Only Thieves Block Pop-Ups 1376
aurelian writes "It's official: using browsing the web while blocking pop-up ads and other such exciting website enhancements is theft. Anti-leech.com are offering to protect your site from browsers blocking pop-ups (or 'theft tools' as they call them) - just try stealing from them with your favourite pop-up free browser. (I picked this up on the phoenix discussion forum...)"
Standards incompliance == theft? (Score:4, Interesting)
So? (Score:5, Interesting)
What are they going to do if browsers just *hide* the popup windows/banners, still loading the ads in the background?
This works well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Kinda funny, This browser had failed the test and been blocked from using the site. Found a direct link past the tester and was able to load up thier page.
Just goes to show you, everything is just a measure that is able to be bypassed.
Last time I checked... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to see the look on the faces of those suing because we are 'stealing' when the judge asks them where they get off attempting to impose requirements and fees upon a system that is designed to be open.
So?? (Score:1, Interesting)
They need to understand that people just really hate popups. They aren't needed - use a banner ad if you must.
Popups cause people to freak because they feel that they are losing control of their browser. Imagine if TV ads started messing around with your contrast and volume controls.
These same websites probably distribute software loaded with spyware.
Where are the pop-unders? (Score:2, Interesting)
leech? theft? enough of the propaganda! (Score:5, Interesting)
When sites put banners and say, please click on these links because it helps us fund the site, I usually do. Why? Because it shows respect, it's honest, and it doesn't treat me like a "leech" that needs to have measures taken against me.
Re:doh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Who's the theif? (Score:4, Interesting)
Advertising is ok, and so is stealing (Score:2, Interesting)
Also I think that blocking off adverts when you brouse someones website is a little like stealing. I dont do it and I think its wrong to.
But Popups are designed to be annoying. I delibretly stop using brands which use popups.
People who use popup ads should realise that they are overpricing their product. I cant put up with them so yes I do steal the websites content. I am happy to view adverts for good content but when they overprice themselves I resort to stealing. I also cant affoard some software and I also will steal that too. I justify this as I wouldnt have bought it anyway.
The problem here isnt with the whole human behaviour but its with the people who think they can change they way people behave for a few measely bucks.
No objections per se, besides, it won't work (Score:4, Interesting)
So I won't see the site.. not my loss but ultimately theirs as I can't/won't recommend it to anyone else. And sites might not show up in Google either using this kind of technology.
The idea of the Internet is that ultimately someone will build a better site.. anyone can publish something. If there's no useful site on a topic, some freak will stand up and make one that is better and more user-friendly. I know I have done so and I bet many others with me.
Or some browser developer might find a way to show the content after all. Not that I actually see people pay for this stuff to put it on their sites.
Similar to my Comcast experience last night (Score:4, Interesting)
Needless to say the attitude of many companies these days is all wrong. Making you view popup ads. Trying to blame product shortcomings on the consumer etc. Well, I am cancelling my Digital cable, and I will not visit sites with obnoxious popup strategies.
If you want to do well in business, don't piss on your cutomers or potential customers.
How about the other way? (Score:2, Interesting)
I see it as less "evil" than blocking ads, because if I just block them the site doesn't get anything from the advertiser, but the advertiser doesn't really lose anything. This way the advertiser should have it pretty hard to figure out which ads are seen and which are not, and the site should be paid at least a bit.
Re:doh! (Score:3, Interesting)
For all companies that started up on hype and don't have a sound business model: please, belly up, like, immediately. That means you too, anti-leech.com...
Re:sure.. and let's not forget... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bad Business Model to begin with (Score:2, Interesting)
So how should websites generate income, at the very least, enough income to cover the costs? Apart from the direct financial costs of hosting, to make a decent website requires a LOT of work. Should website creators just sacrifice hundreds of hours of their spare time, often almost ALL of their spare time, so that people can get stuff for nothing, and then still bitch about it like a bunch of spoilt brats if its not quite what they expected?
I run a modest website with a few banner ads, no popups. I get maybe 200 to 400 visitors per day. The hosting costs me $12/month. I don't think I even make half that back from the banner ads. And that doesn't say anything about just what a huge amount of work it is to provide content for the website and keep it up to date. Basically spending many evenings and weekends producing stuff and giving it away for free. And then people still have the gall to bitch and whine about some little aspect of a freeware game of mine that sucked, or how much something else on the site sucked, or going ballistic if there is one small factual error in a free article I spent days writing. Yes its a minority of people, but god, what a bunch of spoilt brats.
The vast majority of people don't even bother to write a small 'thank you' even when they've found the site useful. Some do though, which is much appreciated.
Anyway, back to my question though, how SHOULD people make money from their websites? Or should thousands of people in the world just work their butts off to give YOU stuff for free?
Anyone who has ever tried to produce something worthwhile, such as a website, in their spare time, in addition to having a full-time job, will probably understand these sentiments.
I Already Figured it Out... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:doh! (Score:2, Interesting)
And you cannot call it stealing. You choose NOT to view certain content. The main post is BS.
Pretty soon, you'll be saying NOT downloading and installing Gator and Hunterbar and the like is 'stealing' from the sites too, huh?
Not meant as a flame or anything, really.
--iie1195
Re:doh! (Score:4, Interesting)
If they didn't want to pay bandwidth costs, they wouldn't have placed their site online. That is an assumed cost of operating.
Yes, we browse their sites for free, and it's perfectly within their rights to send us pop-up ads. But I agreed to no terms of service when I typed in their address.
If they're going to recoup their costs, they're going to have to do it smarter. Salon [salon.com], for example, won't let you access their premium content unless you pay, and that's fair. They've implemented a system that doesn't make assumptions. It doesn't really work [newsmax.com], but it's still fair.
Whether or not it's a big inconvenience is a matter of opinion, a moot point, and not worth discussing. The issue is whether or not I'm allowed to block their pop-ups altogether.
Wait, scratch that. That's how they want us to think. The issue is whether or not they are allowed to force me to see what they want me to see.
I say no.
Re:doh! (Score:2, Interesting)
all you're obligated to do is to look at those ads. whether you click on them or not, is your perogative. if you don't click it, you're not stealing and no, you aren't required to buy anything so as not to be considered a thief. all you have to do is look at the ad.
by disabling pop-ups, you're denying the company the opportunity to even have you look at the ad, and possibly click on the ad.
look at this way: in return for having a 30% discount at blah blah steakhouse, all you have to do is attend a short sales pitch by a salesman about the latest bbq sauce on the market. its only right that you hear out the salesman. whether you buy the bbq sauce or not is up to you. you sure as hell can't just walk out on the salesman before he gets a chance to do his pitch.
Mozilla's stance on this issue... (Score:5, Interesting)
However as of now its an open issue at Mozilla with no clear solution in sight. This is going to be an arms race no doubt.
Re:doh! (Score:2, Interesting)
why not ?
Re:doh! (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, it's down right obnoxious. God forbid you browse the web on a slow computer... you go to one site and you could grind your browsing to a halt as 10 pop up windows for Spy Cameras and porn sites explode over your desktop.
Closing 10 windows when you enter and leave a site IS an inconvenience in that respect.
If a website is making its income from pop-up ads, warn the user first. "We can't find a better way to make money other than through pop-up ads, please understand our site is not free.. blablabla". That way we can all avoid it, and the company will go out of business anyway... pop-up ads are just sleazy. It's the equivalent of companies that purchase phone lists to sell storm windows or carpet cleaning. It's invasive and rude. Put a damn banner ad somewhere, and if we want to view it, we will.
Final note: Most people still use Internet Explorer and have no clue you CAN block pop-ups... these users are the only people who may fall for the "spy camera", the "cell phone enchancer", the "computer monitoring software", or the "Oh my god your computer has porn on it! Click here to get it off" tricks, so they aren't losing their target market. My personal favorite is the pop-up ad asking you if you want a pop-up ad blocker.. bah..
Ads and ADS (Score:3, Interesting)
now those my friend, are the true reason pop-up killers exsist. The worst part is when they start combining these "marketing techniques", which is almost always the case.
There should be advertisment guidelines (just suggesting, not enforcing) on the internet about how advertisemnt should be on the internet. Perhaps a label you could place on your website:
"This site is not a rotting cesspool of annoying pop-ups"
(note: most of the malices usually occur in IE)
Cool! (Score:3, Interesting)
TV Watching (Score:2, Interesting)
The other asked us why we do that...we were both speechless for a heartbeat, and then we had to explain how irritating we find commercials - they are louder, they are demeaning to the intelligence, they are lying, etc...he still didn't get it.
When it was something we were only "marginally" interested in, we'd sometimes watch 3-4 shows...flipping back and forth, usually triggered by a commercial.
I've always watched TV in this manner. And then, I got Tivo.
I've spent most of my adult life not seeing (many) commercials on TV, and much of my childhood I didn't even HAVE A TV! Call me a criminal.
When people say, "Didja see that commercial where..." I'm that guy with the clueless look on his face...pure, blissful ignorance.
I find popups to be annoying, and over-use of flashing banners on the top, both sides, and at the bottom with 1x1 sq inch reserved for content. But casual use is tolerable, I suppose.
Here's one thing to be thankful for, though: I haven't seen any that use sound. [Diety] help us all if that happens...
Future of advertizing (Score:4, Interesting)
2: Pop up a new window with requested content.
Works for me
Re:Workaround (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just fine by me (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if this special code can be cleaned before it reaches the browser by The Proxomitron [proxomitron.org] or your favourite page-scrubber proxy. It might be a little annoying to disable javascript every time I run into one of these. (Perhaps the mozilla crew will make a nice interface for per-site javascript blocking.)
Re:Bandwidth costs MONEY (Score:2, Interesting)
Now imagine that you could block that data, saving yourself money, and preventing the forced spending of your money(ie, theft).
What these people don't seem to get is that we have no contract with them. They've simply put the site out in the open for anyone to access. If they want to charge for the site, go for it, but accusing people of theft when they've commited no such theft is just childish.
It's the people that have pop-ups on their site who are the leeches. They're stealing our bandwidth, and I
Re:What about theft from me? (Score:2, Interesting)
Adverts removed: 64,911
Approximate bandwidth saved: 513MB
Counter started: May 13, 2002
That seems to be assuming a typical advert is 8K, which seems reasonably enough. I'm on broadband so it wouldn't have affected me as much, but I have sympathy for anyone on 56K dial-up.
Anti-HTML (Score:2, Interesting)
---- BEGIN Anti-HTML Example Code ----
<font size=3 face=verdana>
This HTML code is protected by Anti-Leech.com<br><br>
With help of the Anti-Html system you can protect both parts of your page or all source code. We can even protect java scripts.<br><br>
Take a look in the source code of this page for a better view of how good the protection actually is.
</font>
<br><br>
------------- teee heee -----------------
Another sign of a slowing dot com economy (Score:2, Interesting)
RUNNING A WEBSITE WITH ADDS WILL NOT KEEP YOU AFLOAT!
Once people get that through thier 1998 skull, they can start using the web for what it was originally intended for... sharing information, research, and communication. (ok and a little online gaming as well
These idiots don't seem to want to accept that the market has changed. just look at salon.com
--Finger me
ouch... not hard, yeah.. that's better.
Re:it's your duty to block ads (Score:1, Interesting)
I hate popup ads as much as anyone, but (Score:5, Interesting)
They mentioned the salon system where you are basically forced to look at an ad for a time before getting the content.
The way I see it, broadband of any kind is a premium service. Why pay for it if the crap from the marketing folks reduces the quality of the experience to that of dialup? Think about it for a moment, if you use free Juno or something, what do you get? Ads --too many of them to make it worthwhile, so you upgrade service, but why? For a better experience of course! So, if the actions of the marketing people degrade this, does this not devalue the very service you pay extra for? Duh!
Personally, I like the ads that are intermixed in with the content. Most of the benefit of broadband is preserved, and the ads get eyeballs.
I can somewhat agree that browsing with popup support disabled somehow can be thought of as stealing, but what about malicious pages and such? How are users supposed to secure their machines without the freedom to reasonably define what their machine will and won't do for them?
Battling the customer for their attention is never going to work. It costs more money and generates more bad PR than good impressions, so why do it? You would think these types of all people would know this cold.
This sort of thing just limits the usefulness of the Internet just a little more for nothing but the profit of the losers selling this service.
Salon is going the wrong direction by holding content until the ad is viewed. These folks are just as bad. How are the people who place ads in a reasonable way doing? For that matter, how about the
To everyone considering foolish schemes like this:
How the hell are you going to get this by forcing the issue? Really, tell me how, I want to know!
Know also, I don't have to get the content.
This means more than you would think. We are all being attacked more and more in this new age of information. This will backfire and when it does, where will you be then? Consider your answer again after you remember also that everyone gets to talk about it --a lot and for a long time.
Right now, there is more content presented than I can reasonably view. When I seek to meter my Internet time, guess who won't get the attention?
Remember that when your stats go down as interested visitors don't come back after being treated like criminals. Our time is valuable too, why not create an experience that rewards participation rather than the opposite? It can be done though it takes work. Isn't that what we are supposed to be doing to make money. Isn't money made by adding value where you realistically can?
Maybe there is some hope left though. If we feedback (which is what they really want anyway) our negative experiences, marketing people will begin to seek those who are actually working at providing an experience that people will come back for.
Tell 'em what you think people, it is the only thing that actually matters in the end.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:doh! (Score:1, Interesting)
Now to the point of all this...
"I'd like to see some serious statistics on banner ads vs. pop-ups."
Thought about this for a bit. I think you're on to something here. I want to see these statistics too. Banner ads work on me. Sure I tune them out nine-tenths of the time, but I do actually intensionally click on them now and again. A few of Salon's adds have been intriguing enough to get me to follow them and the odd one on slashdot is as well (though I can't say that I've been enticed by the VStudio ads yet). The only time I remember actually following a pop-up was when an Orbitz popup was one of those extra evil ones that don't require clicking, mousing over them is enough follow the link. Given the potential and evidence of abuse of these things I'm surprised that popup blocking isn't turned on by default as a security feature in a lot of browsers these days.
Re:Completed ages back, actually (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hey! I got that label on Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
if they don't like it, they can get out of town (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see a problem. If they don't want to put a full featured web site on-line for free, they don't have to. Nobody is forcing them.
If there existed a way to automatically reformat a printed newspaper into a non-ads newspaper, they'd have to charge everyone more and due to reduced audience they'd also have to cut jobs and lower the quality of the articles.
Tough cookies. Technology makes some good business models go bad and eliminates certain categories of jobs. It happened for farming, it happened for manufacturing, why should newspapers or content providers be exempt?
So, the bottom line is it's ok for you to try to block adds, as long as you can recognize that when your favourite site closes you are part of the reason.
The fewer sites that are created with commercial motives in mind, the better, as far as I'm concerned. Companies and advertising already dominate newspapers, television, and radio. I think it would be great if such business models simply didn't work on the Web. So, please, go ahead: block all you can.
Google selling out? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:sure.. and let's not forget... (Score:2, Interesting)
TNN have a CONSTANT black bar at the bottom of the screen telling you you're watching TNG or whatever. Of course rather than chop the bottom of the image off, they show it in fabulous squish-o-vision...
WORST surf logo I've seen was a station up here called Country Canada. I was taping Twin Peaks (cutting the ads out... WOO! I'm a thief!), and there was a HUGE blue logo in the corner of the screen telling me the station. I wrote and bitched about it to the network CEO and he wrote back saying, amongst other things, and this is a DIRECT quote, "the logo provides a source of comfort to our viewers". Seriously, that was what he said. He then went onto say they were going to make it less intrusive (so read that and his prior statement as "we want our viewers to feel LESS "comfortable"..."). Last time I checked, which admittedly was when the 6 month free period ended, it was still the same.
Oh, and on this same note, on SOME Global channels up here, in the middle of shows we get a sponsor logo in the left corner and then... the weather forecast in the right. TOTALLY destroys the atmosphere of any TV show. Was watching "Band of Brothers" recently, and it was a case of "We're in 1944... OH WAIT! It's snowing apparently" and being bought crashing back to reality.
I've since stopped watching channels that do that.
Re:Bad Business Model to begin with (Score:2, Interesting)
People universally hate pop-ups anyway. Low End Mac [lowendmac.com] did an Annoying Web Stuff [lowendmac.com] survey. According to the survey, "98.6% of those surveyed dislike popups and pop-unders, 83.8% strongly dislike them, and over one-third (34.5%) avoid sites with them when they can." That was more annoying to the survey participants than regular ads for gambling and porn!
An ad may grab the viewers attention if it's annoying, but how many of us actually buy products based on annoying ads. I, for one, would avoid GM cars ("nothin' beats nothin'") and AFLAC insurance because of their obnoxious ads *alone*
Whu? (Score:5, Interesting)
So I ran their example, and checked it out. Sure enough, they block right-click, shift-f10, and the right-click key on the keyboard. Next stop, my browser's cache. Whoops! All the files and images are in there. Do'o!!
Re:Hey! I got that label on Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
But what if I only paid for the channels I actually watched? That would be the capitalist ideal--channels would have to actually put something on that people would pay for. Instead, you have to take a package that includes crap like TBS, TBN, a bazillion espns, etc. I could easily get by with about 10 stations at the moment, plus 4 broadcast stations that fall under the must carry rule. SF, TNN, CNN, CNNhn, BBC, TLC, Discover, Animal Planet, Showtime and HBO, Fox, WB (our local station carries Buffy and Enterprise because we don't have a UPN affiliate).
Re:Theft? Offensive! (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why I want the penultimate filtering technology: the glasses from 'They Live,' rigged to filter out any advertising you happen to see, even in real life.
My God -- they'd be glorious.
Re:Just fine by me (Score:2, Interesting)
Reece,
it really is.. wow. (Score:4, Interesting)
As lame as it is, any discussion about circumventing the protection scheme could conceivably be prosecuted under the DMCA [eff.org].
The law says:
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
It looks like a circumvention method was just "offered to the public" for the purpose of circumventing a protection measure.
Wow.
Re:Hey! I got that label on Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't agree. You have to wonder for starters why it's so easy to block these ads.
It's partly/mainly because the ads redirect you to another site. Is this necessary? No.
Also, why are they redirecting you to another site? It's because they want to track you across the web. I DON'T want to be tracked across the web. I call that spying; I find that deeply unethical, far less ethical than me turning off the advertisements.
I mean what you going to do? Visiting a website should not invalidate my need for privacy just because some idiot thinks they I owe them a living off stealing my privacy. This is every bit as evil, and far more insidious than spam- this is a real 1984 scenario happening in our lives.
Making money on the web should come from selling stuff. Not stealing my privacy. And no I don't care if the websites go broke. I don't owe them a living, just because they think I do. This is the real issue.
Fine, if they want to turn the site off unless I agree to spying- in that case, I ain't going to that site, and I recommend you don't either.
Re:Just fine by me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just fine by me (Score:4, Interesting)
I do not tolerate annoying java ads and popups. I block those. No site should need to resort to popup ads, unless the webmaster is simply greedy.
Kazaa Lite hates ad-blockers (Score:2, Interesting)
Evil bastards (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kazaa Lite hates ad-blockers (Score:2, Interesting)
Technically speaking, if you install kazza lite correctly, you get blocked from their webpage.
Re:Hey! I got that label on Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Too true! Now I work in the online porn industry. Most annoying spammers, popup artists, and what not, I know.
Recently did an ad campaign using free sites you find on link lists. Two pages of nudie pics, and the only ad was a single standard banner with the site name and catch phrase. 80% of the people who went to the free website visited the pay site. That is incedibley high, if you were wondering :P
My theory in the design was that either people would appreciate the ad free approach and visit out of appreciation (for lack of a better word), or that they would think the pay site was so good it didn't need to fill every pixel with some BS hype. Don't know what it was, but it worked.
I'm in the process of converting all my sites using this approach, and will definately use it more in future promotions.
FWIW I never did popups, "free" sites with hidden fees, or any of that other crap. Honestly got into the biz because I loved porn but hated what was offered :P
DONT DO THIS (Score:1, Interesting)
So I've used something like the following from time to time just to vent my frustrations. It uses curl to fetch URLS from a site and embeds nice messages in the URL, the UA field and the referrer field. The idea is that a responsible (!) webmaster will notice this in the logs. Of course it is not likely to go to the people who actually need to get the message. Just to make that more likely that it be noticed by someone (anyone!) the messages sent are intermixed with random fortunes. I doubt it will teach the sleazeoids anything interesting, but maybe they'll at least get a chuckle out of it.
There is a delay programmed in so this won't just hammer a site (which would be a DOS and illegal).
Of course I've since seen the error of my ways and sold my soul, so I will recommend AGAINST every considering anything like this - after all it might be considered a theft of service in that it actually takes up the webmaster's time.
Still, it was fun to write and run once or twice.
Python code follows
import string, re, os, random, time
replpat=re.compile(r'[^a-zA-Z0-9.?!_,:;-]+')
host="http://www.anti-leech.com/"
def getmsg()
m = os.popen("fortune", "r").read()
return replpat.sub("_", m)
while 1
cmdstr = 'curl -A "%s" -e "%s" %s/%s -o
ref="Oh_go_away_you_vendors_of_intrusive_software _however_you_might_justify_it_given_that_you_are_
ua ="I_ll_use_a_popup_blocker_when_I_want_after_all_
suburl="its_you_who_are_the_leeches_not_us"
if random.random() < 0.5
ref=getmsg()
if random.random() < 0.5
ua=getmsg()
if random.random() < 0.5
suburl=getmsg()
cmd = cmdstr % (ua,ref,host,suburl)
print cmd
#
# DO NOT UNCOMMENT THE LINE WITH "os.system" below !!!!!
# this script is only intended for its amusement value
# do not actually use it
# os.system(cmd)
time.sleep(5) # dont want to do a DOS - just make sure the message shows up in the log files
Re:Theft? Offensive! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just fine by me (Score:2, Interesting)
It used to be that Freedom of Speech was a protected thing, it still is. But the best quote I ever heard about Freedom of Speech came from the Supreme Court.
"You have the right to swing your fist, but that right ends at the tip of my nose."
Similarly advertisers have a right to freely display their advertisements. However, their right ends at my computer as it is the virtual extension of my nose.
They have a right to advertise. We should have the right to look away, fast forward, step out, and even block. Otherwise we have little choice but to ostracize those sights to prove these efforts to be ineffective and potentially counter-productive.
For me, if someone demands that I view ther ads or be unable to view their content, I will leave and never come back. The internet is really getting screwed by the commercialization of the web.
I spend most of my bandwidth on email, IRC, and other person-to-person tools and less and less each day on web pages. Web pages are too costly in terms of advertisement, CPU load, spam generation, registration requirements, deception of content, and manipulation in general.
Ten years ago the Internet was awesome! Five years ago the Internet was still pretty darn cool. But between the problems of cross-linking, deep-linking, spam, forced advertisements, and such it's actually becoming worse than Cable TV or regular broadcast television
Re:it really is.. wow. (Score:3, Interesting)
The DMCA never said its applications had to make sense...
Actually, you are displaying modified content and circumventing a mechanism designed to protect the integrity of that content. I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't be surprised if they took a shot at this.
It's not like it's the most far fetched application of the DMCA I've ever seen...
Re:Just fine by me (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. I have no problem with advertising per se. Ordinary banners
I don't complain about; occasionally, I even follow one. (So far, on
occasions that I've followed one, the ad has always been narrowly
targeted for the specific content of the page I was viewing; e.g., an
ad for shell accounts ("Panix" IIRC) on a website that provided
information about using Unix. Ads like that I'm not unhappy about
at all. Most of the ones on
squarish ones that get embedded in the story are mildly annoying
because of the way they screw up the layout. But not annoying
enough that I'd actually _do_ anything about it, like block them or anything.) If you want me to see your ads, just present them as
regular ordinary ads. I have no problem with that.
Popups, however, are totally unacceptable. Until Mozilla added
dom.disable-open-during-load, I almost never surfed with Javascript
turned on at all, and just skipped most sites that required it.
I have other things to do with my time than close a bunch of extra
windows all the time. Mozilla doesn't send anything back to the
site when it ignores a popup, so they're obviously using some kind
of chicanery to determine that; whatever it is, the message is a
clear "we don't want you on your site", and believe me, with the
size of the web being what it is, I can find another site that will
be more hospitable in about the same amount of time it would take
me to check the little "popups" checkbox on my prefs toolbar, give
or take a couple of seconds. Guess which I'm more likely to do?
This is not an issue of rights; it's an issue of practice. The
site (assuming it's a private-sector site, which seems like a
reasonable assumption if we're talking about ad revenue) of course
has the right to refuse to serve me pages for any reason, even if
it's "we don't like the list of languages your browser accepts" or
"you are in the same subnet with a former employee, and we didn't
like the colour of his trousers". Hey, you want to block me, block
me; there's _lots_ of other content on the net.
The thing is, there are two ways this can turn out, depending on
how many people find out how to block unrequested windows (which,
realistically, depends on whether any major browser ever ships with
them blocked by default). If almost nobody blocks popups, then the
resources a site expends checking everybody will dwarf the small
amount of resources they are ostensibly saving by doing the blocking.
That is the current situation. If a major browser (e.g., AOL) ever
ships with unrequested popups off by default, then the sites that
refuse to switch to other forms of advertising will be locking
themselves out of that much traffic and ad revenue. Either way,
sites that insist on popups are hurting themselves. And as far
as I'm concerned, they're _only_ hurting themselves.
There are other types of advertising I'm also unwilling to view,
too. Blatantly fraudulent advertisements (such as the ones that
try to pass themselves off as dialog boxes) are Distilled Evil, for
example, and if I worked at the FTC I'd try to go after them. It's
an offense worthy of jailtime, IMO. I'm not talking about mild
marketing optimism, but the outright fraud.
I'm also unwilling to view animations that don't stop. I allow
animated GIFs to play through _once_, but no more. Under no
circumstances am I willing to surf with Flash enabled.
Sites that require any of these things, I just skip. This means
perhaps one in a hundred sites that I was going to view I end up
not viewing, but I always find equivalent content on another site
(usually in short order) because the web is getting pretty big
these days. I think pretty soon there might be more than a million
sites, or something. (Ahem.)
I don't see how this is a rights issue, just plain old stupidity.
Re:Hey! I got that label on Slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just fine by me (Score:3, Interesting)
> javascript blocking.)
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, a nice interface is all that's
lacking. If you want to mess with capability policies, you can
do that now. However, it's not worth the trouble; it's easier
to just find another site. When AltaVista's advertising got out
of control (more than four animated banners per page), I switched
to Google, which I've been using since. I _could_ have used a
proxy to block the ads, but it would have been a waste of time;
switching to Google accomplished the same thing without taking
up any of my time maintaining a block list.
Only thieves block popups...?!?! (Score:2, Interesting)
Can you say class-action libel suit??
"A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc."
Ok, and by popping up images, information, flash movies, etc., you're saving bandwidth *HOW*???
"If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence."
If you are going to call us theives, please at least spell expense correctly. Aside from nitpicking their spelling, do they honestly expect we all get *FREE* access to the internet? And that we all have extra time to read and close all the popups that? Our bandwidth costs us too, and our time is money too.
As I browse their site, I have closed at least 7 ads, AND a popup for that stupid Gator spyware.
Heh, they offer spam protection. But, if you follow their logic, blocking spam email is theft. Those spammers take all the time and effort (download list, slap into mass emailing program, hit enter, go read a Tom Clancy novel while the email zips off to inboxes unknown..) to email us with viagra offers, penis enlargers, and 19% credit cards. All that bandwidth they use, and the email lists they have to buy, and we're stealing by not reading their emails.
Heh, here's a blurb on cookies, "What cookies have to do with all this might be hard to understand at first, but blocking cookies can also cause major problems for webmasters. Many sponsors use cookies to track from which site a sale came from. E.g. if you visit a specific site, click an ad and chose to buy something the webmaster of the website you first came from obviously should earn some money from that. When blocking cookies that revenue could be lost..."
Sure, but they don't just want to track what website you came from, what you did at their site, and where you went to next afterwards... since they seem to be buddy-buddy with Gator, they want to know what you're doing on the web, at all times...
And, as seen in previous [slashdot.org]
"Ralsky, meanwhile, is looking at new technology. Recently he's been talking to two computer programmers in Romania who have developed what could be called stealth spam.
It is intricate computer software, said Ralsky, that can detect computers that are online and then be programmed to flash them a pop-up ad, much like the kind that display whenever a particular Web site is opened.
"This is even better," he said. "You don't have to be on a Web site at all. You can just have your computer on, connected to the Internet, reading e-mail or just idling and, bam, this program detects your presence and up pops the message on your screen, past firewalls, past anti-spam programs, past anything."
So, taking Anti-leech's [anti-leech.com] arguement to the logical extreme, blocking these invasions of privacy would be theft.
Ain't technology grand?
The feature google should have. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just fine by me (Score:3, Interesting)
The 'vampiric' banner ad machine Slain!!!!!!
Re:Just fine by me (Score:2, Interesting)
btw, the anti-leech theft monitor didn't detect my popup blocker (webwasher [webwasher.com]). It sounds like another snake oil scheme to me.
Re:Just fine by me (Score:2, Interesting)
For those folks using a Microsoft OS, there's a little proggie called eDexter [accs-net.com]. Basically, it works in conjunction with a nice HOSTS file, and sets up a teeny-tiny server at 127.0.0.1 - it fills all HTTP requests to localhost with a 1x1 transparent GIF, or an image or your own choosing.
There's also a Mac version available, but I've not tried it.
Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with the creator of this software.
Re:Just fine by me (Score:2, Interesting)
THEY ARE THE THEIVES!!! JAIL THEIR ASSES NOW!!
I wish, and lock up the spammers too.
Re:Almost there. (Score:2, Interesting)
But that doesn't change the fact that anti-leech is claiming that their method is secure. Buncha hosers, they are.