AdBlock, NoScript & Ghostery – The Trifecta Of Evil

Dude - awesome response to the article! I use these add-ons too.

xox star and flag

reply to post by SpearMint

Websites have the right to force you to pay for content, but they don't. Instead they cover the costs and provide you with free content using a method that does not take your time, money or really affect you at all. Ads on a page don't negatively affect you in any way, with the exception of flashing or visually loud ads like I previously mentioned. So why would you block them and negatively affect the owner of the website?

Actually the rule ATS has about ad blockers is equatable to making us pay for the content (content we generate btw), because it costs us bandwidth and costs us time and costs us security and privacy and costs us the clear clean look we are after. I block ads for all those reasons: I use much less bandwidth in the long term, I save time on waiting for the pages to load, I have a much safer and secure browsing experience and I get clear crisp looking websites that aren't drowning in eye straining nonsense.

Sure you have the right to block them, but why be a jerk just because you have the right to? If you enjoy the site, the least you can do is not block ads. That's all I have to say.

It's not just because I have the right to, it's for all the reasons I just listed. But exercising my rights is also a good thing, if no one were to use any of their rights they may as well have no rights all, they would be completely redundant. The right to block ads is not redundant. You also obviously haven't read anything I said about websites who provide decent content, I have no problem unblocking ads on such websites if I enjoy their content and want to contribute to their success. It's all about choice and the right to block or unblock adverts, I am not saying everyone should just block all ads all the time just for the hell of it.

I don't care about blocking JS because that only negatively affects the user and may ruin the site's user experience.
I'm very sceptical that you run any websites due to you attitude towards ads and your view on JS.

Clearly you still didn't read what I said about JavaScript on the main domain. I have nothing against JavaScript, I have problems with JavaScript which is loaded from 3rd party sources without my knowledge or consent. If I want to block them that's my prerogative. As already mentioned by another poster, I like to have full control over my browser and what it does and which connections it accepts. You can cry all you want about that, but website owners should know better than trying to force their users to accept all these connections. Just leave them alone and let THEM DECIDE how they want their browsing experience to be. If they choose to block ads on your website than so be it, and if they choose to unblock ads on your website than great stuff, but you shouldn't try to force them into accepting those ads and those trackers and those connections to external 3rd party servers, that should be their decision. Also have a look at the bitcoin link in my signature if you want to be directed to one of my websites. Yes it has a small amount of ads, but you don't see me getting all pissy if people choose to block them. It's their browser and they can display the code however they want.

I can see that I'm not going to get my point across here, you're too focused on yourself.

Originally posted by SpearMint
I can see that I'm not going to get my point across here, you're too focused on yourself.

Excellent, in-depth, hard hitting, factual response sir. You win, I submit to your vast intellectual superiority.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by SpearMint
I can see that I'm not going to get my point across here, you're too focused on yourself.

Excellent, in-depth, hard hitting, factual response sir. You win, I submit to your vast intellectual superiority.

What I said is true, no need to go in to depth. You're using sarcasm as a defence? That response pretty much explains your attitude towards this subject, I can see the type of person you are now.

Originally posted by SpearMint
What I said is true, no need to go in to depth. You're using sarcasm as a defence?

It was hardly a defence, I expected the conversation to be over judging by what you were saying. Even if a defence, it's still better than petty personal attacks as a defence. You clearly can't respond to any of the logical points I am making because you know they are true.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by SpearMint
What I said is true, no need to go in to depth. You're using sarcasm as a defence?

It was hardly a defence, I expected the conversation to be over judging by what you were saying. Even if a defence, it's still better than petty personal attacks as a defence. You clearly can't respond to any of the logical points I am making because you know they are true.

Where have I made personal attacks? You aren't making logical points, you're going on about exercising your rights like we're talking about the freedom of speech or something. Most of the points you try to make aren't valid because they are so rare and do not apply to you. I do not need to write long posts containing little meaningful content because I don't feel as though I have anything to prove. It's not about whether something is true or not, it's about people considering other people. Your responses are lowering in quality with such remarks as "you know they are true" and that makes me suspect that you don't have anything to say in response to what I have already said.

I can put up with the few ads here. I just wish that the owners would vet ads before they are used. The one that says "You have one new message" is a trap ad. I despise trap ads.

I am a member of other forums and the ones that use donations and even the occasional donation drive is a much better way of doing it.

Each to their own.

Considering the Psychological makeup of many people here on ATS, the donation system would likely make more money. It may seem odd to say this but the Intel agencies around the world would pay the owners to keep this site up and running. They get a lot out of this.

Since this is a conspiracy site, I wonder how much they do pay either directly or indirectly. Owners?

P

Originally posted by pheonix358
I can put up with the few ads here. I just wish that the owners would vet ads before they are used. The one that says "You have one new message" is a trap ad. I despise trap ads.

I am a member of other forums and the ones that use donations and even the occasional donation drive is a much better way of doing it.

Each to their own.

Considering the Psychological makeup of many people here on ATS, the donation system would likely make more money. It may seem odd to say this but the Intel agencies around the world would pay the owners to keep this site up and running. They get a lot out of this.

Since this is a conspiracy site, I wonder how much they do pay either directly or indirectly. Owners?

P

edit on 13-7-2012 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)

Yes ads that try to mislead users are wrong, good ad providers like google shouldn't have them.

reply to post by SpearMint

Where have I made personal attacks?

Um, how about the one line reply where you state "you're too focused on yourself". That is a low brow personal attack, and it's very telling that's the only thing you could say in response to my long detailed response which contained direct relevant counter-arguments to everything you said.

You aren't making logical points, you're going on about exercising your rights like we're talking about the freedom of speech or something.

A right is a right, whether the right to free speech or the right to anything else. It's laughable that you think you can tell people how they should browse the internet, you are literally acting as if you should have some ability to dictate the way their browsers interpret and display the code. It's absolutely absurd.

Most of the points you try to make aren't valid because they are so rare and do not apply to you.

What is that even supposed to mean? My argument about the bandwidth, time, security, privacy and look of my browsing experience applies directly to me just as much as anyone else who browses the internet. My argument about users having control over the way their browser behaves also applies to me just as much as anyone else. I fail to see the point you are making... but I just know you're going to reply with some convoluted explanation which seemingly establishes the grounding of your argument.

I do not need to write long posts containing little meaningful content because I don't feel as though I have anything to prove.

Great, then stop posting personal attacks and useless junk in this thread until you have something worth while to add to the discussion.

It's not about whether something is true or not, it's about people considering other people.

*face palm* clearly you still haven't read anything I said about voluntary white-listing...

reply to post by SpearMint

but I don't block them because I'm not an asshole and I know what it's like to be on the other end.

Then maybe you can send a memo to all the a-holes that are ruining for the more legit marketers. The flashing, popups and the sexy ads are the ones that are most abundant and intrusive, so lets be fair with the blame and quit calling the people that despise marketing ploys a-holes. You are the only person I have ever heard say the ads are not that bad.

I don't even understand what's driving people to have this attitude, how does an ad on a page annoy you? I see how big flashing things can annoy you but any decent webmaster wouldn't have them. You don't even have to look at it.

How does an ad annoy me? Really? Are we on the same internet here? We are not talking about 'decent' webmasters, but rather all the other crap that flashes, which in my experience is most sites and on every page. "You don't have to look at it?" Yes we do and that is why we hate them! They are forced upon us. I hear what you are saying about the more legit advertising, but they are out shined by the popups and flashing crap. The thing is, marketing is so aggressive and even more so now that people have ways to avoid the exposure.

So what's the alternative? Membership dues, which I would gladly pay to avoid ads.

Where have I made personal attacks?

"but I don't block them because I'm not an asshole" sounds personal to me, as if everyone that blocks is an a-hole.

I will say thanks for offering a different perspective, from the other side, but unfortunately the other flashers and popups are ruining it for everyone it seems. So what should we do about those? Maybe you should send some angst their way too instead of broadstroking us ad haters as a-holes. How would you feel if someone said marketing is the devils work and they should all just kill themselves?(Bill Hicks quote) All marketers are a-holes and force consumerism on us. See, that doesn't sound fair either.

Like I said, I'm not going to get my point across here because another web developer in this thread would be rare.

All I can say is I'm glad people like you don't run the internet.
(Yes I know no one runs the internet before you point that out.)

There's nothing mentally stimulating to be discussed here so I'm out.

Thanks to all for a great thread.

I have never ever seen a really truthful ad. Ads are by their very nature somewhat untruthful. The car ad is not going to tell you what ongoing problems you will have with the car. They don't tell you that the convertible at 110kmh will give your head that cyclonic feel. They call it 'breezy.' Breezy my backside!

P

Originally posted by SpearMint
Like I said, I'm not going to get my point across here because another web developer in this thread would be rare.

I am another web developer. I would never force my users to accept data they don't want on their machines. Sure I may serve ads, but I am not so draconian as to force them to accept the ads, who am I to say what someone else can and can't have on their own computers which they own? If a site owner can't keep a site running any other way, then they aren't a very smart site owner.

Wikipedia is the the 6th most visited web site in the world (source), and does not use any advertising whatsoever (source).

im sorry, but i hate being forced to constantly watch advertisements that i don't care about.

go to watch a youtube video:

HELLO MY NAME IS NIT ROMANDY PLZ VOTE FOR ME PLZ PLZ I BETTER THAN OTHER GUY.

go to watch t.v.

*relaxing* wow this show is good.

10 seconds of t.v. show, then 2 FULL minutes of commercials.

HALLO PLZ BUY MY THING CMON ITS BETTER JUST 199999.95 + EASY PAYMENT U LOSE WEIGHT YES


*change channels*

HAY THERE BUY MY YOGURT.





*set up youtube video, walk away make sandwich*

come back, ad is already over TROLOLOLO u mad adds?


*want to watch new video right away*

DO YOU LIKE INSURANCE.

WELL. WE DONT CARE.

PLZ BUY INSURANCE NOW.

YOUR INSURANCE SUCKS, OURS IS BETTER.

VOTE FOR FLUORIDE.




maybe i should get some kind of adblock for my browser.




peace.



p.s. i don't think the people who make the adds understand that i simply don't give a (Snack)

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Great post and never have I agreed more with anything I've read on the internet. You did a great job of taking down the argument of the putz you quoted.

Didn't know that ATS had a rule against adblocking. Guess that's honor system based, unless sites have some way to examine how one's browser is set up, which I sure hope isn't the case -- as that is nobody else's business. No doubt, though, Congress will enact some bill prohibiting adblocking, if use of such add-ons becomes more popular.

Also agree with the obnoxiousness of ads and their evolving hyper-obnoxiousness. Flashing/animated ads suck gargantuan lingams. Furthermore, all the extra crap that some websites are adding for social media links and other floating objects one can't get rid of just make for an unpleasant viewing experience. It's as if the owners of such sites never bother to view their own sites; otherwise they wouldn't allow such visual clutter. While I'm complaining here, I'll also mention the obnoxiousness (yeah, I realize I am overusing the word, but is there a better one for it?) of sites with imbedded video that automatically starts up when you go to the page. It seems web designers and/or owners just have no sense of decorum or etiquette.

And as for the whining DB who the OP quoted, I have never, ever before seen such a defense of _javascript. The fact that this person doesn't realize that js is a security problem shows that he/she has no business making his/her living off the internet, and really should be roundly rebuked and spanked for disseminating such dangerous misinformation.

Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska
im sorry, but i hate being forced to constantly watch advertisements that i don't care about.

maybe i should get some kind of adblock for my browser.

Yes, you should, friend. Don't know what browser you use, but FF and GC, both multiplatform browsers, have such extensions/add-ons. Just google' em.

Originally posted by SilentKoala
Wikipedia is the the 6th most visited web site in the world (source), and does not use any advertising whatsoever (source).

Great example! Out of interest, exactly how does Wikipedia pay for the hosting costs of their website? I imagine it would be extremely expensive to maintain the amount of traffic Wikipedia must deal with. I assume they operate off of donations?

Because of the source and article, I downloaded all three. No one should ever argue for an infringement of privacy.

Im going to point this out,

If you block ads, the website stops getting enough money to sustain it self,
therefore they need another way to get revenue, so what they do, they remove free content,
and make you pay to view the content, creating a subscription like service,
and in the end, affecting the end user, that first blocked the ads.


Also, if you dont get a gazillion hits, you would never get enough money from donations
to pay for the server costs, I know, I run many many websites where this is true.