rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
3 edits | reply to Blue2
Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads
said by Blue2  :said by Wildcatboy :I don't need to explain what I meant. Since you hardly speak for everyone, how could you possibly know that I "insulted everyone"? You state "supposed" credentials, but I don't remember calling you a "supposed moderator" since moderators usually moderate, not inflame. You indicate now that I'm guilty of "calling me [you] and others names" and I'd like to know what names are those? I have no idea what you are referring to. I think I have pointed those out to you. I could find more If I look harder. Your second post in this thread was so insulting to the posters of the security forum that I and I am sure others took offense. I am taking some typing examples from Dadkins, *Your* reply was to topdawg but *you* implied the entire forum was full of "illogical, emotional and ridiculous" people, because the security forum was full of those type of posts. *YOU* also stated that the majority of the posts here in this forum are "hogwash".
Then later on you insulted the moderator by implying Wildcatboy was dumb and was going to remain uneducated by not listening to *YOU*. Then you continue the insults by calling Wildcatboy arrogant multiple times. Then you claim that he wasn't moderating but inciting a brawl. No, he was just cleaning up the mess that you started by all the name calling, all the insults you slung around to everyone in this forum first, and then pointed out the flaws in your arguments. You couldn't best his arguments so you resulted to name calling. Im surprised he didn't delete *YOUR* comments, but I guess that shows that he is fair and even handed, even when he is being slandered. Is your name John Palfrey? You sure too offense to topdawg calling him a nobody. /shrug I will never figure people out. 
--
Tin-Foilers Union of America!!
Tin-Foilers Union Local 101... |
|
Drunkula
Premium
join:2000-06-12
Denton, TX | reply to EGeezer
If the damned advertisers pay to provide my Internet service I may decide to not block their crap.
--
Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script. |
|
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| See, you have it backwards. They're supposed to piggyback on the internet service you pay for and make money off it, and you're supposed to support their business model. If you don't do this, the terrorists have won. 
--
Sure, that'll work.. |
|
NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
Murfreesboro, TN
 ·Vonage
·AT&T Southeast
 ·Cingular Wireless
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to Blue2
said by Blue2 :You see, this was never really an issue about "the (il)legality of blocking ads" at all for me. On the other hand "The (il) legality of blocking ads" is in fact the subject of this thread.
Perhaps the repeated attempts by you and IIIBradIII to ignore the original subject and hijack the thread to push a different agenda is part of the reason for the hostility that both of you have encountered in this thread.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall. |
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| reply to rawwhide
Sorry, I don't see how you've pointed out this to me. What I saw was you pulling comments out of context, inferring what they mean, and putting sentences together that were not said together.
Hogwash "here" referred to this particular thread. Why would I accuse security experts of hogwash, an area outside my expertise, and why would I choose this moment to do so? That's pretty illogical. Rather, when users in this thread started quoting marketing, advertising, and legal issues that I'm quite familiar with, and they appear to know little about, I pointed it out.
Just to reiterate the example I previously cited, legal advice given in this forum was if your computer is stolen to remotely log in and make bomb threats against Federal buildings. Ironic that you feel compelled to complain about what I write and let misguided statements like this from Premium members remain uncorrected. That shows some pretty selective (and dangerous) listening habits. When someone takes that advice, I hope that it gets traced back here and this forum gets all the "credit" for it that it deserves.
I've stated that many comments on this thread have been illogical, emotional and ridiculous, and I stand by that statement.
I responded to direct insults by Wildcatboy and his unfounded assumptions. I suggested that thinking you know more about marketing than established marketing experts, advertising or legal experts just because you've done a website is arrogant. I stand by that statement. If not, I'm going to start calling myself a "security expert".
As far as I'm concerned, these are not the behaviors of a moderator. A moderator doesn't take sides, doesn't insult, and doesn't fan the flames. I stand by that observation too.
The only way to ever "figure people out", is to make the attempt and to listen. I see little of that here.
said by NetFixer :Perhaps the repeated attempts by you and IIIBradIII to ignore the original subject and hijack the thread to push a different agenda is part of the reason for the hostility that both of you have encountered in this thread. Please show me where I've ignored the subject and tried to push a different agenda? On the contrary, I stated right up front that this was a legal issue not a technical one, and many posters here would be best not discussing such issues which they know little about.
My only "other" agenda was stated before:
The personal attacks that I've seen here, akin to punching below the belt, particularly coming from the referee, set the tone for this forum.
People on this thread made many unfounded assumptions about subjects that they little about it, and a "mob" tried to bully those who disagreed into consensus. I don't see where I've posted definitive statements about security issues I know little about.
As I've stated, I think the tone of this forum has degraded considerably during my four years here, demonstrated by demeaning and insulting comments, bullying and mob rule (I saw this demonstrated on some of the Kaspersky threads), lack of tolerance for opposing points of view, and not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt in what they mean.
I stand by that point of view. And if this is the first time I've expressed it, I may not be the last user to make that observation. |
|
non anon troll
@comcast.net
| reply to Blue2
it amazes me how ppl get confused when having a discussion. who knows why, maybe because of limited english vocabulary or one does not focus on the main points, the big picture, of it all. who knows, but i know that businesses lose millions from lack of communication skills. i suggest to people that lack in this to grab a book about communication skills and read it 5 times.
on another note
blue2 said
quote:
As I see it, this was never really an issue about "the (il)legality of blocking ads". since most here know little about law from what I've read.
speak for yourself, or name the names when you say "most". and another thing, the way i see you, is that since your are knowledgeable in the area regarding advertising/ads or what not, you are trying to present yourself to be the al mighty and the rest of the opinions should not count because they 'seem' to you, they don't know what they are talking about and don't know what you know about advertising/ads, how ever you want to call it.
heck the way i see it, everyone has a legit opinion in this. its pretty simple really. you see it from the law/business side point of view ( plz focus on main point my english vocabulary is limited, may be using wrong words) and i see it from the non law/business view point but for my rights as not to be told wat i can and cannot view. others see it from a security view point that some ads cary malware, for example.
so you see every ones opinion counts to their main point of view.
its pretty simple to see that this is whats happening here, instead of saying "well from a legal point of view, it's a bad thing, i am experience in this field and this is why...blah blah blah" instead of quote:
As I see it, this was never really an issue about "the (il)legality of blocking ads". since most here know little about law from what I've read.
not trying to submit anyone to my opinion just shinning light |
|
javaMan
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
| reply to Blue2
said by Blue2 :. . . . . .I stated right up front that this was a legal issue not a technical one, and many posters here would be best not discussing such issues which they know little about. . . . Coupled with your statements about your own expertise and statements like this, perhaps this is why people have taken offense? Wouldn't you agree that it isn't an exaggeration to say that one could appear to be more than a bit high-minded whether intentionally or not? It has always seemed prudent to me that those with the expertise should be patient with those who do not in order for their arguments to be persuasive. Not to mention the fact that even the ignorant are entitled to their views even if they are wrong. From reading your posts, I am convinced you have not meant to be offensive but you have been nonetheless. And while I don't mean this as a validation of the attitudes in follow up responses, it does make them more understandable.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to Blue2
said by Blue2 :said by SnowyOne :You keep referring to 'what I don't know' without knowing what I do know. I've referred to the vast number of assumptions made in this particular thread without one shred of knowledge: I'm making up what I say, my book was a "vanity press" publication, I'm trying to "market" myself, etc. I suggested that you stick to what you do know. I thank you, however, for commenting on my writing skills. (which might suggest that I do write.) That's the rub. You imply that you're an authority on internet marketing & expect that claim to be accepted, hook, line & sinker? You lift your cover of anonymity allowing an extraordinary peek or at least an extraordinary claim into your credentials & when I question the authority you have claimed to be yours you respond with "I suggested that you stick to what you do know"? You raised the credential card & I've raised the put your money where you mouth card is.
said by Blue2 :Perhaps you could explain that a little better. Or as we like to say it in New York language, put your money where you mouth is. Perhaps you'd like to back up your claim of authority a little better with verifiable facts. You keep pulling back on your veil of anonymity & then expect it to fully protect your anonymity. Where I come from it's called 'Put up or shut up", but saying something of that nature would be bullying if it was said by anyone except yourself.
Lose the double standards & perhaps your credentials would be less questioned. |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Blue2
said by Blue2 :Hogwash "here" referred to this particular thread. Why would I accuse security experts of hogwash, an area outside my expertise, and why would I choose this moment to do so? That's pretty illogical. Rather, when users in this thread started quoting marketing, advertising, and legal issues that I'm quite familiar with, and they appear to know little about, I pointed it out. You need to ask yourself why this topic was allowed to exist in a security forum if the only issues are legal, advertising, and marketing.
--
Tin-Foilers Union of America!!
Tin-Foilers Union Local 101... |
|
44402812
Hack The Planet
Premium
join:2006-08-28
Plattsburgh, NY
1 edit | reply to Wildcatboy
Sorry Blue2 has a vested interest because she works for an advertising agency? Other people don't like ads because they slow down their browsing, can be annoying and malicious, and may just not want to looks at them. So to each their own and until the law makes it illegal. Guess what it is not stealing so why are people even discussing this? David is right common sense dictates it is not stealing! If someone wants to argue this fact...show me a penal law... |
|
javaMan
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
| said by 44402812 :. . .Guess what it is not stealing so why are people even discussing this. . . Because it is germane to the topic?
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to 44402812
said by 44402812 :Guess what it is not stealing so why are people even discussing this? David is right common sense dictates it is not stealing! If someone wants to argue this fact...show me a penal law... This thread was started to discuss whether or not a law could be made against ad-blocking. It's therefore not really useful to point out that "there is no law" and it's therefore not worth discussing it. It's surely better to discuss laws you don't like before they become laws; that way, there's time to take action if you're that way inclined.
If such a law is proposed, then you can bet that one likely argument in its favour will be that you're taking something from the web site and avoiding the "payment" of reading adverts. "Stealing" is a good, colloquial way to describe that, though I suppose it can be regarded as a tad inflammatory.
So, I find that discussion of whether not taking the adverts constitutes theft to be right on the money for this thread, even though it's not a viewpoint I agree with. You don't have to agree with a man to understand what he's talking about. |
|
antiserious
The Future ain't what it used to be
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Scranton, PA
| said by dave :If such a law is proposed, then you can bet that one likely argument in its favour will be that you're taking something from the web site and avoiding the "payment" of reading adverts. "Stealing" is a good, colloquial way to describe that, though I suppose it can be regarded as a tad inflammatory. So, I find that discussion of whether not taking the adverts constitutes theft to be right on the money for this thread, even though it's not a viewpoint I agree with. You don't have to agree with a man to understand what he's talking about. Can you 'steal' something by NOT taking it? If I order a 'special' from a Chinese restaurant that comes with a fortune cookie, and I DON'T take the cookie, can they then claim I 'stole' it? Probably not, since I paid for everything - but If I'm offered a free lunch at a restaurant or soup kitchen that comes with bread, and I DON'T eat the bread, can they then claim I 'stole' it? I know these examples seem ludicrous, but frankly I don't think they're any more so than some of the arguments that have been postulated in this thread.
Besides the difficulty of legislating against all the myriad ways that ads may be blocked (which I see as the main obstacle should this speculation ever be attempted), would it be legal and enforceable for a website owner to say "you must accept and view everything offered on these pages, in their entirety, under penalty of law"? "Oh, wait you say, that would be silly, you don't have to read everything, just the ads". So then the purpose of the website is only to serve ads, and the content is an afterthought, a secondary condition?
Welcome to Theatre Of The Absurd.
Who would propose such a law, and how far do you think they would get?
--
Bart - "This is the worst day of my life!"
Homer - "The worst day of your life so far!" |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
| said by antiserious :Can you 'steal' something by NOT taking it? Well, it's actually stealing something by not taking a different thing. But that's still a good question. Absent any prior agreement that you'd take "all or nothing", I don't see that it's an enforceable viewpoint.
But discussing it is appropriate to this thread (we're in the meta-argument now of whether talk of theft is relevant or not; I say it is relevant).
So then the purpose of the website is only to serve ads, and the content is an afterthought, a secondary condition? That's the business model for most TV stations, and it works for them. They sell your eyeballs to advertisers. They try and have popular content as bait for the eyeballs.
Who would propose such a law, and how far do you think they would get? Who? Someone lobbying for advert-funded web businesses. And whether it would pass- well, there have been equally stupid laws passed to do with the Internet and computer technology. I am not confident that "obvious stupidity" is proof against passing a law. |
|
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to antiserious
said by antiserious :...would it be legal and enforceable for a website owner to say "you must accept and view everything offered on these pages, in their entirety, under penalty of law"? That's something I've been wondering about.
If the forced downloading of ads are a good idea why aren't "WebPublishers" utilizing this approach on a grand scale without benefit of law? It would be simple enough to have a sites index page point to their TOS rather than it's content, spelling out the terms that adblockers, host files, etc... are not allowed or to be used by it's visitors & then only after agreeing to those terms provide a link to it's actual content? Why? Regardless of point of view, the answers are obvious. It would be bad for business. So the work around to this is to make it law? |
|
antiserious
The Future ain't what it used to be
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Scranton, PA
| reply to dave
said by dave :But discussing it is appropriate to this thread (we're in the meta-argument now of whether talk of theft is relevant or not; I say it is relevant).
I would agree, but that would stipulate that adblocking is actually stealing, which I would not concede in this context. If that were the case, all 'filtering' would be called into question.
said by dave :That's the business model for most TV stations, and it works for them. They sell your eyeballs to advertisers. They try and have popular content as bait for the eyeballs.
Perhaps, but they don't prevent you from changing the channels, nor do they prosecute you for doing so. What purpose would legislating adblocking serve if it didn't provide for one or the other?
--
Bart - "This is the worst day of my life!"
Homer - "The worst day of your life so far!" |
|
javaMan
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
2 edits | reply to antiserious
said by antiserious :Can you 'steal' something by NOT taking it? If I order a 'special' from a Chinese restaurant that comes with a fortune cookie, and I DON'T take the cookie, can they then claim I 'stole' it? Probably not, since I paid for everything - but If I'm offered a free lunch at a restaurant or soup kitchen that comes with bread, and I DON'T eat the bread, can they then claim I 'stole' it? I know these examples seem ludicrous, but frankly I don't think they're any more so than some of the arguments that have been postulated in this thread. Well that really is the counter argument isn't it? While your examples may not be the best representation of the specific issue, they seem legitimate to me when addressing the question about what constitutes theft.
. . .
Welcome to Theatre Of The Absurd.
Who would propose such a law, and how far do you think they would get?
They are proposed by those with a vested interest in their own well being and I think they honestly believe what they propose is a good thing. I also believe they are wrong. But stranger things have happened. Who would have thought at one time that we'd have something called a Patriot Act.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
4 edits | reply to antiserious
said by antiserious :said by dave :That's the business model for most TV stations, and it works for them. They sell your eyeballs to advertisers. They try and have popular content as bait for the eyeballs. Perhaps, but they don't prevent you from changing the channels, nor do they prosecute you for doing so. What purpose would legislating adblocking serve if it didn't provide for one or the other? This is what worries me. Advertisers and website operators could then place in their TOS to allow pop-up or pop-under ad software. Even after the visitor has left the website and decided to never return to the website he is left with the softwre. The one visit then could have been enough to get advertising pop-up or pop-under software installed that couldn't easily be removed. Remember that it is law that you have to receive everything from the website in order to view it, meaning possibly even ad display software. Multiply that by 100 and the average "Joe" would get a steady stream of pop-ups or pop-unders every 3-4 seconds creating an endless supply of headache. This is what started the adblocking, flashblocking, and script blocking in the first place. How long do you think that law would last?
Could you imagine that if you sat down to watch your favorite show on TV that began at 5pm and ended at 6pm by the advertisers argument you wouldn't be able to turn the channel nor turn off the TV for that hour long broadcast. What some are doing is equating this issue with retail. In retail something is sold and not given away. If a retail store marks down an item below cost to attract people do they also require that you purchase something in addition to that item. No they don't. They do that, to get you into the store in hopes that you will buy other items in addition to the item that is marked down below cost. For instance, Wal-mart used to mark down baby formula to attract new mothers to the store in hopes they would then buy everything else they needed there too. Wal-mart still does this with other items.
edit: grammar and spelling
--
Tin-Foilers Union of America!!
Tin-Foilers Union Local 101... |
|
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to EGeezer
I've had a change of position on this matter, if done in what I'd consider a fair manner.
Legislating "WebPublishers" the right to bar all users who use any sort of adblocking mechanism while visiting their sites could be a good thing provided that "WebPublishers" had an opt-out option. Those "WebPublishers" who choose to protect their revenue stream via this legislation should be required to have it's visitors click thru a standard TOS before entering, while those who opt-out can directly present their content. It wouldn't be long before that standard TOS became known as the "ClickThru TOS of Death"
It would go a long way towards cleaning up some of the garbage on the web published under the name of "valuable web content". |
|
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
| reply to Blue2
said by Blue2 :said by SnowyOne :As far as anyone commenting on your book, how can you reasonably ask if anyone posting to this thread has ever read it? Unlikely as it may be, how would one know it was your book even if one of us has read it?? And that's precisely the point. You don't talk about what you don't know. You don't know my book. I don't know your wife. And so you refrain from making comments about what you don't know. It's a simple principle. Then why even bring up your book if you don't want comments about it when you knew no one here knows what book or who are you or if you even wrote a book?
YOU are the one who brought up the subject of "THE BOOK". As such, expect responses.
It's simple common sense.
--
JIHAD WATCH~~9549 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11 |
|
