dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1503
share rss forum feed


antdude
A Ninja Ant
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

2 recommendations

France's ISP deploys ad blocking via firmware update

»arstechnica.com/business/2013/01···-update/

"Block is enabled by default—French tech news sites are très unhappy..."



Dustyn
Premium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:11

1 recommendation

The primary concern here is that the new option was enabled by default.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by Dustyn:

The primary concern here is that the new option was enabled by default.

And also being an all or nothing ad blocker where the end user has no control over inclusions or exclusions. I'd set the router ad block function off and use tools like adblock+ and DoNotTrack to specify what can get thru if I want.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.


mmainprize

join:2001-12-06
Houghton Lake, MI

1 recommendation

reply to antdude

That is a problem alright. Many web sites i visit now make me turn on the ads to get the site to work. If i want to see what is at the site i must not be blocked everything.


HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:15
reply to antdude

“Free is being totally irresponsible and threatens to bring a violent blow to an entire segment of the digital economy!” said Numérama. That site also reported that the block appears to affect a number of large ad networks, including Google Adsense, NetAvenir, and AdTech.

“We believe that Free's choice [to enable ad blocking] is dangerous and irresponsible; [by] activating default ad blocking without informing the user and without even offering a whitelist function to choose sites which the user wants to keep advertising, Free runs the risk of jeopardizing thousands of content publishers on the web,” wrote Yoann Ferret of Freenews. “Most free sites like Freenews rely on advertising to fund themselves. Without advertising, they would no longer exist, we would no longer exist.”

Five words for these guys... "Go cry me a river!"

Since WHEN is advertising a REQUIREMENT to browse a supposedly "free" (public) website / page [/rhetorical question]
As for an all or nothing proposotion, bully for them. For Joe Average off the street, do they know /care about
AdBlock, et al?

...Just looking at things from a "half full" perspective here. I say this puts the control back in the user when
it's been slipping away for a long time.

Regards


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by HELLFIRE:

I say this puts the control back in the user when
it's been slipping away for a long time.

Regards

And for the web sites that stop working completely when their ads are blocked? How does that put the user in control?
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by FFH:

said by HELLFIRE:

I say this puts the control back in the user when
it's been slipping away for a long time.

Regards

And for the web sites that stop working completely when their ads are blocked? How does that put the user in control?

Who cares? Those sites were never needed. What I want to see next is a move to reclaim the original anonymity of the internet. The internet is nothing now like it was envisioned. Now it is mostly a putrid pile of garbage that does nothing to enhance humanity and bring the people of the world together. It started out proud, wild, free and anonymous and lost its way when Google and Facebook, etc saw a ton a money for a few to make and turned the vision to one of greed and slavery.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


Grail Knight

Premium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6

1 recommendation

quote:
Who cares? Those sites were never needed by me.
Fixed it for you.
--
"Paranoia, the destroyer"


red2

@wanadoo.fr

To me the issues are:

Do you want an ISP deciding what you can or can't see on the internet? Isn't that contrary to the concept of what the internet stands for?

Do all sites that employ the ad based model then cease to exist? Does the ISP chose which ads it wants to permit (its own) versus those of others? (The ad based model on tv allows the user a choice: premium content that the user pays for or "free" content that the advertiser pays for.)

What happens when the default ad block software gets it wrong? What happens when they block access to something that the user needs, and without it the site won't work properly? As an example, if they start blocking things at yahoo, I don't think the user can get yahoo mail to work. Does the ISP get to decide which email service you use or which newspaper you can read?


HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:15

2 recommendations

reply to FFH

Maybe I'm the black sheep here, maybe it's something else. Having lived through the (relatively) ad-free
days of the internet of yore when 9.6K SLIP dialup was the schniz, HTML 1.1 was "the in thing," and sitting for
5minutes to progressive view "only" a 5K image file was considered "fun," having to run into another popup / under,
or clickthru image ad, or tracking cookie, or whathaveyou these days, I'd just like to get one of these things
for myself just to stop the internet ad-insanity, make-a-quick-buck mindset.

To each their own, I guess.

Regards


Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

3 recommendations

reply to antdude

This is bad, Very bad. Because it removes the control from the customer and places it with the ISP. Also when ISPs start blocking it takes things down a potentially dark path.

What happens when a big ad network calls up the ISP and offers seven or even ten figures to have their network exempted? You can bet the execs would cave instantly to the "free money".
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to red2

The obvious question here is why does anyone "need" Yahoo? I have had Yahoo blocked in my Hosts file for at least 12 years. They are the worst of trackers and I chose long ago to take a political stance on creeps like them. Fellow creeps like AT&T that I have been told use Yahoo for their subscribers email client were able to do this because not enough people stood up and said "No, I won't take it anymore" to AT&T's laziness and greed in refusing to provide users with a proper email service not tied to a super spyer.

I don't particularly want an ISP deciding that all ads are blocked but isn't that better than the prostitution that is so widespread among users? Why haven't users enmass killed Yahoo's terrible privacy stance by boycotting the site? If it takes a courageous ISP to wake people up ...so be it. Of course, people may be so far gone into their addiction to sites like Yahoo that nothing will save the internet or most humans.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

1 recommendation

reply to Kearnstd

said by Kearnstd:

This is bad, Very bad. Because it removes the control from the customer and places it with the ISP. Also when ISPs start blocking it takes things down a potentially dark path. ...

+1. I block ads routinely using several different tools... but it's because I choose to, not because somebody else decides for me what to block. I believe in freely-available information on the Internet connections at user sites, ads included. I don't want either a Great Wall of China or a Great Wall of ISP interfering in any way with user access, even on a default basis that might be opted out of. If the ISP wants to offer ad blocking as an option for the user to choose, that's their choice as a business... but the potential for abuse or bribed bias will nevertheless exist. As you noted, the precedent of an ISP blocking information selectively is a dangerous path to embark upon...
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to Grail Knight

said by Grail Knight:

quote:
Who cares? Those sites were never needed by me.
Fixed it for you.

You like fixing for others? Now, here is my fix for you:
quote:
Who cares? Those sites were never needed by us.
I've never had any need to see any ads on the Internet. If I want something - I make a simple search for it and that's it. Do you think I buy from (or because or) a site, that puts its ads, using in bigger and bolder font then others, and/or puts it right in the middle of the page, so no one can avoid it? Or may be I buy, based on my research of the market? Pick your choice... but I guess you know my answer.

I don't need to see this ad garbage, that foisted into my face all the time by ad companies. And, even more importantly, I don't want my privacy be eroded by ad companies trying to track every my move on the Internet and trying to peruse or simply snoop into all my communications...

Now, regarding the web sites that stop functioning if user blocks ads. First of all, I have yet to see such sites. And second, if some webmaster wants to start to do that - be my guest, enjoy your "creation" by yourself. I surely don't need you garbage.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to Kearnstd

said by Kearnstd:

This is bad, Very bad. Because it removes the control from the customer and places it with the ISP. Also when ISPs start blocking it takes things down a potentially dark path.

It's dangerous, because it leads to a censorship. It must be prevented (stopped) before it will be developed into a tool to control of what information could be accessed by public.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Grail Knight

Premium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Time Warner Cable
reply to OZO

quote:
Who cares? Those sites were never needed by us.
Who is us? You fixed nothing.

quote:
I don't need to see this ad garbage, that foisted into my face all the time by ad companies
So are you willing to pay per site then to not have ads?

quote:
Now, regarding the web sites that stop functioning if user blocks ads. First of all, I have yet to see such sites. And second, if some webmaster wants to start to do that - be my guest, enjoy your "creation" by yourself. I surely don't need you garbage.
That is your prerogative.

quote:
I don't want my privacy be eroded by ad companies trying to track every my move on the Internet and trying to peruse or simply snoop into all my communications
Me either so perhaps the US Government should do as some countries have done which is enforce privacy by removing sites with the end user having no control or enact and then enforce laws regarding privacy in which case I say good luck with that because in the US I do not believe the government is capable of doing it nor would do it except haphazardly.
--
"Paranoia, the destroyer"

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

said by Grail Knight:

quote:
I don't need to see this ad garbage, that foisted into my face all the time by ad companies
So are you willing to pay per site then to not have ads?

Why? I'm already paying for the Internet. Or may be you think I'm using it for free?

I think sites, that want to shovel their marketing garbage into my face, should pay me instead, if they want me to visit them. How about that business model?

said by Grail Knight:

quote:
I don't want my privacy be eroded by ad companies trying to track every my move on the Internet and trying to peruse or simply snoop into all my communications
Me either so perhaps the US Government should do as some countries have done which is enforce privacy by removing sites with the end user having no control or enact and then enforce laws regarding privacy in which case I say good luck with that because in the US I do not believe the government is capable of doing it nor would do it except haphazardly.

You've proposed a solution and then you said "good luck with that"? Nice...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Grail Knight

Premium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Time Warner Cable

You pay for access to the Internet not the Internet itself.

quote:
You've proposed a solution and then you said "good luck with that"? Nice..
I see you did not understand the comment which was about the US Governments inability to enforce laws they make or have on the books already hence good luck with that.
--
"Paranoia, the destroyer"


Ihateadverts

@centurytel.net
reply to antdude

Ad blocking hurts a few webpages but you can still advertise with an image on the the web page. You cant really block that with just this firmware unless they decided to ban all images.

This seems to remove the obvious advertisements like flash from some ad server but you could use gifs with crafty urls that bypass this with ease.


OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to Grail Knight

said by Grail Knight:

You pay for access to the Internet not the Internet itself.

It's just semantics... The bottom line is - I'm already paying for visiting your site.

And that was my reply to your question:
said by Grail Knight:

quote:
I don't need to see this ad garbage, that foisted into my face all the time by ad companies
So are you willing to pay per site then to not have ads?


--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Grail Knight

Premium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Time Warner Cable

quote:
It's just semantics... The bottom line is - I'm already paying for visiting your site.
Not really and it is not just semantics unless you really think by paying your ISP you are paying for online content which is not really the case. You pay your ISP for access to online content which is paid for by others be they individuals, companies, schools, etc....
--
"Paranoia, the destroyer"


red2

@wanadoo.fr
reply to OZO

It isn't semantics.

You paid for your television. Where does that say that this entitles you to programming? You either pay for it or the advertiser pays for it. Whether you like it or not, that's just the way it is. In fact, in most European countries you are forced to pay an annual tv tax to the state for the freely available programming. (Some even tried to impose a tv tax on tablets and smartphones, but a consumer uproar stopped that..at least for now.) So what entitles you to get things for free?

"Visiting" a site doesn't pay them UNLESS they provide advertising on the site and then can charge based on the eyeballs delivered. If not that, please explain how you pay them? How does your doing them a "favor" by visiting, pay them?

The fact that the internet has been exploited by companies shouldn't surprise anyone. And I'm not convinced it is all doom and gloom. What IS important is that the WAYS it is exploited should be transparent. So if each site maintains that you've made a "contract' with them, there are a lot of contracts being "signed" each day and that might include selling your data, owning your photos, delivering you ads, tracking your movements, etc. If you are apprised of all these agreements you are making in a clear and transparent manner (rather than having to read a a TOS every time you visit a site), then if you agree to them, you've only got yourself to blame.

I find the issues regarding smartphones to be far more insidious and disturbing than advertising. A google search update gives them new permissions to use my camera without my permission, read my text messages, etc. I refused to update. But as google search was pre-installed on my phone, what permissions do they already have and why do android users NOT have any control over what permissions are granted by default? It's another all or nothing game.

That is a far more disturbing issue than advertising.



red2

@wanadoo.fr
reply to OZO

It is now being reported that Free (the ISP in question) will deactivate the automatic blockage. »www.lefigaro.fr/hightech/2013/01···iser.php

Two interesting facts:

(1) Free is reported to be "in negotiations" with Google. So perhaps this was just a gambit to get Google to pay them for access to their network or have all of Google's advertising capabilities blocked.

(2) Free has been asked to explain their actions to the France's Minister de l'Économie Numérique. So as is the case in many things, the government will intervene and decide what is "free" commerce and what is not.

Both of those facts are perhaps even more troubling than the ad blockage.


HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:15

#1 more so than #2. Doesn't the French government have a (bad) habit of gettings its fingers and hands alittle
too much into economics in general? Interesting update nonetheless red2.

Regards



DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1
reply to antdude

According to Agence France-Presse, they've stopped blocking ads.

»www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/08/f···ine-ads/


OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to red2

I guess it was an attempt to get some money from Google:
France Considers Charging Google for Network Capacity - Bloomberg
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

Ugh. Chicken or egg. Without both you have neither....what is content with no pipe to access it or a pipe with nothing to access?
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:12
reply to mmainprize

 

What is 1 such site that makes you view thier ads?? (I wanna try it and see if it loads w/o having to do so)



goalieskates
Premium
join:2004-09-12
land of big
reply to FFH

Re: France's ISP deploys ad blocking via firmware update

said by FFH:

And for the web sites that stop working completely when their ads are blocked? How does that put the user in control?

Better to do without those sites. When their visits go down, they'll figure it out.

If you think about it, sites that try to force you already have taken away user control.