generate revenue you don't really have a right to block anything. I mean legally you can, but the "I wish to not be an asshole" law you can't. Whats the difference? I never clicked on ads before I used Adblock. And when I use IE or Chrome while testing those browsers out I never click on ads then either. So, unless I am wrong about how web sites get paid for ads(I have to click on one for you to get money), you weren't getting any money from me anyway. All I have done is remove the annoyance from my monitor.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
anony101
@comcast.net
 from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to BF69
So basically sites that provide you information and content for FREE you basically fuck them over? The ads only generate revenue if you click on them so by visiting a web page and not clicking on the ads one could say you fuck them over as well. |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Whats the difference? I never clicked on ads before I used Adblock. And when I use IE or Chrome while testing those browsers out I never click on ads then either. So, unless I am wrong about how web sites get paid for ads(I have to click on one for you to get money), you weren't getting any money from me anyway. All I have done is remove the annoyance from my monitor. Agreed. Unless the ads are embedded into the site itself, I don't care about ads either. I don't click on them (never actually), I mean if I want to buy something, then I go search for it. The "impulse" buying, I'll leave that to others.
Adblock and the like are a choice, not a feature that can't be turned off. If all browsers came with Adblock on by default, then yes I can see a more valid argument about advertising revenue. But those that use this type of extension for their browser never intended to click the ads in the first place so it's no different than ignoring them.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs: | THis is what happens...
when you go public and have to answer to the investor. |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to R0CKY
Re: ???
said by R0CKY :What the hell? Considering the stance on various NN discussions, this particular act makes no sense! They learn from other companies mistakes (like *cough* in my signature)
Plenty of search engines out there, don't like them, don't use them. Don't like habits tracking around the web, block the companies that want to track them. Even has a opt-out for the less technical but concerned people.
I don't like it either, but at least I won't have to change ISP just to avoid it. How is is much different than what they do with their ads now, Google ads tend to bring up stuff sorta relevant to the page you are on. Can't tell me that's not part of some tracking system already.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to exocet_cm
Re: Some things to consider
said by exocet_cm :I have every right to block whatever content I do not want to be exposed to, including advertisements. Nuff said This is something that every marketdroid in the advertising industry doesn't seem to get.
And I see nothing wrong with blocking them when ad networks are routinely hijacked to redirect site visitors to rogue security software such as Antivirus 2009.
As for Google/Doubleclick, not only do I use Adblock Plus, but TrackMeNot.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
CtrlAltDel
WORSE. THAN. CARTER.
Arbitrary Text
join:2001-12-30
Backyard
 ·1and1
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :said by TKJunkMail :Of course Adblock Plus blocks more than Google ads. It blocks ads from all vendors on just about every site I ever visited. So basically sites that provide you information and content for FREE you basically fuck them over? Yes ads can be annoying but fact is without a revenue stream the only other option for site to generate revenue is to charge subscriptions. I'd rather not have to pay for every site I want to visit. Sorry but if I have asite and i'm letting you visit my site for FREE and ad are the way I genrate revenue you don't really have a right to block anything. I mean legally you can, but the "I wish to not be an asshole" law you can't. I thought everybody blocked ads. I, too, use adblock and never see ads when I use FireFox. When I used to see them I never clicked them. What's the difference between not seeing the ads and not clicking them? None. |
|
CCTVTech
Premium
join:2003-04-23
Phoenix, AZ
clubs: | I only block the annoying flash ads. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to CtrlAltDel
said by CtrlAltDel :said by BF69 :said by TKJunkMail :Of course Adblock Plus blocks more than Google ads. It blocks ads from all vendors on just about every site I ever visited. So basically sites that provide you information and content for FREE you basically fuck them over? Yes ads can be annoying but fact is without a revenue stream the only other option for site to generate revenue is to charge subscriptions. I'd rather not have to pay for every site I want to visit. Sorry but if I have asite and i'm letting you visit my site for FREE and ad are the way I genrate revenue you don't really have a right to block anything. I mean legally you can, but the "I wish to not be an asshole" law you can't. I thought everybody blocked ads. I, too, use adblock and never see ads when I use FireFox. When I used to see them I never clicked them. What's the difference between not seeing the ads and not clicking them? None. So if you never intend on buying a movie on DVD just download it from a torrent right? What's the differnce? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to exocet_cm
said by exocet_cm :said by BF69 :said by TKJunkMail :The opt-out cookie is not a google.com cookie, it is a doubleclick.net cookie. I allow Google cookies on my systems but not doubleclick.net cookies. So the Google preferred opt-out method wouldn't work. I could use the Firefox add-on mentioned, but I have a better way. I use the Firefox add-on "Adblock Plus" along with a subscribed filter lists that blocks all Google ads along with Google analytics tracking cookies at thousands of sites. I use Easylist and EasyPrivacy at » easylist.adblockplus.org/Of course Adblock Plus blocks more than Google ads. It blocks ads from all vendors on just about every site I ever visited. So basically sites that provide you information and content for FREE you basically fuck them over? Yes ads can be annoying but fact is without a revenue stream the only other option for site to generate revenue is to charge subscriptions. I'd rather not have to pay for every site I want to visit. Sorry but if I have asite and i'm letting you visit my site for FREE and ad are the way I genrate revenue you don't really have a right to block anything. I mean legally you can, but the "I wish to not be an asshole" law you can't. I have every right to block whatever content I do not want to be exposed to, including advertisements. Nuff said Um if it's MY site it's I that dictate the rules not you. if you don't like them you are free not to come back. An din fact if you are just going to be a freeloading leech I'd rather not have you back. I guess you think website cost nothing to run and are created by magical fairies. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by BF69 :So basically sites that provide you information and content for FREE you basically **** them over? Yes ads can be annoying but fact is without a revenue stream the only other option for site to generate revenue is to charge subscriptions. I'd rather not have to pay for every site I want to visit. Sorry but if I have a site and i'm letting you visit my site for FREE and ad are the way I generate revenue you don't really have a right to block anything. I mean legally you can, but the "I wish to not be an asshole" law you can't. Whats the difference? I never clicked on ads before I used Adblock. And when I use IE or Chrome while testing those browsers out I never click on ads then either. So, unless I am wrong about how web sites get paid for ads(I have to click on one for you to get money), you weren't getting any money from me anyway. All I have done is remove the annoyance from my monitor. Considering you almost ALWAYS agree with me on copyright and how wrong it is to download stuff I am shocked at your attidude at this. What's the differnce between you blocking ads and someone using the excuse that they never had the intention of paying for the content anyways so it's ok to download it. Please explain the differnce. |
|
vms
@communications.net
| Beta?
'saying that the idea's currently in beta'
How long was GMail in beta? It was pretty darn good for a beta product. If the snooping is still in beta does that mean it's not really snooping?  |
|
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to BF69
Re: Some things to consider
said by BF69 :So if you never intend on buying a movie on DVD just download it from a torrent right? What's the differnce? Your reasoning isn't reasoning.
--
goodbye dad |
|
CtrlAltDel
WORSE. THAN. CARTER.
Arbitrary Text
join:2001-12-30
Backyard
·1and1
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :So if you never intend on buying a movie on DVD just download it from a torrent right? What's the differnce? What's a torrent?
I go to a theater and pay cash to see movies or I rent them from NetFlix.
The differnce is that you're comparing apples and watermelons.
There is no differnce in blocking the ads, covering up the part of screen where the ads appear with my hand, or just not clicking on them. |
|
