|
Obviously he doesn't adhere to the Avast clause!
Don't let your mind wander too far.
It's too small to be let out alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
how many of you block ads?
I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot
I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally
Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them?
and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not opposed to the idea, I appreciate that people need money to find their sites, however over time adverts have become so disruptive to the viewing experience, draining on the browser performance, and worse still ad networks have been proven to be bad at keeping bad agents from their services and the point at which I decided to start using an ad blocker was when a particular site I used would 1 time out of 10 direct me to a "THE FBI KNOWS YOU'RE A PAEDO, CLICK HERE TO PROTEST YOUR INNOCENCE" site. Being annoyed is one thing but being exposed to malware is something else.
I disable it for YouTube though as I want to support the people who make the channels I enjoy and if it's a channel I really enjoy who doesn't have millions of subs I usually don't even skip the adverts.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeD 2 wrote: how many of you block ads?
I do not but this topic has been here before and I can tell you a lot of people do. I find it odd that software developers in particular are OK with blocking ads. We, of all people, should understand the need for a website to earn money and blocking their ads is stealing because you get the content without paying for it.
I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here. Granted, I don't go to sites that have lots of ads. If someone here links to a site with lots of ads that lock up my browser, I just close the site and move on. Most sites, that I go to, do not run enough ads to be a bother.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
011111100010 wrote: We, of all people, should understand the need for a website to earn money
Yes; but we should also understand the need to keep our computers free of malware. Even if you know in advance which ad network a site is using, which network do you trust to never be tricked into publishing malvertising?
011111100010 wrote: blocking their ads is stealing because you get the content without paying for it.
Presumably you watch every second of every ad-break on free-to-air TV channels, then? Or does fast-forwarding through the ads not count as "stealing" their content? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: omputers free of malware.
Sure. Don't click bad ads. Have security software.
Richard Deeming wrote: Or does fast-forwarding through the ads not count as "stealing" their content?
No, I do not fast-forward. I have netflix. Never had a DVR. But even that is different. When you go to a website, do you leave it for 30 seconds so that the commercials can air and then come back to it when they are done?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
011111100010 wrote: Don't click bad ads.
Because there have never been bad ads that don't require you to interact with them, right? 
011111100010 wrote: I have netflix.
A great service, but it's not "free-to-air". It's one of the few examples of "pay for it any we won't show you ads" actually being applied. 
011111100010 wrote: When you go to a website, do you leave it for 30 seconds so that the commercials can air and then come back to it when they are done?
No, because the ads are blocked. But presumably you do? After all, it's "stealing" if you don't watch the ads. And click on them. And buy something. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Because there have never been bad ads that don't require you to interact with them, right?
Not the sites I go to.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you made the joke on you, actually. 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
011111100010 wrote: We, of all people, should understand the need for a website to earn money and blocking their ads is stealing because you get the content without paying for it.
I am the owner of my machine, I say what its resources are used for as I am the one paying the electricity bill. If the owner decides that ads are a good way to make money, that is his/her/its/the helicopters' decision. I am not required to look at ads, nor did I sign anything that would hold up in court.
It's just as much "stealing" as it is when you close your eyes for an ad that is hosted next to the road. In that sense, it is rediculous to claim theft in the first place.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I am the owner of my machine, I say what its resources
So, you are not the owner of your radio? Or your TV?
Eddy Vluggen wrote: It's just as much "stealing" as it is when you close your eyes for an ad that is hosted next to the road. In that sense,
The analogy is all wrong. Those ads do not pay for the roads.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
011111100010 wrote: So, you are not the owner of your radio? Or your TV?
Unfortunately, I have no control over those broadcasts, and the machine itself does not allow for modifications of the content. I bought it, knowing I cannot change the content. A PC is not a radio, and the results of me not being in control may have very different outcomes. For a radio, there's no risc. For my PC, the risc would be for several companies
011111100010 wrote: The analogy is all wrong. Those ads do not pay for the roads.
Neither is the website-exploiting entity required to get all funding from ads. If it does, that's a choice, and I make mine.
Ads aren't that "nice" stuff that keeps things free; it is everywhere, and it is consuminig brain-capacity that could be used for something usefull. There should be a planet-wide ban on ads.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: it is consuminig brain-capacity t
Ah, I think we found the issue. Just ignore them. When ads come in the mail, I throw them away. No brain power required. 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I do not even get ads in the mail. There's a sticker on the door saying no; useless waste of money, dead trees and ink.
The idea of ads is that they work even if you ignore them; that's why so much money is spent on it. Repeated messages (the shorter, the better) tend to stick well in our brain. It's a waste on a massive scale.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: It's a waste on a massive scale.
Agreed.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
That's one of the reasons I like uBlock - it gives you a "blocked on the page" count. 3, 5, 7 ok. 26? No thanks...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
011111100010 wrote: blocking their ads is stealing
|
|
|
|
|
MikeD 2 wrote: Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them?
No, the contract is between the advertiser and the broadcaster.
The broadcaster is obliged to play them but I am not obliged to endure them.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: but I am not obliged to endure them.
Why not? Isn't the owner of the site stating that if you want to use my site you need to watch ads? It's an implicit contract?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
011111100010 wrote: Why not? Isn't the owner of the site stating that if you want to use my site you need to watch ads? It's an implicit contract?
(Please note my answer is based on English law)
1) If I am merely browsing the site there is no contract. A contract does not exist without what is known as a consideration - generally, this involves some kind of exchange of goods, services or money.
2) Where there is a contract (e.g. on a subscription site), the provider could, if he so wished, insist on my accepting advertisements. There is a concept known as "incorporation" which dictates that any condition would have to be upfront and clearly part of the deal - not merely one parties unstated intent or something hidden from sight.
3) If I accept all of this and breach the contract by using an ad-blocker the provider could possibly sue me for breach of contract but he'd need to demonstrate a loss of earnings before he can seek that remedy. If the provider is selling adds on a pay-per-serve basis he has lost nothing. If he's on some other plan, he maybe has done but it's not generally advisable to sue people for a couple of pennies. So in reality, even if the contract does exist, it's not practically enforcable on that point. (That's a legal position not a moral one).
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't meaning it in a literal legal sense. The internet is still too young for there to be much law regarding it. Someday, I fear, it may be though.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
The MVPS hosts file is all I use, and rarely see ads. They were initially supressed due to the chance of malicious content, and the fact that the distributors often do not take any responsibility for any damage it causes.
Now I'm starting to understand that one's mind is limited, and that one cannot remember everything. That means that ads are stealing my brain-capacity without me ever consenting to that.
..and there's a rather large industry dedicated to that, lots of money is being poured into ads. Not even to generate more money, it's just to keep marketshare.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I use an adblocker - uBlock - and it's default is "no ads."
If the content is worthwhile, I'll add a site to the whitelist - CodeProject for example.
But ... too many of them are AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.contentAD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD and I don't see why I should bother to hunt for the tiny bit of relevancy.
And when a site says "you're using an adblocker, you can't come in unless you disable it" Then I bugger off - chances are they don't give a sod about content, and there are loads of other sites that do.
MikeD 2 wrote: Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them?
No. Why should I waste my time?
MikeD 2 wrote: how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
Oh yes. I certainly do!
If you want me to visit your site, then let me see what I'm getting and decide if it's worthwhile. Discrete, appropriate, non intrusive ads are fine, but too many sites just plaster anything all over the page and make it obvious that ad revenue is the only reason for the site existing.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
