It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I see it like this: once the server at MakeUsOf transmits the HTML code to my browser, I can do what ever I want to that code. If I want to modify that code so it is displayed differently in my web browser, who are you to tell me I can't do that? Now, I can also use automated programs to modify the HTML code too, like the AdBlock add-on. At the end of the day I don't want to click any of your damn adverts anyway, so you can simply get over it if I choose not to see them by altering the code once it has been sent to me. You think that if you can just get the chance to make me look at them I'm going to change my mind and click some of them don't you? Wrong... and even if that's true for some people, it doesn't change the fact that the end user shouldn't have to be harassed by websites who have the audacity to issue orders concerning what they can and cannot do concerning the way their web browser displays the HTML code.
AdBlock
For those of you who don’t know, AdBlock silently removes all advertising and social buttons. The thing is – those ads pay my salary, as well as the other full time editors, professionals writers, and dedicated server costs that make MakeUseOf what it is. We believe strongly in a free content model – whereby we provide free, high quality, full content to you with no restrictions – in exchange for showing you advertising.
Actually MakeUseOf could easily ask for donations and they probably do already. So that argument is completely invalid. If people actually think your content is worth something they will donate to you, and many businesses have experienced success with a simple donation business model in the past. It could also be argued ad blockers are similar to a donation tool... if your content sucks and your website is plastered with eye straining adverts I'm going to block them. On the other hand if you have great content and a reasonable amount of ads I may decide to unblock ads on your website and even click on them to help you keep creating more great content. But if you try and force me to look at your ads I am just going to leave and never look at any of your ads.
What makes me angry about the AdBlock plugin is that the author – while happy to destroy our revenue stream – is also profiteering from the very same free content model by asking for PayPal donations when the plugin is installed. Talk about hypocrisy.
False. The internet would thrive on user-generated content, more than it already does. Even ATS relies on peer generated content... now the admin here may claim the servers don't pay for themselves and therefore advertising is needed, but the fact is ATS has a lot more advertising than it really needs to pay for the costs of hosting this website. This website profits off the content we submit, which would be fine, if there was no rule forcing us to disable Ad Blockers on this website (there is such a rule). And lets just say everyone started using an AdBlocker which forced all websites to put their content behind 'paywalls'. What we would see then is an explosion of user-generated content hosted on peer-to-peer networks which don't cost anyone a dime. Furthermore, it's not like advertising is the only way to make money. As already noted, there is donations, online shops which sell physical merchandise, and clever promotional campaigns such as those used by Facebook in order to maintain a nice clean looking website without the unpleasant jumble of adverts suffocating the pages.
Ultimately you need to remember that if everyone cheated the system like AdBlock users do, the Internet would only exist behind paywalls.
Incorrect. A large number of viruses and trojans are still effective because of their ability to compromise browser security by implementing malicious JavaScript. Remember that recent news about up to 2 billion Euro stolen from 60+ Banks, the report released by McAfee revealed that the victims were first infected via JavaScript exploits, which proceeded to download and install malicious trojan viruses onto their computers. Security is just as important as privacy, because a security breach could dismantle your privacy in a matter of minutes once an attacker gains access to your system. I simply cannot trust the large range of 3rd party tracking companies and advertising companies to only transmit safe scripts to my browser, because there have been numerous cases even on ATS where people have reported an external source trying to compromise their browser security, such as this extremely worrying report by Trillium.
NoScript
In days gone by, Javascript was the bane of the Internet, along with flashing GIF’s. Blocking Javascript used to make sense from both a safety standpoint (most browser vulnerabilities came through Javascript), and a usability perspective (Javascript was initially only used for silly effects and annoying tricks and popups).
But the Internet has very much moved on and evolved from those early days. Browsers aren’t as vulnerable as they used to be. Moreover, Javascript is an integral component of modern HTML5 standards, and jQuery – the most popular Javascript framework – has pushed forward web interfaces far, far beyond pages full of images, links and tables. The modern Internet must have Javascript.
False again. NoScript can selectively deactivate JavaScript which comes from external domains. For instance, I can white-list makeuseof.com, which will activate JavaScript located on the MakUseOf domain, however it will block out any JavaScript which comes from any external 3rd party source; for instance, MakeUseOf loads content from nearly 15 different domains, including Twitter, Facebook and Google, and also a range of tracking companies which are trying to activate external JavaScript code inside my browser. Disabling the code from all those external sources usually does nothing to hinder the "modern page components" of the website I am browsing, what it does is stop me from being tracked, stop me from seeing adverts injected into my page from external sources, and stop my browser from being possibly compromised by external sources which I would otherwise be completely oblivious to were it not for add-ons which allow me to see what is happening behind the scenes.
So when you use NoScript, you’re breaking the Internet. Not only do you drag webpages 10 years into the past, but you prevent essential modern page components from loading
Incorrect yet again. They may not be able to share cookies, but they don't need to, because that's not how they track you, they track your IP and browser user-agent string among other things, meaning they can track your activity on any website which contains their trackers, and furthermore they often share or sell that information to other companies for a profit. In fact there is a brilliant Firefox add-on called Collusion which shows, in real time, how that tracker data creates a spider-web of interaction between companies and other trackers. However, it should be noted that Collusion obviously wont show you anything if you have "The Trifecta Of Evil" installed, since those 3 add-ons stop you from being tracked in the first place.
So how much can these companies actually “track” your web usage? Well for one, they certainly aren’t able to see what you’re doing in other tabs, other windows, or general Internet searching. They only keep a record of sites in their network which you’ve browsed to. If company X puts a cookie on the New York Times and MSNBC site, and you browse to both those and Wikipedia, it only knows about the two upon on which it was placed. In other words, they can’t tell that your other tab is open on Asian Hotties or cheatonmywife.com.
Evidon is a new type of company that brings trust to online advertising by working as an intermediary between consumers, advertisers, industry self-regulatory programs, and government.
I see it like this: once the server at MakeUsOf transmits the HTML code to my browser, I can do what ever I want to that code. If I want to modify that code so it is displayed differently in my web browser, who are you to tell me I can't do that?
Yes, that is certainly very suspicious... but for me it's not just the fact that I don't like being tracked, it's also the security factor. Security is just as important as privacy, because a security breach could dismantle your privacy in a matter of minutes once an attacker gains access to your system. I simply cannot trust the large range of 3rd party tracking companies and advertising companies to only transmit safe scripts to my browser, because there have been numerous cases even on ATS where people have reported an external source trying to compromise their browser security, such as this extremely worrying report by Trillium (added this to the OP because it's important, thanks for reminding me).
What do you think this means? Intermediary? Government? Hmmmmm Alarm bells are ringing for me.
Exactly, it's just way over the top these days. One time I attempted to browse the internet using the basic unmodified version of Internet Explorer and I almost suffered a heart attack... I could hardly believe the sheer number and excess of the advertisements I was faced to bear witness to. It was simply outstanding and mind-blowing... I don't even know how people can handle browsing the internet without any sort of ad blocker. It's just a ridiculous mess of unintelligible nonsense, the real, so called free content, is completely drowned out. All my websites have little to no advertising, and if I have to pay some money out of my pocket to deal with the hosting costs, so be it. But as I said, there are many ways other than ads to draw in a profit. Thanks for the S&F too.
Ads that flicker and flash enough to cause some folks seizures. Ads that pop up in your face, and scare the crap out of you when the volume peaks. Ads you have to study to find the frackin X. Gee, I wonder why people want to block them?
Hmmm, I haven't noticed that. Seems to work fine for me. May be because you're on a really old computer or something. Not sure but it doesn't seem to cause me any problems.
Originally posted by DaTroof
I agree as well, and I also don't use Ghostery, but it's because it makes Firefox run like molasses. HUGE resource hog. It makes browsing nigh impossible.
No I didn't say that. I am gaining both security and privacy by using The Trifecta Of Evil. I stop them tracking me (privacy) and I stop possibly malicious content from being loaded from external sources.
okay so you are trading off possible privacy breach for a supposed security benefit?
Doubtful. NoScript blocks all dynamic content (yes it blocks more than just JavaScript), such as Flash Silverlight, and other embedded plugins. Once all those dynamic components are blocked the only thing left is static HTML, and it's very unlikely any HTML code is going to be capable of compromising your web browser.
How do you know their security measures really work? Couldn't something else come out that gets round it?
Yes I have better privacy too. It's great actually, because it allows me to delete unwanted LSO's (Flash cookies) which are typically very hard to delete and often used as an alternative to normal cookie tracking. You might say I have "The Quadfecta Of Evil".
Better privacy deletes unwanted cookies which is pretty good too.
No, you're not right so far. Ghostery looks at the page source and checks for external content which is loaded from tracking companies, tracking scripts and other types of tracking bugs. It does all this without relaying any information anywhere because it has access to a local list of tracking domains. It searches the page for any data links to those domains and then stops the browser from requesting content from those external sources. Therefore it can tell you everything about the trackers on any given page and even block those trackers from loading without needing access to any other server. NoScript also works in essentially the same way, except it doesn't search for specific links, it just blocks all external sources and only allows what you tell it to allow, and it also gives you the ability to block dynamic content on the main domain too.
No I don't think it works like that though. I will say I am far from an expert on this kind of thing and you sound more up on it than me BUT just thinking logically about this... If ghostery scans the page you are viewing so that it can tell you what is going on, obviously that data is being relayed to their servers to be analyzed, which is of course what courses the delays for some people.
Am I right so far?
Originally posted by Klassified
If advertisers would keep their ads low key, and not slow web pages to a crawl at times, maybe people wouldn't mind them so much. I'm not even going to touch on the tracking aspects, it just really pisses me off to think about it.
Originally posted by DaTroof
I agree as well, and I also don't use Ghostery, but it's because it makes Firefox run like molasses. HUGE resource hog. It makes browsing nigh impossible.