StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Chris Lynch on newsforge wrote: AdBlock

In contrast to Google Preview, AdBlock does not add information to Web pages, but removes it. With AdBlock installed you can block images, Flash animations, iframes, scripts, and other Web page elements based on their source address, either as a wildcard or a regular expression.

The power of this approach is obvious. AdBlock can strip ads out of Web content, saving you bandwidth and removing the annoyance of ads appearing midway through content. Since many ads are now served by ad-hosting companies, a few wildcard blocks can significantly reduce the number of ads that you see in the average Web page. AdBlock can also block malicious or inappropriate content, although the openness of the configuration makes this inappropriate for use as anything other than a tool for personal preferences in this respect.

Using AdBlock is simple. Right-click on an ad and select "AdBlock ..." from the context menu. In the dialog box that appears, you can opt to alter the address that will be blocked, introducing wildcards for example to block all content from a given server. Alternatively, click "AdBlock" in your Firefox status panel and select from the list of blockable elements. You can quickly build a comprehensive set of filters using this technique.

If you use this tool, be aware of a sensitive issue. Although you may feel that your enjoyment of some Web sites is marred by the presence of ads, these ads represent a revenue stream for the Web site. If you block ads, there are those who would assert you are not holding up your end of a "social contract" between yourself and the Web site that you are browsing.

namdoolb wrote:look, there are people out there who will suggest you've broken the same kind of "social contract" if you get up to make a cup of tea when the commercials come on.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

namdoolb wrote:look, there are people out there who will suggest you've broken the same kind of "social contract" if you get up to make a cup of tea when the commercials come on.

I wonder what kind of people are they, and how did they come into such corporate-wanking stance like that.

Vendetta wrote:Some web advertisements do, however, pay their host site per view request to the advertisement's server.

If you block your system downloading the advertisement, the host site doesn't get paid.

TV advertisements pay in advance for the advertising slot.

And yes, the media conglomerates already want to stop you fastforwarding past the ads or getting a PVR that auto-excludes them.

Darth_Zod wrote:the reasoning behind his claims are idiotic. by that logic i shouldn't change the channel or hit the mute button during a commercial because i'm potentially blocking a source of income for a television program.

namdoolb wrote:

Darth_Zod wrote:the reasoning behind his claims are idiotic. by that logic i shouldn't change the channel or hit the mute button during a commercial because i'm potentially blocking a source of income for a television program.

hey, it's not my actual opinion; I just know there are people out there who think like that.

I just used that point to illustrate the idiocy of the original article, If people want you to watch ads, they should put the effort in to make them interesting, engaging, and unobtusive. Not try to apply non-existent legal muscle to bully you into watching them.

I hate it when statements are taken out of context of the rest of the post. The latter end of the post should have made my stance perfectly clear on this, but instead i'm here restating it so people don't misinterpret it

Chmee wrote:Social contract my ass ... when did they ever ask my approval to stick in annoying, offensive, insipid advertising?

Praxis wrote:View source, find the address it takes you to if you press Yes, copy and paste that into the browser, and bookmark it. Then you never actually pressed Yes.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Praxis wrote:View source, find the address it takes you to if you press Yes, copy and paste that into the browser, and bookmark it. Then you never actually pressed Yes.

But the phrase "by visiting this site...."

Then a lawyer will come into your house and drag you to the court room for blocking the site's ad.

Well I may push it too far, but I'm sure corporate vampires would be creative enough to make a better TOS phrase than what I made.

CDiehl wrote:. Advertisers only pull this crap with the internet because it is almost practical to make people look at ads on the internet, where it is not so practical in almost every other venue. We ignore, avoid and tune out radio, TV and print ads, and they can't prevent any of that.

CDiehl wrote:Considering this tantrum, and the fit they had over TiVo and the like, which edit out ads, I'd bet money that if advertisers had the ability, they'd make laws requiring us to observe a certain amount of advertising per day and prove we had done so as a consequence of using the media.

wikipedia wrote: Anti-spam activists greeted the new law with dismay and disappointment. Internet activists who work to stop spam stated that the Act would not prevent any spam -- in fact, it appeared to give Federal approval to the practice, and it was feared that spam would increase as a result of the law. The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email stated:

"This legislation fails the most fundamental test of any anti-spam law, in that it neglects to actually tell any marketers not to spam. Instead, it gives each marketer in the United States one free shot at each consumer's e-mail inbox, and will force companies to continue to deploy costly and disruptive anti-spam technologies to block advertising messages from reaching their employees on company time and using company resources. It also fails to learn from the experiences of the states and other countries that have tried "opt-out" legal frameworks, where marketers must be asked to stop, to no avail.

Coalition wrote: that is when I click on it repeatedly, to drive their advertising budget up.

Not too sure how effective that is though.