Snowden Says It's Your Duty To Use an Ad Blocker (for Security) 342
AmiMoJo writes: In a long interview about reclaiming your privacy online, ex-NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden states that it's not just a good idea to use ad blocking software, it's your duty: "Everybody should be running adblock software, if only from a safety perspective. We've seen internet providers like Comcast, AT&T, or whoever it is, insert their own ads into your plaintext http connections. As long as service providers are serving ads with active content that require the use of JavaScript to display, that have some kind of active content like Flash embedded in it, anything that can be a vector for attack in your web browser — you should be actively trying to block these. Because if the service provider is not working to protect the sanctity of the relationship between reader and publisher, you have not just a right but a duty to take every effort to protect yourself in response." Other recommendations include encrypting your hard drive and using Tor to keep your internet use private.
Well then (Score:4, Funny)
at least one person thinks I'm not a bad person because I don't want to see flashing ads and videos while I am trying to read a story.
Re:Well then (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you care about what the people who want to show you ads think about your decision to block them?
Flash is a security hole, because Flash has always been a security hole, and it always will be a security hole -- I don't even have it enabled in any browser I control. Letting 10-20 external entities on a web site track you on every page is stupid (there's 10 on Slashdot as I type this, all of which I block). Letting any random website run javascript is also stupid, because you have no idea if you can trust them and all their partners.
If a website wants to serve its own ads, I probably won't go to great lengths to block them.
But double click, and score card research, and the literally dozens and dozens of other entities embedded into so many webpages ... those are entities I don't trust, don't have a voluntary relationship with, and do not benefit from being spied on.
Those I ruthlessly block with privacy extensions, or adding exclusions directly to my browser. Because it's all crap which wants to violate my privacy. Same goes for Facebook and Twitter -- sorry your business model says you want to track me on every site I go to. But I don't care.
So, boo hoo, say the site owners ... too bad say I. If your revenue involves selling my privacy for your gain, then I will not participate in your revenue. If you get to the point of outright stopping me, then I'll just block your entire site and not come back.
The fact of the matter is, we simply cannot trust the ad companies to vet the ads, or give a damn about our privacy and security. Which means we need to treat the ad companies as hostile entities and block the shit out of them.
The longer I run several privacy addons in all my browsers, the more I see on a daily basis how some sites can have 20+ external call-outs, none of which actually add any value to me. Which means I don't give a crap about them.
In fact, I will do everything I can to block them completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't care what they think, I was trying, apparently in vein, to make a joke. But I will also add that on some smaller sites that have only a few non-animated ads I will turn ad blocker off. I expect a battle of ad blockers being blocked, or big companies paying the ad blocker programs to white list them, and then new ad blockers coming out. When money is involved, people get very motivated and devious. But then again, that is what capitalism is all about these days. It used to be that companies
Re:Well then (Score:5, Insightful)
Too fucking bad for you.
If you think my privacy and security is a fair price so you can have free stuff ... you're the asshole in this scenario.
Sites are free to take measures to block me because I use an ad blocker. In fact, a few do and I just permanently block them. Same for the ones which won't let me in without javascript. No big loss to me.
But if you think the rest of the world should give up privacy and security so you can have free web sites, you're a moron.
Free works other than software (Score:2)
Apart from Wikipedia, free works other than software haven't caught on to nearly the same extent as free software. Even video games tend to be non-free because there's so much to a video game other than software.
Re:Well then (Score:5, Insightful)
at least one person thinks I'm not a bad person because I don't want to see flashing ads and videos while I am trying to read a story.
If the sociopaths who run most marketing corporations complain about what kind of person you are, you're probably doing something right.
Re:Well then (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt anyone but the marketing sociopaths would consider you a bad person. And bluntly, I don't give a fuck about what mentally unstable people think about my morality.
Re: (Score:3)
What you should be recommending is that people use a white-list based general Script Blocker. This will prevent all scripts, and in most cases other vulnerabilities like CSS exploits, on all sites unless YOU specifically allow it.
In principle, I think you might be right. But in practice, how should a web application that depends on scripts go about gaining the trust of each user in order to allow scripts on that site? Or should every web application, without exception, instead have either a fallback mode that operates entirely without scripts or a native app on all fourteen platforms?
Re: (Score:2)
I've given up on noscript, to be honest, and simply replaced it with an ad blocker. Unfortunately, the web has reached a tipping point where you simply can't view many modern sites with scripting blocked. I spent half my time selectively unblocking noscript trying to get the site to render correctly, I just got tired of the constant fiddling.
Nowadays, there seem to be fewer Javascript-only exploits (although they certainly haven't disappeared). The majority seem to use Flash, Java plugins, PDF viewers, e
Re: (Score:2)
I've given up on noscript, to be honest, and simply replaced it with an ad blocker. Unfortunately, the web has reached a tipping point where you simply can't view many modern sites with scripting blocked. I spent half my time selectively unblocking noscript trying to get the site to render correctly, I just got tired of the constant fiddling.
On the other hand, NoScript makes it easier to safely sample a new/unknown site to see if you even want to view its content - unless they're dicks and use Javascript to render even their basic text (I fucking hate that).
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. If I have to whitelist the actual site to read the basic text content, then they can do without my patronage. It's no loss to me. If I pop up noscript and the list of domains is so long I have to scroll it, ditto. OTOH, if the site has only one or two 3rd party domains, I'll allow it. Ghostery and Disconnect manage the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
I finally have my uMatrix configured well enough that I can disable Ghostery and Disconnect. I've not yet removed them but they are disabled. I don't whitelist any domains. I take the time to go through and add the settings for each sub as needed until I get the level of functionality that I need. I then keep it saved in a folder that gets synced to Dropbox. I can pull it and use it on any other box. So far, so good.
Yes, it takes some work but that's okay. Once it's done, it's done. I don't always get the f
Re: (Score:2)
So add noscript to the plugins also.
in 2015 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
running an adblocker is almost like running an antivirus...
... something for Windows users?
Nah, I run one on multiple platforms!
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you should run it even if you're not using Windows.
Re:in 2015 (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. An antivirus program will consume more of your computer's resources than the actual working apps do.
An adblocker prevents even MORE slop from consuming network, cpu, graphics and audio resources.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll even add that adblockers do what they can to prevent infections, so they're more like vaccines, and antivirus is like antibiotics.
Re: (Score:2)
The sites I care about, I'm willing to donate to in order to help them stay up. That includes Slashdot.
Most websites are funded by advertisements (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Most websites are funded by advertisements (Score:5, Insightful)
Having decided to employ an intrusive and obnoxious marketing method in their business plan is not my problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's trivial to turn your adblocker off for the few pages that deserve it.
Re:Most websites are funded by advertisements (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, if they server their own ads, fine ... but if it's the same list of companies I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw their CEO off a cliff, then there is no way in hell.
As soon as you start adding the oily bastards and tracking companies into the mix, no matter for what website, it defeats the purpose entirely of blocking them.
So, while you might think Spanky's House of Leather is a deserving site, if they pull in a dozen or so tracking companies that you would otherwise block ... what the hell is the point of enabling ads for them?
It's the 3rd parties we can't trust. Temporarily pretending we can trust them because we like the site they're on is a terrible idea.
Let companies get back to serving their own ads, from their own servers, using their own bandwidth and maybe we won't block them. But I won't pretend like I trust any of these ad companies for that one site. Not now not ever. Because to do that you have to let the very sites you know you don't trust run.
The problem is these ad companies and tracking sites are everywhere. Which means you pretty much should trust them nowhere.
The whole mess can't be trusted. And that's the problem.
How to find advertisers without a network? (Score:2)
Well, if they server their own ads, fine
How should a smaller web site go about seeking advertisers if its operator wants to stop sucking on the AdSense tit? This article [dailyblogtips.com] recommends the equivalent of leaving "Your ad here" banners, but "if you build it, they will come" doesn't pay the domain, hosting, and certificate costs, let alone feed and house the writers. How should a site's operator even know what to charge?
Re:How to find advertisers without a network? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not my problem. This has never been my problem. This never will be my problem.
If your revenue model depends on me allowing third party assholes to set cookies, track me, run scripts, install software, call out to 5 other sites ... then you have no hope in hell of me using your site.
So, you can put up a tip jar, you can charge membership, or you can starve and close your website.
These are problems with your business model. And if your business model relies on me being stupid enough to trust your advertisers ... then I'm afraid your business model is your damned problem.
Not letting the parasites, trackers, and other advertising assholes infest my computer is my problem. I assure you, I only care about my part of this equation.
So you are free to not give a shit if I stop using your site. You are free to block me from using your site if I don't let you set cookies or run javascript.
And I am free to block your advertisers, and eventually block you. But I don't owe you a damned thing, especially if it's at the expense of my privacy and security.
Prime example ... the link you provided embeds references to Facebook. My browser blocks all traffic to Facebook, because I do not consent to the assholes at Facebook tracking me everywhere I go. The same goes for the dozens of other ad companies I outright block.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not my problem. This has never been my problem. This never will be my problem.
It will become your problem once more and more of the sites on which you rely make the decision to "charge membership" or "starve and close your website".
My browser blocks all traffic to Facebook
So does mine.
You are free to block me from using your site if I don't let you set cookies
Without cookies, how would you post as gstoddart rather than Anonymous Coward? Without cookies, how would an online store know to display the items in your shopping cart rather than the items in somebody else's shopping cart?
or run javascript
I wonder: How could an online whiteboard or browser game work without JavaScript?
Improvement, not problem (Score:2)
It will become your problem once more and more of the sites on which you rely make the decision to "charge membership" or "starve and close your website".
He might prefer paying in cash than with his privacy; then this change is not a problem but rather an improvement. You could argue that the walling-off approach would reserve important content for rich people, but then it is the seller's fault who fails to extract money from his visitors in a proportional manner. Rather than walling off the content you could use the "tip jar" already mentioned. It works for some people. I do not belive in limiting ones audience, I believe it to be counterproductive.
I wonder: How could an online whiteboard or browser game work without JavaScript?
They wou
What is proportional? (Score:2)
You could argue that the walling-off approach would reserve important content for rich people, but then it is the seller's fault who fails to extract money from his visitors in a proportional manner.
How would the seller determine what is "proportional" without tracking visitors across websites to obtain evidence of their likely income?
Rather than walling off the content you could use the "tip jar" already mentioned. It works for some people.
And not for others.
Re:How to find advertisers without a network? (Score:4, Insightful)
Possibly. But a lot of sites I only ever visit once because they showed up in a search. Their ads aren't my problem. If I have to sign up for a membership to see if I care, I definitely won't be back. So, New York Times is a site I'll never visit again. And under no circumstances will I enable ad sites I don't trust just for a site I'm mildly interested in.
See, not every site am I choosing to log in .. or use a shopping cart .. or participate in discussions. For those sites, I have no need for you to set cookies -- in fact, those sites have no reason whatsoever to know anything about me at all. And I sure as shit don't need your advertisers to set 3rd party cookies or load a web bug just because I visited your site -- something which they all seem to want to do. So shit like scorecard research will always be blocked.
Some sites that I like can set cookies, and run scripts (there's probably fewer than 20)... but only them and not 3rd parties. The rest, nope. Not even a little. They just get blocked from doing it.
I've encountered sites which immediately put up the instructions to enable cookies and javascript. Sorry, but I have no reason to care or trust you. Which means I'll block your site, click the back button, and write you off as a non-entity. That would cover several Australian news agencies who demand cookies and scripts. Oh, sorry, don't give a fuck, not my problem.
Don't know, don't care, don't use either. If I am required to use something for work, or ultimately choose that I wish to use it, I will whitelist. But I need a good reason. I don't look at every shiny bauble on the internet and decide that I give a damn,
But on first visit to your site, no way in hell you get to run scripts, or set cookies.
As I said, business models not my concern, my privacy is. Sites I choose to use get to do a limited set of things, nobody ever gets to run plugins or Flash, EVER. The rest, I simply don't feel the need to use.
Life is too short to give a crap about, or trust, the vast majority of the internet; it's an endless pile of pointless junk. When you remember that, it's a whole lot easier to be fairly ruthless in what you block.
Re:Most websites are funded by advertisements (Score:5, Insightful)
And most people don't want malware on their computers from malicious advertisements that slip through ad rings.
Advertising is currently positioned in such a way so as to be beneficial to the content creators and the advertisers, but not the users. You don't even really need to get into conversations about morality, ethics, intrusiveness, privacy, and so on when advertisements are a major means for malicious software to get on computers. With how fast the malware changes and evolves, most antivirus and anti-malware products can only respond after the fact, and these same products also are pretty bad about removing even relatively simple malware in its entirety.
Content creators should get funding; I don't think too many people truly disagree with that. But should you have to put your computer at risk to do so? Content creators are caught up in an arms race between the users and the advertisers, and as long as the creators are using the advertisers, the advertisers have no real incentive to listen to the consumers. Adblocking didn't come as a result of "man fuck ads in general", it came about as a result of ads getting overbearing, obnoxious, and dangerous. Advertisers' responses to this wasn't "oh, let's clean this up", it was "you thought that was bad? wait till you see this" and then they made ads even worse. It seems to me that advertisers are very clear that they don't care about what the user concerns.
Creators, on the other hand, are in a unique position to influence advertisers, and if they want to continue to have users visit as they do now, they will need to begin to publicly be advocates for users and work to change the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Your eyeballs will likely end up looking at an NXDOMAIN or 404 page or a credit card form as more and more sites continue to close or go subscription to make up for lost advertising revenue.
Malicious Ads (Score:5, Informative)
Why block it? Why block random content from unknown third parties, coming across content networks that have proven, time and again, that they don't give a rat's ass about vetting the people they're selling ad space to, let alone the content that those people are sending - and we're not even getting into all the constant invasive tracking attempts that come with that.
I don't mind reasonable ads, especially native ones that belong to the page I'm actually visiting. I mind the fact that there's been no real consequences for the rampant bad or negligent behavior on the part of the ad networks - so, like all content that I view as inherently suspicious/possibly malicious, I'm going to block it by default. The fact that there's no real value to me in it just makes it easier to not worry about that.
Mr Snowden is CORRECT!!! (Score:2)
Once again Mr Snowden hits the nail on the head.. I just wish there was an ad blocker that worked as well as uBlock for TV and radio, but alas there isn't, so I suffer there...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Way to stay relevant, Ed!
When you have idiots like Lauren Weinstein ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... making excuses [google.com] for for ad blockers:
and when someone points out his stupidity:
Even Mozilla [mozilla.org] has this stupid mindset WRT Do Not Track:
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Do Not Track doesn't actually do anything.
If anything, it just gives one more piece of information for sites to collect ... that you are stupid enough to believe DNT has any impact on you being tracked.
DNT is a voluntary program, mostly ignored, and which has no authority behind it. It was an attempt to short circuit someone imposing regulations on them.
I don't use DNT, because it serves no purpose. I just use privacy extensions to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the reality is, many of them ignore it now.
Do Not Track has absolutely zero value, doesn't do anything, and is entirely voluntary if anybody obeys it.
Do Not Track is a big lie.
The only real solution is to actively block the tracking sites, instead of relying on the goodwill of greedy assholes to not track you.
There is no spoon, and none of these companies give a shit that you don't want to be tracked.
Stop pretending that Do Not Track has ever been anything except a misdirection to keep someone else fr
Re: (Score:2)
Stop pretending that Do Not Track has ever been anything except a misdirection to keep someone else from imposing regulations on them.
Misdirection from who? It wasn't proposed by advertisers.
Completely Agree (Score:4, Funny)
Absolutely. I don't block ads, but ads get blocked, because my browser security package (noscript+requestpolicy) just doesn't load anything from a 3rd party site unless I approve it, and then doesn't run javascript unless I approve it.
Its generally a bit annoying but.... I put up with it for the same reason I wouldn't have sex with someone I just met without condoms. However, that isn't really even an apt comparison....because sex with a random person is, mostly a pretty rare event, even if you are trying.
Browsing the web is like.... if we replaced the social custom of saying "hello" with anal sex, and browsing a website is like going to a dinner party with your friend, and 20 of his friends that he brought along; and they are all anxious to greet you, and quite offended that you even brought up the word condom.
Re: (Score:3)
I used to use NoScript + RequestPolicy myself, but I got tired of having to regex some sites to work, etc. The way websites are now makes it such a monumental hassle. I still use NoScript but I use it along with Privacy Badger. Still pretty good blocking/protection, but not nearly as much regex chicanery like RP required.
Screw security (Score:2)
I do it because even without Flash, the ads are now javascript + canvas + video + audio + animation.
1. My bandwidth is limited, I only have a 5 Mbps connection. And at the rates the only ISP in town has, I'm not interested in paying for a higher speed.
2. I have a monthly data quota which is below 50GB. Again, we only have one ISP in town so I'm stuck with them.
3. I have an older computer with a Core 2 Duo CPU. When there's a few ads using javascript, canvas, etc. it slows down my browsing and takes seconds
Survey walls (Score:2)
Again, we only have one ISP in town
FlyHelicopters [slashdot.org], Bengie [slashdot.org], and Zero__Kelvin [slashdot.org] might reply that there are other towns.
I don't care about product category XYZ, I only viewed a website once because I was looking for something not related to category XYZ - how about letting us tell you what we're interested in?
So would you be happy if every single website put up a survey wall in order to read more than one article in a month?
Re: (Score:2)
But then that "central place" would be blocked by privacy advocates as "tracking the user".
Re:Ahem (Score:5, Insightful)
I think APK might disagree with you, sir.
In my opinion, APK is a (sometimes amusing) pest and likely psychotic, routinely manifesting signs of potential obsessive compulsive behavior and a tremendous need to appear clever and "right" in the eyes of others, to the point of routinely patting himself on the back and celebrating "victories" regarding matters of preference and opinion.
One could speculate that his parents (or other caregivers) failed to give him the level of affection and validation he required when growing up and he is forever trying to fill this hole in his soul by spamming, acting obnoxious, seeking agreement, and making other pleas for attention. It would explain a lot. I assume he'll continue to follow my posts and respond to each one of them for a while (again), now that I've said this. He clearly has a lot of rage and has difficulty simply disagreeing with someone. Instead, he has to stalk them for days, long after a normal well-adjusted person would have let the matter go, because he really cannot stand it when someone makes a point he cannot easily rebut. Like I said, I believe he may have psychological problems and should seek the help of a qualified therapist.
Anyway, a more reasonable person uses hosts files when they are the correct tool for the job, frequently combining them with a good ad blocker in order to gain the multiple layers that good security demands. A more reasonable person does not treat this as a religious issue. A reasonable person plans for anticipated threat scenarios, decides what level of risk is acceptable, selects the right tools for the job, and uses them in combination to produce the desired result. No spamming or obsession is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
No complaints from me, I like APK's spam. Reminds me to use a host file. Also, his stuff is free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It introduces the risk that you are relying on a third party to update your hosts file, potentially opening you up to MITM attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
He came in here sowing the wind trolling me yet again or talking about me when I wasn't even here to see it?
Please point to where I say anything about you:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Also, you were already in the thread, and you have demonstrated by your repeated posting on my comment that I did nothing behind your back.
As I have repeatedly said: Despite your paranoia, I am not the one posting as AC, I post and Coren22, and no one else.
You really need to stop making shit up, it just makes you look nuts man.
Re: (Score:2)
A. respect your wishes
B. not be pre-r00t'd
Both are a fantasy.
blocklists belong in your firewall, not the devices you have the least control over (PCs).
Many sysadmins will question the validity of saying the PC is the network component you have the least control over.... those who say that aren't familiarized with Windows 10 yet.
APK Hosts File Engine is proprietary (Score:2)
Also, his stuff is free.
APK Hosts File Engine is not free software [gnu.org]. It's proprietary, and APK intends to keep it that way. When I told him that proprietary software inherently has strings attached, here's what he said [slashdot.org], with cleaned-up formatting:
Re: (Score:2)
(Plus - it's also the reason why AVAST won't give up their source to governments who have been KNOWN to try subvert antivirus programs especially (device drivers kernelmode level access privelege is why - subvert those wares using that, you have the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM & it's done to find exploits in those antivirus programs or other security wares)
Yes that's known as "security through obscurity" which is definitely an oxymoron. This isn't opinion and it's not debatable. Security through obscurity isn't security at all.
A program for which you have the source and still cannot successfully attack is a truly secure program. Especially for security-oriented software, anything less is unacceptable. You can try to attack a default OpenBSD setup if you don't believe me...
Exclude hosts from Windows Defender (Score:2)
I think some updates have removed read write ability on my hosts file.
Windows Defender in Windows 8 and later treats .../etc/hosts as a protected file [slashdot.org] because some malware has operated by redirecting facebook.com to a phishing site. If you want to manage the hosts file yourself, exclude it from Windows Defender.
But hosts files do have other disadvantages [pineight.com]. For one thing, the syntax doesn't allow wildcards or explicit NXDOMAIN. For another, most operating systems' built-in resolvers use an inefficient linear scan for every resolve call rather than loading the file into an effic
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, iOS and Android don't even let the user edit the file at all unless the user wipes and roots the device and voids its warranty.
You say that like it's a bad thing ...
I'd be interested to know if you have any stats on the actual performance hit of using a large hosts file. Personally, I find it an excellent way to block ads (and other odious sites) at the source. It's not my only adblocker, but it's a damn effective one (and there are good online sources for up-to-date lists that you can periodically update from).
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, iOS and Android don't even let the user edit the file at all unless the user wipes and roots the device and voids its warranty.
You say that like it's a bad thing ...
Like voiding the warranty is a bad thing, or like lockdown is a bad thing? Which exactly did you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Windows Defender in Windows 8 and later treats .../etc/hosts as a protected file [slashdot.org] because some malware has operated by redirecting facebook.com to a phishing site. If you want to manage the hosts file yourself, exclude it from Windows Defender.
Perhaps I'm a little old-school on this topic ... but if malware has already been introduced into your system, to the point where it can execute code and overwrite system files, you're already compromised. You have no certainty about what else it has done or could do. You can never trust that system again until you format (better, securely wipe) and re-install from known-good media.
Thus, to me, this feature of Windows Defender seems useless and likely to interfere with legitimate configuration, as we'r
Re: (Score:2)
The only real differences between your advice and mine: I only give mine when either direct
APK's article about the other layers (Score:2)
Anyway, a more reasonable person uses hosts files when they are the correct tool for the job, frequently combining them with a good ad blocker in order to gain the multiple layers that good security demands.
APK agrees that hosts files are only one component in a layered security strategy [slashdot.org]. Eight years ago, he wrote a detailed article about the other layers [neowin.net].
Re: (Score:2)
(Security researchers & even antivirus programs are being 'targetted for termination' by the spy agencies + GOOGLE CHROME was abused to create malware as well - that's ontop of my code is MY CODE as you noted - I don't "give away" my HARD WORK to others so they can steal it & claim it as "their own" (goes on like mad too due to "Open SORES")).
Did you seriously think that a state-sponsored spy agency doesn't have the talent and the virtually unlimited funding to disassemble a program of interest and look for vulnerabilities the hard way?
Precisely how do you suppose pirate groups keep successfully cracking elaborate copy protection/DRM schemes? Did you think they were given source? No. They weren't. And those tend to be rag-tag groups with nothing like the talent and resources of government agencies. Often they are simply individuals runni
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno... I have a stalker that pops up once in a while. Just think of it as you having the power to control them and it does your ego some good. They're just powerless, sad, people who feel obliged (and entitled) to voice their opinions in an effort to control you. The reality is, you control them. Just a few packets, some ones and zeros, and you can control their behavior. It's titillating.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it funny how nothing in your reply actually rebuts any part of my post? You falsely cry about libel when I was giving a clearly labe
Re: (Score:2)
Look, they found what causes your delusions of grandeur!
http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc... [bbc.com]
Maybe they will finally find a cure.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, they found what causes your delusions of grandeur!
http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc... [bbc.com]
Maybe they will finally find a cure.
Wow. Look at all of those replies he posted.
That's a lot of text. I am a very fast typist and it would take me a significant investment of time to a) type that much and b) get a bunch of proxies [or whatever it is he does] to get around the Slashdot posting limits. Hell, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he won't open-source his hosts program because it includes a backdoor, allowing him to use other peoples' computers as HTTP proxies so he can spam Slashdot. I can't say whether or not this is
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Assuming the author is male constitutes a microagression. Please report to your local re-education center.
One millionth of an aggression (Score:3)
Assuming the author is male constitutes a microagression.
If that's the first microaggression, it'll take 999,999 more of them before there's even one real problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
https://pineight.com/mw/?title... [pineight.com]
Re: (Score:2)
From just the comments on this story (I may miss a few, because he only ever posts as AC so his posts aren't always easy to find):
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.=> Thanks for pointing them out to me - I'll just repost them + exhaust the downmodders modpoints... I have NO LIMITS on my post counts (unlike most acs here)... apk
So you are basically a guest on a site owned by someone else, and rather than respecting their rules, you openly brag about circumventing them.
What follows is my opinion. Got that? Will I need to spell that out for you later? Because you can read it right now.
This is who you are. A whiny, spamming, immature, psychotic, obsessive-compulsive pest. Daddy didn't love you enough? Is that your problem? Maybe the kids at school bullied you and picked on you and now you're gonna show us all how clever
Re: (Score:2)
I really wasn't trying to be condescending or anything, it's just that we see APK's posts on host files so often that you literally have to be new to Slashdot to not know about APK. Although I do admit he's been posting a lot less lately, but sometimes he wrote his wall-of-text posts several times in the same discussion.
In my opinion...
The funny thing is, when APK goes nuts and posts these huge walls of text, I just keep hitting PAGE DOWN until I see someone else's post. While he may think he's "speaking louder" by being an obnoxious ass, he's acutally causing me to ignore almost everything he says. I truly doubt I'm alone in that.
Re: (Score:2)
Which he claims to be because of a sockpuppet conspiracy!
It couldn't be because it is offtopic, troll, and redundant crap that no one cares about...no it has to be a conspiracy!
Re: (Score:2)
Which he claims to be because of a sockpuppet conspiracy!
It couldn't be because it is offtopic, troll, and redundant crap that no one cares about...no it has to be a conspiracy!
At present, I count seven very long, wall-of-words posts he wrote in response to you (that is, to this one post). Of course I didn't bother reading them. I just noted that they were there.
I believe you struck a nerve! A very nice, inflamed, tender, sensitive nerve. Being so simple and single-minded, lashing out is the only way he knows to respond to that. Look how desperately he struggles with paragraph after paragraph, trying to dilute and drown out your simple succinct truth.
Seldom have I seen
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is, he doesn't even realize that those posts point out specific points I made that contradict everything he says. I have tried to help him to learn to understand security, and understand why he turns people off, and rather than fix the issues, or address the problems, this is his response. I find it hilarious, he thinks he is winning a battle with me, while he is highlighting all the issues I brought up with his "product"
Now I am just simple enjoying tweaking that sensitive nerve to keep h
Re: (Score:2)
You should tell Snowden you think he is a moron. You seem to think you know better than everyone else, so maybe you and Snowden would get along nicely.
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the advertising industry identified it as a problem exactly because more and more people start using adblockers. What they fail to understand is that they themselves are the reason why people do it.
There were always the "on principle" blockers. People who'd block any and all ads "on principle" because, well, because because. But that was an insignificant number of people. It barely registered. Most of us, I dare say, didn't block ads right from the start. At least for me it was a "fair vs fair" business. You give me content, I let you display your ad to fund you. And hey, if you managed to be topical, I'd even click that ad!
But then greed set in. That was not enough. Too few people clicked the ads. Advertisers wanted more. And, used to users that can't defend against ads from their times on radio and TV, they had zero qualms about getting obnoxious. Ads started to flicker and strobe that would warrant epilepsy warnings. But people didn't click them either (hey, be honest, I barely could stand looking at them, let alone click them!). So full page pop-ups, pop-unders and pop-inyourfuckingface became usual. Along with eye-popping flickering and eardrum bursting blaring.
And then came Adobe Flash. And the ad bozos went into full blown overdrive banana mode.
And then something odd happened. Something that I didn't deem possible at all. Something so outlandish that, if anyone had told me about it 15 years ago, I would have told him that it's a nice dream but it will never, ever happen: The Joe Randomsurfers got fed up enough with ads that they started to reach for ad blockers.
Do you have a faint idea what feat this is?
We are talking about a group of people who don't want to deal with their computer, who don't really care how it works and who want to spend as little time as possible administrating it. The kind of people who willingly deal with 20 popups from some malware that piggybacked on freeware every single time they switch on their computer. The kind of people who deal with enough browser bars that the main window is barely visible anymore rather than finding out how to uninstall or at least deactivate them. The kind of people who have a bigger malware collection than the average anti virus researcher before finally deciding that it might be necessary to maybe start reinstalling their OS.
Can you even possibly imagine just HOW MUCH you have to piss such a person off with your ads that they start finding out how to get rid of them.
And that group of people is now blocking ads. And there is no way back. None. Can you imagine what herculean effort it would take? Nothing, absolutely nothing, the ad industry could do would even remotely get those people to move their asses again to uninstall that ad blocker.
Re:No Worries (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're right, then the web advertising business has screwed itself royally and irrevocably, until Joe User gets a new computer.
Seems like their only hope of coming back is to:
1) Stop being offensive
2) Deal with the fact that the market's shrunk for the next few years at least
and if they ever want me to disable my ad blocker:
3) Sanitize ads and pay for cleanup if they deliver malware.
Because the sad fact is that I was willing to put up with annoying, but I am NOT willing to put up with security risk. The same day that it registered with me that I could protect my computer's security by blocking ads, that's the day I put in an ad blocker.
--PM
Re: (Score:2)
The problem for them is that there is very little room for cutting corners here. Joe Randomsurfer will keep his blocker for reasons 1 and 2, and his computer savvy friend will tell him to keep it for reason 3. And there is exactly zero negative impact on Joe, so why should he not install it? He already found out that it ain't too painful to install it (it's basically no different than installing an app on his phone, it even works almost the same way), it works out of the box, web pages load faster and there
You are more tolerant than me (Score:5, Interesting)
3) Sanitize ads and pay for cleanup if they deliver malware.
See I'm not willing to even take a chance on the malware delivery. If there is even a remote chance of malware delivery then their ad will remain blocked until the end of time. I don't care if they are willing to pay for cleanup or not.
Because the sad fact is that I was willing to put up with annoying, but I am NOT willing to put up with security risk
You are more generous than I am. I'm not willing to put up with annoying OR with a security risk OR with tracking. If they want to pay me with cold hard cash, then and only then will I consider the limited circumstances under which I'm willing to be watched. Under no circumstances will I countenance a security risk or any irritation from advertisements.
Re: (Score:2)
See I'm not willing to even take a chance on the malware delivery. If there is even a remote chance of malware delivery then their ad will remain blocked until the end of time. I don't care if they are willing to pay for cleanup or not.
While I agree with the sentiment, surely that same logic applies to all websites. Any random site could serve up malware at any time.
Bonus bad features of ad networks (Score:2)
While I agree with the sentiment, surely that same logic applies to all websites. Any random site could serve up malware at any time.
It could but advertisements have some extra bonus features that make them worth blocking. First, I haven't ever gone to a website looking for advertising. Any advertising that is present is at best a distraction that consumes my bandwidth. They serve no useful purpose to me. Second, most random websites do not attempt to track my activities outside of that site. If Facebook wants to know what I do on Facebook then that's fine. Facebook knowing what I am looking at on eBay is not acceptable. Third, th
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part is that now they have ruined conventional advertising they will increasingly use product placement and paid articles. We have seen it happen with TV, where a lot of people skip the ads on their DVR so they put the ads in the show instead.
Actually I've noticed that some YouTube channels have started doing this. Not even big money professional channels, these are mostly hobbyists turned "pro" who just do woodworking or electronics videos. Right in the middle they stop to sell you some shit whic
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike TV, where you have only so many channels and only a handful of them actually show anything you like, there are literally thousands of YouTube channels, and dozens thereof present you essentially the same content.
If someone pesters you with product placement, just unsub and let him know why: Because you can't take his endorsements serious when they are clearly paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd estimate that 99% of what I watch are documentaries. If I see Brian Cox drinking a Coke and wearing a Nike hat and a shirt that says 'Disney' on it then, well, I'll probably stop watching. I don't even have OTA television hooked up at home. I did have satellite for a while but I got rid of that because I never watched it. I haven't really watched much "television" since the middle of the 1980s. They started having too many damned commercials, way back then, and I tired of it. The internet has been aweso
Re: (Score:2)
I actually wouldn't mind that. If the product placement doesn't get in the way of whatever show it happens to be done in, where's the harm? If the product gets more air time than the show, that's when we have a problem again.
But a presented wearing a shirt with a company slogan? Depending on the programming it may well increase the credibility of the show. If the protagonists of a sitcom drink coke or pepsi exclusively instead of "generic can of soda" and in return I get fewer ridiculous ads spliced in, cou
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would depend wildly on the subject matter. If, say, Brian Cox were (somehow?) doing a documentary on which soda tasted better then I'd probably stop watching if he were wearing a Coke shirt. Then again, at this point, it's so absurd that I might just watch it for the amusement value. I'm not a huge fan of covert attempts to manipulate me. If you want to do so then, by all means, do so - I'm okay with that. Just do it and be upfront about it and I'm okay.
Err... If that makes any sense. Slipping re
Re: (Score:2)
And there is no way back.
This. Because once you have an ad blocker installed, it doesn't matter if the ad industry changes for something more reasonable again. You'll simply not see it, so you won't uninstall.
Re: (Score:2)
And there is no way back.
This. Because once you have an ad blocker installed, it doesn't matter if the ad industry changes for something more reasonable again. You'll simply not see it, so you won't uninstall.
Until you get a new computer. Then it's not a question of whether you'll uninstall, but whether you'll re-install.
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason Joe Randomsurfer didn't install the AdBlocker originally was that he didn't know about it and that he didn't know just how easy it is. He's used to app installation on his phone by now, and installing an AdBlocker is essentially the same: Click on something in your browser and wait a moment.
And he did immediately notice the benefit it had for him. He will install it again when he gets his next computer. Because instantly the ads will go on his nerves again.
Should ads change, then slowly and
Re: (Score:2)
I see more and more sites telling me that they won't serve content unless I disable my adblocking software. They even are helpful enough to tell me how to disable it. That might be motivation enough for Random Joe to simply uninstall it. "Man, I really want to see this cat video!" If he says and sees that often enough, he may just remove it entirely.
Even before I install Opera - I install AdBlock Plus. Then I go to download Opera. I even do this with live sessions running from USB. Then, with Opera, I insta
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing, absolutely nothing, the ad industry could do would even remotely get those people to move their asses again to uninstall that ad blocker.
True, but not particularly relevant.
They don't need to get people to uninstall the ad blocker, they just need to make ads sufficiently non-annoying that when people get a new device they aren't motivated to re-install the ad blocker.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work. For two reasons.
First, even IF it worked, people don't get a new PC at the same time. The advertising industry would have to "behave" for an incredibly long time for this to work out. I just don't give an industry with the self-centeredness and greed of a three year old that kind of patience.
Worse, yet, that Joe Randomsurfers that got used to blocking will continue to do so. They learned that blocking is hassle-free and easy to do. It's like installing an app. Something they know well from their
Re: (Score:2)
On the whole, very few people block ads.
Well, you happen to be wrong. 22% of users is very few? 200 million people worldwide are estimated to use ad-blockers, and the past few years have seen very dramatic increases in these numbers, which is why the ad companies and some website operators are starting to panic.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't allow Javascript, you do lose some stuff like spellchecking most (all?) mapping services. OTOH, the idea that I can trust web sites I know nothing about to download and run safely obscure little programs on my computer has always struck me as demented.
One thing about Snowden's recommendations though. There does need to be some balance between security and pragmatism. If, for example, all your financial information is on your hard drive (and its backups -- you Do have backups, right?) and you
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously: dear web designer: if your page/ad/whatever is Javascript-o nly, I won't see it. Period.
That approaches Stallman-level impracticality.
How is graceful degradation suitable for these? (Score:2)
How would a real-time chat application or collaborative whiteboard "gracefully degrade" without scripts and without Flash? All I can think of is "read-only, press Ctrl+R to refresh". And how would a game such as Pirates Love Daisies [pirateslovedaisies.com] or Cookie Clicker [dashnet.org] gracefully degrade? By providing native versions for fourteen different platforms?
Re: (Score:2)
a real-time chat application or collaborative whiteboard
You're talking about things that are either more suited to an intranet
Not always. Public chat includes tech support on vendors' web sites and web IRC gateways, which need AJAX in order to poll for new messages. Public whiteboard-type things include oekaki sites, which need JavaScript canvas to function. Anti-JavaScript hardliners believe that such applications ought to be native.
or Web games, both of which require javascript to work.
Anti-JavaScript hardliners believe that games ought to be native applications. But not all developers have the resources to maintain a native app strategy across fourteen different platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Score: clueless moron
Re:Block Them All! (Score:5, Informative)
I strongly suggest adding Request Policy, No Script, and Ghostery to that mix on Firefox. ABP covers some, but doesn't cover all of it. You still have scripts and 3rd party beacons and other crap you're not blocking and not even aware of.
If you need multiple browsers, with Chrome I reccomend: Script Safe, Ghostery, HTTP Switchboard, and Disconnect. Some of these are also available for Opera.
The sheer amount of crap in the average web page isn't something you can even see until you are actively blocking it. And then it's alarming just how much junk there is.
Re: (Score:2)
If you aren't using some form of progressive enhancement to make sure your website's core functions work without javascript then you are putting your users at risk.
How would a browser-based game such as Clicking Bad [nullism.com] be made with "some form of progressive enhancement"?