IE8 Will Contain an Accidental Ad Blocker 437
JagsLive sends in a Washington Post blog post reflecting on one privacy-enhancing feature of the upcoming Internet Explorer 8, the so-called "InPrivate Blocking" that has privacy advocates quietly cheering, and advertisers seriously worrying. Here is Microsoft's description of the feature. From the Post: "The advertising industry is bracing for trouble from the next version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, details of which were announced today, because it will offer a feature that blocks some ads and other content from third-parties that shows up on Web pages. A Microsoft spokesman said that the feature, to be known as 'InPrivate Blocking,' was never designed to be an ad blocker, though 'there may be ads that get blocked.' Instead, it was designed to stop tracking 'pixels' or pieces of code that could allow third-party sites to track users as they move around the Web."
They just don't get it do they (Score:4, Informative)
The two are one and the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:5, Funny)
I know! I know! (Score:5, Funny)
words?
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I know! I know! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's more a case of your humor not having any sense of moderation.
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me or does this Karma Train not make any sense?
Can I have +5 too? (Score:3, Insightful)
This post is clearly just as Funny/Insightful/Redundant as its ancestors.
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Funny)
Is it just me or does this Karma Train not make any sense?
Yes.
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Funny)
damn mods with no sense of humour
Well, that's a redundant statement too!
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Those responsible for moderating the moderators have been moderated
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the opposite... If IE8 had some really good anti-advertising stuff then I would be REALLY happy.
I am not against advertising, but I am against adverts that:
1) Suck up 50% of my CPU.
2) Make noise even though I don't want them to.
3) Decide to every now and then pop over my reading or viewing area.
I do click on adverts, and still want adverts, but I want adverts to behave like newspaper adverts!
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean like those Dice ads that Slashdot was displaying forever even though I emailed them repeatedly and told them it was crashing my browser and slowing down my computer?
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't it read a bit more like they're trying to block google analytics? Not that they're taking a direct shot at any particular company of course... maybe I'm just overly paranoid.
I don't think so. Google Analytics tracks many visitors to the same site, whereas this seems to be aimed at preventing tracking of the same visitor to many sites. In the MS blog it says it'll prevent the same cookie tracking you across more than 10 sites. I think the implication is that it's bad for Adsense, Doubleclick and the like as they can no longer track you through third-party cookies on dozens of sites and build up an advertising profile of you that way.
Good for privacy of course, but as so much of the web is ad-funded is this really going to be good for the web as a whole ? I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
I think it's interesting also that this is happening as Microsoft tries to become a bigger player in the internet ad business. They could use IE feature to their advantage here, as it'd be fairly easy for them to implement a scheme where all third-party cookies are limited, except for those of Microsoft and its "selected partners". Would we put it past them to do something along those lines ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Know thine enemy. Microsoft have unquestionably had numerous high level meetings about this, obviously they've alread
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
they seam to be doing it in a sneaky way but overall this is probably a good move for users.
microsoft have given us a built in ad-blocker
google will push firefox more and hopefully come up with a more private way to track users ( like offering a flag to randomise cookies between sessions)
google analytics .. (Score:3, Insightful)
I block Google Analytics because the page seems to hang on it, same with most third party advert sites. The main site seems to hang while downloading from some advert site, waiting on DoubleClick etc. Now if they incorporated this 'stuff' into a static page it would most probably improve my viewing experience and I would haven't to go to the trouble of blocking the adverts
Downloading thirty elements just to view a 6x4 inch s
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:5, Informative)
If by header, you mean , it's probably because that's where Javascript should be kept. All my webpages validate as xhtml strict, and placing the tag in is the only way for it to validate.
Wrong! The script element can be placed within either the head or body of a page, so placing it near the end is perfectly fine.
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but you're incorrect [w3.org]. The applicable block of valid XHTML, with the Google Analytics code where Google advises to put it:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
//<![CDATA[
//]]>
//<![CDATA[
//]]>
[snip]
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write("\<script src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'>\<\/script>" );
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-3044339-1");
pageTracker._initData();
pageTracker._trackPageview();
</script>
</body>
Posting anonymously, because I don't want to waste the moderation points that I've already applied to this thread.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let me guess, you posted that anonymously to avoid un-doing the moderation you... oh wait.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Content will delay loading until the analytics JS is processed which is dependent upon the reliability of google's servers.
I'm as big of a standards junkie as the next but validation is just a pat on the back and validators are good for highlighting something you may have overlooked but it's perfectly fine to ignore errors if you know why you're doing it (and of course have a good reason for doing so).
Stay, uh, evil, Microsoft. (Score:2)
Amen to that.If Microsoft want to help me keep the ever encroaching tentacles of Google at bay for a little longer, then more power to them. Yes, it's Microsoft, but Microsoft is a huge entity. I'm sure it has capacity within its big fat employee base for acts that are both beneficial and detrimental to the community. I'm happy to cheer them on when they do something I approve of (so far, that's just Windows XP, Excel (pre-2007) and this, but I'm sure there must be other things).
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:4, Informative)
You have tried adding something like *.google-analytics.com/* and/or http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js or maybe *urchin*.js directly...into Opera's 'Blocked Content' right? (as well as http://*.googlesyndication.com/*, etc)
Or you can set your options for cookies, java, etc using the google-analytics "Site Preferences", just right-click an empty area of a website (or go to Google-Analytics directly?), "Edit Site Preferences" then change the URL from that one, to goo~-anal~ (heh)... then set your prefs...
Works for me, as much as I need it to, but, as for blocking it outright, you'll have to use your HOSTS (or equivalent) file, router, or firewall, etc... to block it.
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah I am aware of those, however, the OP, as well as myself seem to prefer Opera, and dont deem this as worthy of switching browsers entirely. If he had said "In Firefox" then I would have suggested those...
However, Opera is capable of the same thing, disable JavaScript (or Java entirely if you want) then enable it on a per-site basis, even so far as allowing or disabling specific content/scripts within a certain page via Opera's built in stuff, or using custom (or ones people have made) CSS and JS's, etc etc...
The easiest is usually just using the "Block Content" (per-site basis on the context menu, different from 'Blocked Content' main settings) option, where it dims the stuff that can't be blocked, then you just click on anything you want to block.
Plus, there is various plugins and widgets that can do the same, or different (albeit a much smaller userbase/community than Firefox)
Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody that really wants ad blocking can do it now. Most of the people that do want it don't use IE.
All that this changes is control of the ads that are shown in IE. Instead of some 3rd party ad, you will get an ad that is 'blessed' by microsoft (after the advertiser pays a fee to M$).
From Microsoft's decription:
"Have you ever wanted to take your web browsing "off the record"? Perhaps you're using someone else's computer and you don't want them to know which sites you visited. Maybe you need to buy a gift for a loved one without ruining the surprise. Maybe you're at an Internet kiosk and don't want the next person using it to know at which website you bank."
IE8 is supposed to solve all of that? Bullshit.
Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid?
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft thinks that using an Internet kiosk for banking is OK? Are they really that out of touch?
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually no. I know plenty of non-computer people who I off hand mentioned ad blocking to. Generally the reaction is a stunned look followed by "you can do that?" and begging me to set it up for them. Most people don't even know it exists.
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:5, Funny)
You can do that!?... with a browser?
And all this time I've been blocking ads to all the machines on my network with a squid proxy... oh wait
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, are you running my code, by any chance?
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes you can do that. But first you must learn:
1. "Paint the fence"
2. "Wax the car"
Then you can effectively block ads.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can do that!? ... but how do you attach the ethernet cable to the tentacles?
You Don't - they connect by WiFi.
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's true. The trick is don't be talking about security, or start talking about security. Or simply recommend ad blocking out of the blue. Keep it off-handed. The classic geek "blah-blah-Lassie-blah-blah" just spooks them. They're happy to learn ads can be blocked. Say "heck yeah" and simply show them how, end of explanation. Continue to build trust like that and they /might/ be able to handle security advice from you after two years.
But you know, don't. I don't want ad blocking to be commonplace. That'll just cause ads that are harder to block for the rest of us, and it'll make it much less likely that the greater populace will become suprised and outraged enough about uncontrolled user-tracking to demand legislation. And finally start to wonder about the lack of relevant privacy legislation for the modern world in general.
The BT debacle is kinda the start of that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7438578.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider this hypothetical example. You walk into a shopping mall. In the middle of the shopping mall, there is someone in front of a kiosk who asks you if he can record what stores you visit while you're there as part of a survey. In order to do so, he writes down a description of what you look like - not your name - but what you're wearing, your height, etc. In several of the stores throughout the mall, there are people who identify you based on this data, and record whether or
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a great analogy, MS; you should mention that tracking cookies never ask permission.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A more accurate analogy would be someone walking up behind you and attaching a tracking chip to your backside without you noticing.
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, we can all do this ourselves either with the appropriate browser software and settings or at a network level. But don't you see? If Microsoft are billing this as a feature for the next IE, then it means this sort of stuff is reaching mainstream consciousness. And it's about bloody time. Good for M$, for once!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd go one further than that. If IE8 blocks this automatically, then this type of cookie will become pretty much obsolete.
Of course something will spring up to replace it.
Re: (Score:2)
Beer my friend, just beer and not the cool-aid.
Step right up (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
didn't microsoft say that their email spam blocking would allow sanctioned, but still unsolicited, emails from certain trusted parties to get through?
Since my hot mail account exists purely for the microsoft passport thing, I don't know if the account gets this sanctioned email or not.
Firefox Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Firefox Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you mean Adblock Plus... Adblock hasn't really been updated for about 4 years
I've found all I need is Adblock Plus with a subscription to "EasyElement+EasyList"
Re:Firefox Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what I thought also: in other words, IE will provide part of the functionality of NoScript and AdBlockPlus, starting from version 8.
Of course, they couldn't market it as such: it would be harder to plaster "innovation" all over it.
Marketing spin aside, this is good news: since most people still use IE, it's good that this should increase the privacy level for everyone (if implemented right, that is).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Install Firefox, whack in AdBlock , NoScript, and FlashBlock and you have more privacy and security than with IE.
This is in addition to a good DNS and hosts file.
Re:Firefox Anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Opera 9.52 (the latest version) has popup site preferences that allow you to control whether each site can: set cookies for itself, set cookies for other sites, run java, run javascript, run flash or other plugins, use sound, use animated gifs, etc. And there are popup global settings as well in case you just need to toggle them on for a minute. Combined with the latest HOSTS file from those anti-advertising guys, it is teh lovely internets.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, yeah, and you might find that 60% of your websites don't work.
Actually its more like 2% of websites stop working right, and even those will work again with 2 simple clicks of the mouse. (most defective behavior is caused by sites that store their static content on a separate domain from their dynamic content, simple allow scripts from that particular domain as well, and BOOM, everything works, including privacy)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI (heads up) Privoxy (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.privoxy.org/ [privoxy.org]
Re:FYI (heads up) Privoxy (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is the first time I've seen someone mention privoxy among the dozens of adblock posts.
I run privoxy on a separate machine so that it's available to every computer on my network, thereby minimising the need for installing Firefox extras. And while I'd recommend it highly (definitely a plus for over-burdened laptops when it's running elsewhere), it doesn't seem to the same job as adblock when it comes to an ad-free webpage. The Slashdot site, for example, renders with the right column being pushed down quite a distance leaving a gaping whitespace. It can be a tough choice sometimes: soul-sucking advertising, or existential emptiness.
Mayb it has an "accedent"... (Score:2, Interesting)
who do advertisers think they are? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Stop your whining. Your "10 megs" of ads example is ridiculous. Use lynx if you're just dying for the old days.
Next you'll be shouting for us to get off your Internet, darn kids.
Re:who do advertisers think they are? (Score:4, Insightful)
From the perspective of companies, they consider that your eyeballs on their ads is a fair trade for giving you access to their content. If they provided you with an opt-in model for advertising, we agree, their revenue stream would collapse and they'd cry. Then their content would disappear, and you (average population) would cry.
It's silly to expect them to give you content and get nothing in return. If your view was purely principled, you wouldn't go to their sites, and then you don't have to worry about it.
Google anylitics killer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This has far reaching implications for all browsers. If you can't track a huge portion of the pie using google/yahoo analytics then it makes no since using 3rd party tracking software. The user in me cheers, the site administrator in me cringes.
That's why I've gone back to parsing the Apache logs. It really contains 99% of what you need: the user agent and referer. As I design for 800-1680 width screens, the user screen size does not matter to me. I use the referer to know who's linking to me, what keywords they searched from, and to know if this is a new session or not. If there is no referer then I set a cookie to track session.
The apache logs are great, and really include most of the info one needs. Tip: if you can host non-html pages (css, js,
Re:Google anylitics killer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google anylitics killer! (Score:5, Funny)
I block google analytics because I see no difference between their spying on me and any other advertiser spying on me. Seriously, how did we get to the point where everyone thinks its A-OK for google to spy, but no other advertiser?
That point came the moment you joined Slashdot. Evil's motto is "Don't be Google," you know.
Really smart browser (Score:5, Funny)
But will it block the intrusive, pop-over ads? (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously... (Score:3, Insightful)
...there will be lots of comments along the lines of "Hey, I use Adblock Plus, it's good!".
I'll admit that I more or less forgot about advertising on the 'net, and was quite horrified when I saw somebody browsing without an ad blocker. The screen was crammed with idiotic messages, stupid images, blathering animations. The net actually looks completely messed-up, swamped in advertisements (most of them obviously created by waaaay-below-average-IQ people).
Sheesh, am I glad I found an ad blocker. Blocking some data actually makes the net more useful (as long as it isn't the state defining what is to be blocked).
Advertisers: no need to worry. (Score:3, Insightful)
The giveaway is the word "subscription" - Apple got itself a slice to mobile phone revenue by means of the iPhone, MS is trying it again with ad revenue now the Yahoo deal fell through (who do you think will feel ad blocking most? (OK, "selective" ad blocking, I'm willing to bet it won't take long before the "trusted partner" scam will show up)*.
I suspect that that "possibility" will become mandatory to "maintain browsing security". You're welcome to it. Just a quick reminder: Automatic Updates led to the WGA disaster, so I wouldn't invest *too* much trust in it.
And remember: these are just tools - they are not an excuse to avoid using your brain.
*: I may be harsh here, but it's not like we're talking about a sterling track record here. I believe it when I see it.
Does it bother anyone else? (Score:3, Interesting)
I admit I do run a site myself and this sort of thing worries me. I have just two ads per page, both google ads, one leaderboard and a wide skyscraper. They aren't even remotely intrusive, and are there just to pay the bandwidth bills. For those complaining about bloated sites, my biggest page is just 10k without the ads. I'm currently a long way away from being affected by this, as 90% of my users are still using IE6, but it does concern me that I might have to shut down a free service because people can't handle two ads.
I know things like adblock are designed for really intrusive ads like those obnoxious animated overlays, but the problem is reasonable ads get blocked as well.
I wonder if there is any legal recourse for sites like Digg or companies like Google who are hurt by this sort of thing. Especially Google, as I highly doubt this whole thing is an "accident".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The business model of these websites is not much better than theft. They sell my viewing time with a profit to advertisers, who sell it with a profit to manufacturers, who make may pay for the advertising costs by marking up the product price.
So I've paid for all the parasites already, and now I have to waste my time actually watching their drivel?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It could seem like a chicken and egg situation where you can't provide content without users but without content you don't get any users but ultimately the balance tips much further towards Slashdot who provide the hosting, wrote the site code, organise the site and keep it up and running.
MS are hypocrites (Score:2, Insightful)
http://c.microsoft.com/trans_pixel.aspx?TYPE=PV&r=http%3a%2f%2fslashdot.org%2f
Yes, it's a transparent 1x1 pixel GIF.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if they said "transparent 1x1 pixel GIFs are evil and we're here to put a stop to them". If you RTFA, they say instead (paraphrased), "we think you normally want to allow transparent 1x1 pixel GIFs to track your data, but for the rare occasion when you don't such as [list that conspicuously does not include porn surfing], here's a mechanism to maintain your privacy.
I see a lot of MS bashing already (Score:4, Insightful)
But when you read an article about it, it seems perfectly reasonably stuff; 'sandbox' your session against cookie- and form-storage, block annoying trackers - all part of the standard browser ! There's no pretense of 'total security and/or anonymity' here, people, so stop whining.
damned if they do, damned if they don't... (Score:4, Interesting)
I can barely contain the mixed feelings I have over this issue and some of the juvenile responses. Right now I more annoyed with the Linux/Open Source/EFF advocates that can't give a simple acknowledgment to a step forward of the end-users' protection and privacy IE8 may.
One thing I can say before going back to replaying Halo 2 on my now decommissioned Beowulf cluster is, "Good job Microsoft for trying to protect 75+% of the worlds Internet users".
I am personally grateful that the users of our 1000+ Linux, Solaris, BSD server farm are better protected.
Let's remember there is no such thing as a free lunch. Some where, some how, the bill must be paid. Until socialism or communism govern the Internet some level of commercial advertising will need to be tolerated in order to pay the bill in order to keep the "lights and water" running.
--magus
(not to be confused with magu$)
That's not really a surprise is it? (Score:5, Funny)
Why the bashing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not everyone wishes to pointblank block adverts but few people want the shady and legally quesitonable tracking techniques some ads used gathering their details, especially those that get around strict cookie rules/settings.
However I find it amusing that people still find ways to bash Microsoft over this. It's a sensible privacy feature. If you want to block ads completely, fine, we all know that firefox can do that amazingly (at least until it's widespread enough for ad providers to start making their clients use an impossible to block local caching system) but this a smart feature for those who don't wish to block ads completely.
Not Ad Blocking, Tracking Blocking... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is difference between ad blocking and tracking blocking.
This identifies 3rd party code that keeps track of users browsing habits, and allows the user to reject being tracked.
Google would be hurt by this, as Google is NOT just about displaying ads, but displaying 'contextual' ads that it gets from not only the site content but the user viewing the site, based on the user's browsing history stored at Google.
Check out the Channel9 interview for more information and the intent of this.
http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-8-Beta-2-Privacy-is-about-more-than-cookies/ [msdn.com]
It would be 'easy' to paint MS as being evil, but in reality, this is a feature that 'exposes' the evil that exists all over the web, from pixel tracking systems to full ad user tracking systems like Google uses.
If Google or other online advertisers wants to display Ads, and not be affected by this, then display Ads and STOP TRACKING USERS along with the Ads.
Re:Not Ad Blocking, Tracking Blocking... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm almost certain I'll get called a Google fanboy (or maybe even a shill) for this comment, but here goes...
Google's style of advertising is the ONLY advertising I'm interested in seeing, precisely BECAUSE it tracks me and specifically targets me. They offer ads that are RELEVANT to me - things I actually MIGHT be interested in. If I don't want them to track me, I'll tweak the relevant settings in my browser's settings/plugins. I'm quite happy for Google to do so though (just recently, after I received an email about a new card I'm playing with some friends, I was given a nice text ad on the top of my gmail that linked me to an online version of the game - excellent advertising, because it's something I actually wanted!)
Re:Not Ad Blocking, Tracking Blocking... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's great, you can turn that feature off in IE8, don't run IE8, and/or don't run any adblockers / tracking blockers. If you want to be tracked, be tracked! I just think it should be an opt-in choice not an opt-out choice. But that train left the station a long time ago, so we need tools (esp mainstream tools like IE features defaulting to on) to put a hurt on this business model of tracking people for profit.
It doesn't block "ads." It blocks snooping. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo for Microsoft! The feature doesn't affect honest advertising at all.
Anyone who wants to put up a straightforward ad, presenting information about a product and letting me decide whether I'm interesting in learning more and buying it, can still do so.
This only affects companies who are doing more than just advertising.
The fact that this is being described as an "ad" blocker just shows that advertising practices on the Web have become so debased that writers about the Web simply take it for granted that anything under the guise of advertising is likely to be invested with snooper gadgets that gather information about us without our knowledge.
That's not advertising. That's spying. "Advertising" is just the cover story.
as long as marketers run sites... (Score:3, Interesting)
look guys...ms will cave and remove this if advertisers complain loudly enough. there is a reason why many sites are run out of the marketing department. sites are mostly for marketing and the metrics that marketers can get from users are the primary reasons why they run sites.
it's this simple...if Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot had a tool that would allow them to see every book their citizens read, every item their citizens bought, or everything that was done, they would have retained absolute power over their populaces.
this is what marketers are attempting to do. create a dominance over you that television, newspaper, or any other medium has never been able to do before.
Marketers, eat shit and die (Score:5, Insightful)
"'It has the potential to undermine the economies of the Internet,' said Mike Zaneis, vice president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau."
Go kill yourself, you worthless festering sore on society's anus.
The advertising industry could have been responsible from the start, but they chose to incur a backlash of end users who got sick of sneaky tactics like popups and pop-unders. Advertisers who whine that end users no longer tolerate ads make me laugh.
Seriously, choke on your failure and die. You fuck.
Wait wait wait.... (Score:3)
So Microsoft is actually listening to it's customers right?
But I still think we will have plenty of MS bashing here...
I for one and glad that they are "attempting" to provide what people want.
I agree (Score:5, Funny)
It's almost as bad as going to the bathroom during commercials when you're watching tv!
Re:Adblockers = theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Ads are theft too, with all their flash, sound and graphics, it costs more to watch the ads than the content if you're on a pay per byte subscription.
So it's fair to place all kinds of heavy and annoying ads, if people are just free to block those that gets too expensive or annoying. Action equals reaction, it's up to the ad-funded to find a profitable business model, including a sensible advertising policy that does not encourage visitors to block. If visitors block your ads, your product was not worth paying for anyway.
Alright I do know that blockers like ABP simply blocks everything and I gotta admit that may be unfair, but on the other hand, the majority of ads online are excessive, so the ones i feel sorry for are the minority who actually have a sane advertising policy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't even need AdBlock if you have NoScript, and using NoScript is much fairer on individual sites.
With scripts disabled totally for a domain, you don't see any ads. If you enable javscript for the domain of the site you're visiting, then you still don't get pop-over ads because they always come from an another domain. This way you get the functionality of the site to work and actually help them out by preventing a third party from messing up the user experience of their site (only for you, but it's a
Re:Adblockers = theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
*yawn* Ridiculous.
Theft is theft. Advertising is advertising. Adblocking is adblocking. Blocking ads is not theft, advertising is not theft (as a responder to you tried to claim), and asking you if have the time is not theft.
If I don't want your ads sent down my line, I'm perfectly free to block them. If you don't like the fact that ads can be blocked, you're perfectly free to charge for your content, or take it down.
Re: (Score:2)
sorry i havent used opera for years but how is block ad different from Right-Click>Block images from *