Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Censorship Your Rights Online

Website Mass-Bans Users Who Mention AdBlock 660

Posted by kdawson
from the don't-say-the-a-word dept.
An anonymous reader writes to recommend TechDirt's take on the dustup over at the Escapist, which recently tried on banning users from their forums for the mere mention of AdBlock. In the thread in which the trouble started, a user complained that an ad for Time Warner Cable was slowing down his computer. Users who responded to the poster by suggesting "get Firefox and AdBlock" found themselves banned from the forums. The banned parties didn't even need to admit they used AdBlock, they simply had to recommend it as a solution to a troublesome ad. The forum's recently amended posting guidelines do indeed confirm that the folks at the Escapist believe that giving browsing preference advice is a "non forgivable" offense. After a lot of user protest, the forum unbanned the transgressors but heaped on the guilt.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Website Mass-Bans Users Who Mention AdBlock

Comments Filter:
  • Find a new site (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:10AM (#31919884)

    When Microsoft decided that they wanted to limit the number of features in the OS based on how much I was willing to pay them, I changed operating systems.
    When the Sea Shepherds decided that terrorism was a valid way of combating whaling, I stopped contributing to them.
    When Hamas decided that war with Israel would broaden their support, I decided to throw my support elsewhere.
    When Obama decided that the only way out of this depression was massive spending programs, I affiliated myself with a different party.

    If a site is not going to treat you with respect and dignity, then take your business elsewhere. A site that measures you in "eyeballs" rather than "contributors" is not something you should be associated with in any way.

    • Re:Find a new site (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sulfur (1008327) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:35AM (#31920038)

      If a site is not going to treat you with respect and dignity, then take your business elsewhere. A site that measures you in "eyeballs" rather than "contributors" is not something you should be associated with in any way.

      Exactly. In fact, Slashdot is one of few sites that are Doing It Right. I was so impressed when I saw the "Disable Advertising" option that I immediately added *.slashdot.org to my AdBlock whitelist (although I should have done it earlier given the amount of time I spend here).

    • Good Luck with That (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FreeUser (11483)

      When Obama decided that the only way out of this depression was massive spending programs, I affiliated myself with a different party.

      I hope it wasn't the Republicans, since the bailout that was required to prevent a depression directly resulting from years of irresponsible lack of oversight was initiated by George W. Bush and merely completed by Obama.

      I also hope it wasn't the Libertarians, since it was their lassaiz-faire philosophy of deregulation and strict adherence to the Chicago School of Economics w

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      passive aggressive behavior is only part of the dynamic.. it is reactionary. something like adblock is proactive, which forces the other side to sit up and take notice. since when does visiting some site qualify as a business relationship by default? ...arrogant 'webmaster' mentality taken to extremes I guess..

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by YeeHaW_Jelte (451855)

      You should change your name in BadAnalogIESGuy .... four analogies mostly unrelated to the problem at hand ... I salute you sir ... nomen est omen.

  • by FyRE666 (263011) * on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:11AM (#31919892) Homepage

    Hey, where the hell did my previous reply about Digg go?!!

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The same place as any person inquiring about AllParadox goes on Groklaw. (He left the site due to their moderation policies which are both sneakily implemented and poorly known. See his post to the SCOX forums, for example.)

  • From rules list (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DarkIye (875062)

    Starting a thread: Posting is an art; be proud of your work.

    This tells you everything you need to know about these forums.

  • by AlexiaDeath (1616055) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:12AM (#31919904)
    Lets ban people for suggesting channel switching for the duration of ad breaks on tv aswell...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by delinear (991444)
      You joke, but I'd be surprised if TV stations didn't have strict rules about programmes not telling viewers to channel surf while the adverts are on.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      TV is passive entertainment. Site forums aren't, so your comparison isn't exactly accurate.

      Besides having rules on directing continuity people to keep viewers in place for the ads though, TV companies use localisation, CGI to alter advert content, higher sound volume during the adbreaks, adverts during the programmes themselves (not counting the product placement) and they crop the programmes' lengths to suit rigid advertisement times.

      And none of that even mentions the lengths they'll go to censor writers,

  • Troublesome ads (Score:5, Insightful)

    by topham (32406) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:13AM (#31919916) Homepage

    A site I frequent ran some ads for a while that gave me grief. When it spawned a discussion thread they got rather pissy about it.
    but, here's a point...
    If your Ads fuck-up the user experience that bad then they can't read your site you dimwits. If they can't read it they will go away and not come back. Would you rather have that? -FIX- the Ads promptly and there won't be a problem.

    It's not a threat to say "If you don't fix it, I will leave". It's a fact, and it's not entirely by choice.

    • Re:Troublesome ads (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xtracto (837672) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:29AM (#31920000) Journal

      The problem I see with ads is editorial control.

      With real magazines ads, editors have some kind of control of the ad after they receive it. For example, they can decide if they accept an ad with a full page giant penis in it selling v14gr4.

      However, with web ads, the editors have no control over it. The advertizer has complete control of how the ad looks. And even though at the time of "contracting" the ad the editors may like the types of ad, maybe after a month the ad will get changed to something really annoying.

      From the original forum thread, the problem was that someone's computer was slowing to a halt because some random flash ad. That sort of thing is really annoying.

      I even have seen similar kind of trouble in pages of open source projects. In one of those pages, the guys used some ad service and got some kind of virus or XSS attack in one of the ads... even though the ad company was supposed to be good!

      • Re:Troublesome ads (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:46AM (#31920102)

        So use a better ad company. Project Wonderful [projectwonderful.com] lets you moderate ads if you choose, or whitelist by advertiser, or just allow a free-for-all. And they don't allow arbitrary scripting, so no XSS or browser attacks.

      • Re:Troublesome ads (Score:4, Insightful)

        by srothroc (733160) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @06:41AM (#31920414) Homepage
        They COULD have control, but they choose not to. I mean, sure, smaller sites would have problems, but large sites like the one in question easily get enough traffic to be able to choose what they want to advertise. Penny Arcade does it.
      • The problem I see with ads is editorial control.

        With real magazines ads, editors have some kind of control of the ad after they receive it. For example, they can decide if they accept an ad with a full page giant penis in it selling v14gr4.

        However, with web ads, the editors have no control over it. The advertizer has complete control of how the ad looks. And even though at the time of "contracting" the ad the editors may like the types of ad, maybe after a month the ad will get changed to something really annoying.

        3rd-party ad servers do have one benefit: There is no direct relationship between content makers and product makers. With magazines, newspapers, radio, TV, and direct online ad sales, there is a temptation to do secret editorial-for-content deals with their product-maker customers.

        Advertising is most suitable for things like classifieds and job ads. But interruptions with agendas are a pretty silly way to learn about new products. It would be better if we paid people to help us select products [rbate.com].

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by dr2chase (653338)
          Firewalls are a good idea, but they can also be used to generate lame excuses. I did complain to one site about a Flash add (designed to thwart Click-to-Flash, I think) that filled the screen and interfered with reading the site, unless flash was enabled (at least, that was what I could determine). I bitched at them about this, pointed out that I was ok with static advertisements, and got the firewall-runaround. Bitched about the behavior of their corporate parent, got the firewall runaround.

          So I got
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SharpFang (651121)

        maybe after a month the ad will get changed to something really annoying.
        My former employer had an interesting policy on "wrong ads". You purchase a time slot for displaying your ad in a box on the page. The ad must conform to strict guidelines. If you violate the guidelines, the ad gets removed immediately and without notice. You still have the time slot and can post another ad, or the same, fixed - but the clock is ticking, and the ads there being helluva expensive, you'd better pay a close attention to t

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by beakerMeep (716990)
        It's not that they have no control, it's that they exercise no control (or QA/due diligence).

        Most medium to large websites will have some clause in their contracts with media buyers/ad networks where they reserve the right to pull any ad, at any time, for any reason. The problem is often the traffic departments (more so for large websites, but this applies to smaller ones via the ad network they use).

        Traffic departments are basically the office peons that cut and paste the HTML code from, say Doub
    • Re:Troublesome ads (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 19061969 (939279) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @06:40AM (#31920412)
      And for every user who pipes up with the "fix it or I'll leave" line, there are at least 10 who go quietly without leaving their reasons.
  • Flash (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Weezul (52464) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:15AM (#31919924)

    All internet users should use some Flash blocker that allows the user to accept specific flash content, period.

    FireFox and Chrome have plugins called FlashBlock, Safari's is called ClickToFlash. IE8 provides this functionality from the Flash player add-on in Manage Add-ons under Tools, just select More informations and click Remove all sites. All these will let you reenable either individual Flash applets or whole sites when you browse those pages.

  • Do an Ars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spad (470073) <<slashdot> <at> <spad.co.uk>> on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:16AM (#31919932) Homepage

    Do what Arstechnica discovered after they tried blocking adblock users from seeing articles; actually *ask* your users to whitelist your site in adblock (or other ad blockers) with a promise that if the adverts on the site cause issues with users machines that they will work to resolve them and/or remove those adverts from rotation.

    So far, every site that I use regularly and trust (for appropriate values of trust) that have asked me to whitelist them have had their request granted. I'm happy to help out the sites with their revenue on the condition that the adverts on said site do not impact my browsing experience; pop-ups, pop-unders, sound, fullscreens, "intellitext" or mid-paragraph ads are an instant nono, as are any that impact page loading due to shoddy design and overloaded ad servers, but I'm willing to put up with most other ads if I'm asked to in order to support the site.

    • Re:Do an Ars (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mlts (1038732) * on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:53AM (#31920154)

      My take: Text ads, fine. Basic graphic ads, OK.

      Ads that pop up crap when moving over text, Flash crap which wiggles around the screen like someone projectile vomited over my shoulder and onto my monitor, and pages which take more than 30 seconds to low because some adfarm just doesn't have the pipes to deal with the traffic, or even the annoying "punch the monkey" crap no.

      Google learned this lesson back when every other search provider were doing banner ads, and this is one reason why Google has leapfrogged ahead of the pack and stayed ahead so long. Text ads are fine. Ads which require 5 megabyte .swf files are just plain unacceptable.

      • Re:Do an Ars (Score:5, Informative)

        by delinear (991444) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @06:53AM (#31920488)

        Google learned this lesson back when every other search provider were doing banner ads, and this is one reason why Google has leapfrogged ahead of the pack and stayed ahead so long. Text ads are fine. Ads which require 5 megabyte .swf files are just plain unacceptable.

        The sweet irony here, of course, is that DoubleClick are one of the worst offenders and are actually owned by Google, now.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Trepidity (597)

          Unfortunately, this is also making Google's ads worse. Since a year or two ago, by default AdSense publishers have a box checked that allows Google to sell the space to "third-party networks" as well, and they use DoubleClick for that a lot. You can uncheck the box and require only ads that go via actual Google AdSense, but I suspect few publishers do.

  • by Huntr (951770) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:20AM (#31919946)
    After the community manager unbanned everyone, the follow-up posts in that thread [escapistmagazine.com] are all fan-boyish groveling which I totally don't understand. "We shouldn't use adblockers anyway!! Thanks for unbanning! Much respect!!" Respect for what? Taking the boot off your throat? Here's some bannable "browsing preference advice:" don't read The Escapist.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by gzipped_tar (1151931)

      Stockholm syndrome?

    • by s-whs (959229)

      fan-boyish groveling which I totally don't understand. "We shouldn't use adblockers anyway!! Thanks for unbanning! Much respect!!" Respect for what? Taking the boot off your throat?

      It's juvenile behaviour of people who who have not grown up enough (mentally) to be something on their own but get their self esteem by belonging to a group.

      To give some examples more relevant to slashdot where I've seen/experienced this: gnu.misc.discuss springs to mind where everything Stallman says or does is perfect a

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)

        It's juvenile behaviour of people who who have not grown up enough (mentally) to be something on their own but get their self esteem by belonging to a group.

        I'd say you are half-right. Its not just about being a member of a group, but being part of the hierarchy. The feeling is that as long as they show 'proper deference' to their 'betters' they will receive similar deference from their 'lessers' - and if there are no 'lessers' now surely there will be once they move up the hierarchy. I think 'proto-fascist' is a pretty accurate knee-jerk description for that mindset.

        Cartman summed it all up in one short sentence, "Respect my authoritae!"

      • by martin-boundary (547041) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @06:24AM (#31920352)
        Sadly slashdot is not immune of this either. It's gotten a bit better these days, but in the old days there was this one editor, JonKatz, who was treated just like a god here. Whenever he wrote some article, it was like everybody worshipped his words, you know what I mean? Serious groupthink! It was a bit creepy, actually.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mathx314 (1365325)
      I'm not a member of the forum, but I do occasionally lurk there after watching some of the video content they have. People are constantly getting banned for what appear to me to be non-offenses (just read a large thread, you'll see at least three people who have been banned recently). Why anyone would want to post in an environment like that is beyond me.

      (For what it's worth, I never found their banner ads to be terribly intrusive, so I never AdBlocked them. That's changing today.)
  • by gzipped_tar (1151931) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:22AM (#31919956) Journal

    The first rule of ad blocking is you DON'T talk about ad blocking!

  • by Cyberllama (113628) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:24AM (#31919976)

    Not too long ago, around a year ago, Blizzard added banner ads to the official World of Warcarft game forums.

    People strongly objected on the basis that nobody can post to those forums unless they already pay Blizzard money for an account, so why should paying customers be subjected to the advertisements? They clearly didn't need advertising revenue to pay the bills, it was just a crass money-grab. This spawned many posts on how to block the ads. The result? All of the ad-blocking discussion threads deleted, and all of their creators banned from the forums. Some people complained, but they soon found out that talking about deleted threads is also grounds for a ban.

    It sucks, but what can you do? The only way they would have any incentive to change is if people actually quit the game in protest over the decision, which isn't particularly likely. They perhaps spent some of their good will by way of their actions, but there's no real immediate or obvious negative repercussions.

    I am torn as well. I understand the need for advertisements to subsidize content on the web, but I also see it as an issue when a company abuses the ubiquity of ads to slip them in as a money-grab when they clearly aren't dependent on advertising for their revenue. Moreover, I really feel like it should be obvious at this point that banner ads are stupid. They fact that people go to such lengths to remove them should indicate how people feel about them. They're really no different then spam; except spam is free, so it can be profitable with abysmal response rates. Does anyone actually buy anything as result of banner ads? Sure people click them all the time, but how often is it done on purpose? The damn things are just in the way. I'm constantly accidentally tapping on ads on my iPhone, but I sure as hell have never bought anything as a result.

    Annoying flash ads, banner ads, and javascript-fueled nightmare ads are not selling anything. Anyone notice those are all things Google does not use? I think they know a thing or two about the business of internet ads. They've got 25 billion dollars in the bank that says internet advertising works better when its not obtrusive and obnoxious.

    • by AstynaxX (217139) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @06:16AM (#31920278) Homepage

      Honestly, I was fine not blocking ads until 2 trends started.

      First, the obnoxiously loud ads. A little sound is one thing, but an ear splitting 'Congratulation!' bellowing out unexpectedly is quite unacceptable.

      Second, malware spreading ads. I thought they were a myth at first, until I was tapped by one (spreading one of those annoying fake antivirus trojan things no less.) And these do turn up on otherwise reputable sites, so anyone trying to pull out the 'watch where you browse' or 'lay off the (porn/warez/music/movies) can sit and spin. The first infection I encountered on a system I used came from a tech support forum of all places, while running Firefox, with anti-virus and anti-malware application resident and up to date, and all applicable security patches to all involved software in place. 0-day exploits are a pain that way.

      And even the best 'we will remove it if it causes trouble' policy is a failure. By that point, the damage is already done, I've had to spend time cleaning (or just plain rebuilding) a system to be certain a bit of malware is gone.

      Nope, until sites start guaranteeing all their ads free of such issues (and a few others might be nice, like bugged, eta your CPU ads) the ads get blocked. My browsing safety > their ad revenue.

      • by bipbop (1144919) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @06:46AM (#31920448)

        Yours is the second comment I've seen on this article with a stipulation similar to "until they start guaranteeing their ads free of such issues". I'm surprised. What guarantee could they possibly make that would be both convincing and immutable? I say "immutable" because any guarantee they offer now, technical or otherwise, could easily be discarded without notice by future management.

        It is wise to consider the ad companies untrusted, and decide when the risk is justified by the potential benefit. Right now, that's looking something like zero percent of cases for the foreseeable future. It only took one malware-infested PDF ad to convince me.

    • by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @06:21AM (#31920328) Homepage

      Moreover, I really feel like it should be obvious at this point that banner ads are stupid. They fact that people go to such lengths to remove them should indicate how people feel about them. They're really no different then spam; except spam is free, so it can be profitable with abysmal response rates. Does anyone actually buy anything as result of banner ads? Sure people click them all the time, but how often is it done on purpose? The damn things are just in the way. I'm constantly accidentally tapping on ads on my iPhone, but I sure as hell have never bought anything as a result.

      The thing is that even though click-through rates are bullshit the billboard space is not. If you're a semi-smart consumer you at least check a couple sites and a couple brands before picking one, but WHICH stores and WHICH brands? Oh, the ones you've been fed with the last year and are the first to pop into your mind. There's a diminishing rate of return on checking every store, every model (if such a thing even is possible) as long as you get a good deal on a good model from a reputable seller.

      People think they know exactly what you want and isn't affected by ads which is only true for the things that are important to them but ignores everything that's not so important to them. I might know all the high-end CPU models but buy lots of foodstuffs and clothes and furniture and whatnot where it's not like I've gone through any exhaustive search or made a huge in-depth analysis. Nice shirt, best possible shirt purchase? No idea, but I'll buy it anyway. A fashion freak might know every deal on shirts but not have a clue of computers, this is where marketing matters.

      Finally, and this is an important point about advertising - ignorance is bliss. Unless they're aware that they overpaid, they don't really care. People just think "Cool, this 600$ computer is amazing, it's so fast and nice and 600$ wasn't much..." even if they could have gotten it for 400$. It's only if they know that they care about the 200$ they "lost", not because it was poor value but because it was a poor deal. If they take the deal then stop looking because they're no longer in the market for any they are happy.

      Personally, I hate shopping. If you throw a decent offer in my way I might just to be done shopping. I think these ads are trying to be much the same way, they're not just the window you glance past but the clothes rack in your way. A little obnoxious yes but at the same time something you're not able to dismiss so easily, which might lead you to stop and ahhhhhhh looked at this long enough, I'll buy something now and be done with it. There's definitely business in that in the real world, I don't think the online world is that different.

  • by Bearhouse (1034238) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:32AM (#31920024)

    Apparently (FTA), this is in the site's T&Cs

    Do not confess, teach, admit to, or promote ad-blocking software that will allow users to block the ads of this site.

    Great. Using ad/flash-blocking software is a crime now? Whatever happened to reasonable discussion?
    Instead of just banning the users, could the mods not have simply pointed out that the site needed the ad revenue to survive, and also acted to remove the offensive ads?
    Who are the customers of a site such as this; the users, or the advertisers?

    • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @06:19AM (#31920312)
      You should absolutely not use AdBlock, the wonderful advertisement blocking addon for FireFox [mozilla.org] and Google Chrome [google.com], to block irritating and obnoxious advertisements when browsing the "The Escapist" website!

      Problem solved.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by delinear (991444)

      I don't know much about the site in question, but having scanned the first page of the thread two things are obvious - it's widely known that the moderators don't tolerate discussion of ad blocking (and the first reply was a very reasonable "you should speak to the mods about this not raise it in the forum" kind of reply), and the site offers two models, a paid subscription service that disables all ads and a free, ad-supported service, so it seems it's already clear to the core users why the ads are there,

  • by amn108 (1231606) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:36AM (#31920048)

    There is a good reason a home is called a home. As opposed to a marketplace. People like to actually live at home, not at the marketplace (shopaholics excluded.)

    Internet used to be more of a home. Now it is become more of a marketplace. Everywhere you turn, there is some shmuck pitching and pushing his stuff onto you, and when you refuse he goes verbal.

    The whole thing is rooted in overpopulation again. Too many people need to survive, and they colonize the Internet space, with their smallminded schemes.

  • tongue in cheek? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SkunkPussy (85271) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:48AM (#31920122) Journal

    "As we've mentioned previously in great detail, if you've got ads on your website that are annoying your users, that is your fault -- not your users' fault. "

    he writes this with a massive animated HP advert that takes up 1/4 of the column width down the side

  • by acromosh (1645811) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @06:02AM (#31920192)
    I might be quite backward in my thinking here but... I pay my isp for a subscription to access the internets (every last one of them). The specific contect I choose to receive or block at my end is my own damn business. It's like being banned from walking down the street because I chose not to look at the billboards!
  • Let's not forget (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crossmr (957846) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @07:15AM (#31920620) Journal

    This is the same website that bans you if they think you've commented too quickly on a video. If they didn't have ZP, I'd never go there.

  • by verbatim (18390) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @08:13AM (#31920990) Homepage

    There is one line in the post that intrigued me:

    I ad-block sites that I've never been to before. If they look like a cool site or something that I'd use in the future, I turn off the ad-blocker on that site for any future visits. It's my way of saying "hmm, good job" to the site.

    I realized then that most websites offer opt-out advertising. That is, you have to see it unless you pay, use an ad-blocking program, or contribute something that the owners deem worthy of removing adds (like that tempting "no ads for good karma" thing I keep seeing on /.).

    I agree with what this community manager said and I would dare ask the logical follow-up question: why don't websites ask you to opt-in to their advertising? The idea would be simple - you visit the site and after X page views, or some other evil metric, you are taken to a page that says: hey, you can help us out with $$$, view ads, or just be a leech. I firmly believe that you will find that the majority of people who become engaged with the content will select either the $$$ or advertising paths. Right then and there your advertising space is worth more than all of the traditional "opt-out" websites.

    So, do any advertising market providers allow for this?

  • by waspleg (316038) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @09:07AM (#31921582) Journal

    Escapist is not alone. EA bans anyone who talks about the Better Business Bureau and removes their posts. I recently, after 40 days (irony?) got a free copy of Mass Effect 2 Collector's Edition after turning them in to the BBB (something I've never done before) for their shitty Bad Company 2 launch and the fact that several weeks after launch, and after I had talked a friend in to buying the game for the whole 15 minutes I had been able to play it, it was still broken and took HOURS to connect to a server to the point where sane people walked away and wanted their money back.

    I had purchased from STEAM so they told me I was fucked because they wouldn't talk to me since it had been a digital download (that they had to distribute to Valve, got their cut of the money for, and I paid full retail for; something else I rarely do). I appealed to the BBB, I guess because they didn't want the 3 year mark on their record they finally ponied up a game after refusing to refund anything, going through 3 tiers of tech support idiots and going full circle when they tried to "troubleshoot" my connection after already offering an alternate title.

    I think people who are dicked on releases like this (in this case, the game was fine, it was their horrible MP authentication and Punk Buster server fiascos) should absolutely be compensated by the company at fault so they have a deterrent from pulling that shit again.

    I should say, I haven't even opened the box for ME:2, I may well sell it, and I haven't touched BF:BC2 since either. Fuck EA, the Escapist, and all those like them. This will probably be marked OT but it seemed relevant enough, and happened recently enough (I just got the replacement game yesterday, after literally 40 days of going back and forth between EA and the BBB mediator every couple days) that I thought I'd share my story of woe.

  • by MadMaverick9 (1470565) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @09:20AM (#31921780)

    If we are not allowed to talk about AdBlock plus, then lets talk about "document.write".

    Most (probably all) ads are created with "document.write", so simply block "document.write". And enable "document.write" for the few sites that you really enjoy.

    Add the following to "prefs.js" (seamonkey, firefox, ...):

    user_pref("capability.policy.default.HTMLDocument.write", "noAccess");

    user_pref("capability.policy.trusted.HTMLDocument.write", "sameOrigin");
    user_pref("capability.policy.trusted.sites", "http://localhost http://forums.mozillazine.org/ [mozillazine.org] ... ");

    user_pref("capability.policy.policynames", "trusted");

    See http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/components/ConfigPolicy.html [mozilla.org] for more details ...

Pause for storage relocation.

Working...