Google prepares publishers for the release of Chrome ad-blocking
Google prepares publishers for the release of Chrome ad-blocking https://arstechnica.com/?post_type=post&p=1108335 -- Personally, I consider ad-blocking a form of theft, and yes, privacy concerns can be in conflict to this idealism unfortunately. Be careful folks, google may become the "police" of the internet if you let them. :-/ They make their money from ads, so is this an attempt to kill the little guy before they grow to become a competitor?? Should we not let the free market decide these things?! #KillItBeforeItGrows #DontBeEvil #FreeMarket *Joseph Frazier*
ad-blocking a form of theft
Lol. Ad stuffing and mining a form of abuse. Happily, cryptocurrency solves this in alternative. If the site / service is any good, people will use crypto's privacy preserving anti datamining no account features to donate to keep it alive, otherwise they lose the site. Even on a paid account basis model where appropriate and desired. Donation level $1-5/month math can support very large services, and is far less than you're getting raped for in today's ad / mining / no-rights model. It's a mind shift, just like cryptocurrency changing the game, it'll happen.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:37:26 -0600 Joseph Frazier <j0zffrazier@gmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I consider ad-blocking a form of theft,
priceless. You might have not noticed but people are supposed to own their computers. So the actual theft is done by the ad publishers who are criminally accessing hardware they do not own. That's especially blatant in the case of the tons of javashit tracking malware they run on the computers of their victims.
and yes, privacy concerns can be in conflict to this idealism unfortunately.
idealism? what's idealistic about being a malware apologist?
Be careful folks, google may become the "police" of the internet if you let them. :-/
may?
They make their money from ads, so is this an attempt to kill the little guy before they grow to become a competitor??
oh that's something google is going to do? I thought that was their 'business model' from day zero?
Should we not let the free market decide these things?!
there is no free market. #KillItBeforeItGrows
#DontBeEvil #FreeMarket
*Joseph Frazier*
Personally, I consider ad-blocking a form of theft,
priceless. You might have not noticed but people are supposed to own their computers. So the actual theft is done by the ad publishers who are criminally accessing hardware they do not own. That's especially blatant in the case of the tons of javashit tracking malware they run on the computers of their victims.
Sure, it's their computer, but they chose to visit a site which is not theirs, One that was created and maintained by somebody else. It costs to create and host sites, if there is no means for monetization then the likely macro repercussion is less sites or more pay-sites. Perhaps someday on some sites you may choose: 1. micro-crypto payments. 2. give me ads. 3. allow my browser to mini-mine crypto for the site owner. 4. by donation ie wikipedia.... There is no free lunch, the attitude that people should get something for nothing in my opinion is a cancer to society.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 16:40:40 -0600 Joseph Frazier <j0zffrazier@gmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I consider ad-blocking a form of theft,
priceless. You might have not noticed but people are supposed to own their computers. So the actual theft is done by the ad publishers who are criminally accessing hardware they do not own. That's especially blatant in the case of the tons of javashit tracking malware they run on the computers of their victims.
Sure, it's their computer, but they chose to visit a site which is not theirs,
so? If you don't want your site 'visited' then don't make it public. This is a variation of a non-argument for 'intellectual property'. if you don't want 'your' ideas 'stolen' then keep them secret.
One that was created and maintained by somebody else. It costs to create and host sites,
so?
if there is no means for monetization then the likely macro repercussion is less sites
you mean, less garbage, less misinformation and the like? Sounds like a good thing.
or more pay-sites.
but you want people to pay through advertising so what's the difference?
Perhaps someday on some sites you may choose: 1. micro-crypto payments. 2. give me ads. 3. allow my browser to mini-mine crypto
.... 4 - put people who run malware on my machine in jail.
for the site owner. 4. by donation ie wikipedia.... There is no free lunch, the attitude that people should get something for nothing in my opinion is a cancer to society.
nah, it's the greedy idiots who want to sell or advertise garbage and who think they own the computers of other people. so now go back to your outrageous claim that " ad-blocking [is] a form of theft" and try to grasp how fucked the claim is.
No real offence intended but, to me it seems obvious that your arguments are logically flawed and I'm not going to waste my time, but I will say your contrarianism is actually kinda entertaining in a sadistic sort of way. I really am only expressing my opinions, I could be wrong, but I really don't think I am, really it's just a matter of perspective. There are givers and there are takers in this world, and when there are more givers than takers the world becomes a better place. However the trend, which indeed I assume you are a good example of, for people these days seems to be towards takers and zero-sum minded people. Which is something I hope to discourage. This all of course is philosophical and not technical, I have a preference for discussing real technical matters in regards to crypto, cryptocurrencies, algorithm ideas, privacy assurance, and steganography (favorite cipher), and of course sharing of industry related news and insights. I hope you all have a great day. :-) *Joseph Frazier* On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:47 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 16:40:40 -0600 Joseph Frazier <j0zffrazier@gmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I consider ad-blocking a form of theft,
priceless. You might have not noticed but people are supposed to own their computers. So the actual theft is done by the ad publishers who are criminally accessing hardware they do not own. That's especially blatant in the case of the tons of javashit tracking malware they run on the computers of their victims.
Sure, it's their computer, but they chose to visit a site which is not theirs,
so? If you don't want your site 'visited' then don't make it public. This is a variation of a non-argument for 'intellectual property'. if you don't want 'your' ideas 'stolen' then keep them secret.
One that was created and maintained by somebody else. It costs to create and host sites,
so?
if there is no means for monetization then the likely macro repercussion is less sites
you mean, less garbage, less misinformation and the like? Sounds like a good thing.
or more pay-sites.
but you want people to pay through advertising so what's the difference?
Perhaps someday on some sites you may choose: 1. micro-crypto payments. 2. give me ads. 3. allow my browser to mini-mine crypto
.... 4 - put people who run malware on my machine in jail.
for the site owner. 4. by donation ie wikipedia.... There is no free lunch, the attitude that people should get something for nothing in my opinion is a cancer to society.
nah, it's the greedy idiots who want to sell or advertise garbage and who think they own the computers of other people.
so now go back to your outrageous claim that " ad-blocking [is] a form of theft" and try to grasp how fucked the claim is.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:01:29 -0600 Joseph Frazier <j0zffrazier@gmail.com> wrote:
No real offence intended but, to me it seems obvious that your arguments are logically flawed and I'm not going to waste my time,
"I considerad-blocking a form of theft" ...and freedom is slavery. I think you should set up a paywalled site and publish your mental vomits, I mean, your insightful 'opinions'. I'm sure lots of people will gladly pay to be educated by you =)
the attitude that people should get something for nothing
This was not first created by the users. It was created and proliferated first by the companies that decided they could gobble up millions to billions of sheeple in market share grabs to further abuse them, many who were averse to carding and partly ID aware anyway, by giving away their crap and candy crush for free. Now sheeple learning it was never really free even then, that they got fucked, and are somewhat beginning to fight back. If the top 100 free in alexa dropped the abusive selling out their users and posted a shutdown date unless micropay came in via crypto, they'd monetize right quick, and make crypto moon... well except for the fact that they're by definition legacy services with legacy ceo's / investors / policies and politik and basically suck ass anyway. Bottom line, ad blockers are likely required for the fuckers evolve or die, so turn em on and abuse them back, then leave them. Which leaves a ton of new room for you to start new services that are actually cool and honorable, recoup expenses, and quite possible make a handy profit actually doing things for the users instead of abjectly against them. Nor are ads themselves necessarily the evil, they can be done ethically, it's today's secret sellout games that goes on behind them. The crypto economy will definitely reward any service that isn't out to fuck their users, places them first, and defends and lobbies for them as their customers. It's a symbiotic balance that for too long has been tilted against the users. Crypto weed and vpn were the first examples. Now there's all sorts of markets goods services worldwide, both brick and mortar and virtual. Crypto, anon, leaks, and activists are tilting it back.
On 04/20/2018 06:40 PM, Joseph Frazier wrote:
> Personally, I > consider ad-blocking a form of theft,
priceless. You might have not noticed but people are supposed to own their computers. So the actual theft is done by the ad publishers who are criminally accessing hardware they do not own. That's especially blatant in the case of the tons of javashit tracking malware they run on the computers of their victims.
Sure, it's their computer, but they chose to visit a site which is not theirs, One that was created and maintained by somebody else. It costs to create and host sites, if there is no means for monetization then the likely macro repercussion is less sites or more pay-sites. Perhaps someday on some sites you may choose: 1. micro-crypto payments. 2. give me ads. 3. allow my browser to mini-mine crypto for the site owner. 4. by donation ie wikipedia.... There is no free lunch, the attitude that people should get something for nothing in my opinion is a cancer to society.
This argument strikes me as a steaming pile of shit, metaphorically speaking, because the world it depicts presents as a world of pure imagination. In the material world, ad blocking is available to a minority among technology literate people (already a minority) who choose to take control of their presence on the networks. These same people most often have very high sales resistance, and the ability to "search the world over" for whatever products or deals they require. I can not imagine how an evidence supported model would show significant revenue losses to advertisers, due to the use of ad blocking tools. Maybe some of the most abusive scum in the industry would have a legit gripe about losing money, because "nice netizens" don't go in the neighborhoods where they operate, and "bastard operators" who do go there don't tolerate saturation ad bombing. An atypical niche market, hard to defend while maintaining a gleaming facade of Moral Purity. Failure to block unsolicited executable code inbound from third party websites presents as a fundamental network security failure: A thoroughly unnecessary exposure "inside the firewall", to executable code and arbitrary data files from a class of historically hostile actors. People who fail at basic digital hygiene keep botnets and other major criminal activities on the networks alive and growing. Do you want a Digital Pearl Harbor? Because that's how you get a Digital Pearl Harbor. Failure to use basic network security measures like ad and script control tools - and worse, calling their users "thieves" - presents as gross social irresponsibility: Go ahead and heroically sacrifice your privacy, identity and worldly goods at the altar of your Corporate overlords: But please stop trying to expose the rest of us to DDOS attacks and other Nasty Business via the rooted, botnet infested computers of people who swallow that sad little Morality Play about how the Bad Evil Blockers ruin the Internet for everyone.
participants (4)
-
grarpamp -
Joseph Frazier -
juan -
Steve Kinney