zirik wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 23:13:
ok quick question. i thought adblocker and noscript did the same thing? is adblocker better at stopping viruses than noscript?

adblock is geared towards blocking ads. noscript is geared to wards blocking javascript and increasing security. If security is your concern, you should use noscript, not adblock. You can configure it to automatically allow javascript on the domain you are on, incuding all the subdomains if you wish, and you can whitelist/blacklist as you want.

Like the WoW example the guy earlier had, that was probably not related to ads, but javascript inserted into the site itself (or some other), something noscript will help with, and adblocker won't.

However since most sites use faulty third-party ad-solutions which just doesn't work without javascript (ie doesn't provide a static image fallback), the effect is that many ads can be blocked. It's just not the original intention, and you can use it fine with a whitelist for the sites you want to allow this, of course.

Wolfen wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 22:53:
Speaking of intrusive ads. Did anyone ever hear about the wonderful idea of putting ads on the food its self? I guess some safe dye was made and you guessed it, ads on food will soon be here.

There is no escape from the onslaught of advertising and what little we have to hide it we WILL use.

yeah but what's weird is, people accept it. if they didn't it wouldn't be there. no-one would buy the product! but they still do..

necrosis wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 22:52:
I do not have the ability to search Allakhazam forums to dig up the links. But the instance was a really big one. Hundreds of accounts hacked and many people reporting their virus apps going off loading related MMO sites. So either the sites themselves hacked or the banner servers were hacked.

Other than this instance I thought it was common knowledge that banner sites were big targets for hackers to inject rogue banners. Why hack hundreds of sites when you can hack one and infect thousands.

I have a few other reasons for blocking banners and what not but this is the main reason.

Okay, well I'm betting it was the forum then. Those things (phpBB etc all) are *way way way* more of a target than any ad-server. The ad-servers are obviously guarded very well, and should a rouge ad get in there (not that I've ever heard of such a thing), it would be removed withing minutes. But with a proper backend system and encryption, that should be next to impossible, without a man on the inside. And why would he do it..

necrosis wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 21:59:
Why do I run AdBlock?

I prefer to have my computer not infected keyloggers/spyware/viruses. The great hacking of FFXI/WoW accounts of last year just cemented me into using AdBlock when it was found out a rogue/hacked banner server was the reason for the infection.

Interesting, I haven't heard about this. Could you link to a source? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just interested in reading about it.

I'm just surprised. First of all, for javascript to be able to install something like a keylogger, a lot of things have to fit. First of all, your browser must suck dick since it's not sandboxed and allow you to access your local filesystem (remember javascript != activex or whatever). Second, I bet ~6-7 companies deliver just about every ad there is (sans porn etc), and they have these kind of things as a top priority, obviously. If google started spreading this kind of stuff it'd suffer a great fallback.

I have no idea about the accounts-stuff, but I'm guessing XSS or regular injection was involved on some site where this info was stored, and that it had nothing to do with any sort of advertisement.

But I'm just guessing, and of course I could be wrong. I also use linux and a non-broken browser, so it's perhaps easy to not think about these things, though bugs exists on all os'es of course..

Silicon Avatar wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 21:37:
Going pay-wall would show a site like Ars just how many people really want its services and how very many substitutes there are on the web. I say they should go for it. It might open their eyes.

You might want to read the article again (or completely, rather). (Hint: http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/).

Prez wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 21:50:
You want differences between software piracy and adblocking? Here are several:

1) Software Piracy (theft), beyond being fundamentally unethical, is illegal. Using an adblocker is not illegal, nor will it ever be, as there is no legal grounds to make it such.
2) By the long-standing internet business model, such as it is, by not making ALL users subscribe and login to read your content, you are essentially offering the content free for viewing. The revenue obtained via advertising is incidental.
3) The concept, as well as the legal definition, of "fair use" allows for viewing of content on the web as long as your articles, editorials, stories, and other content created by you and your staff are not copied wholesale and posted elsewhere without your consent.
4) You refuted PHJF's example of skipping commercials as being different by saying doing so is okay because is only based on potential and not accurate measurements. The simple issue of how something is measured can not logically be used to delineate whether something is immoral or unethical or not. In both cases, the action of the user are the same - they are actively avoiding ads. If one instance is not immoral, neither is the other. The means of measurement and the given business model are irrelevant.

#1 is of course true, as I mentioned earlier it's about ethics. I'm not a lawyer, I wouldn't be insanely surprised if it DID become illegal in the US though..
#2 is also true, like I said I'd rather have an active user that is blocking ads than be without him. Creating content (such as this) is value, too. But even if I required users to log in, it would do nothing to prevent users from using ad-block.
#3 is as #1. Look, if we were discussing the legality of things this wouldn't be a discussion. I'm saying that I find it unethical to block all the ads (thus usually all the revenue), from a site with non-intrusive ads.
#4 no, that was not the basis. I said if you watch TV, even if you usually zap between commercials, you will be exposed to the campaign after a while. This is what they pay for. Not that you will watch it 5 times a day for 2 months. On the internet, you will never see it, because it is never there "to zap out of" in the first place; ad block just nuked the whole thing.

If all the users blocked blues, he would be out of business. If all the users pirate some game, that developer would be out of business. The effect is the same. You can't just scream "faulty business-model", because really, if you take away all possibilities for advertisement (and subscription alone doesn't cut it), how will you even break-even? Have your visitors come by and stomp on a treadmill to provide electricity for the servers..?

I feel I should point out that in this context I'm mostly talking about regulars. Someone who just came in from some outside link and left again, fine. I don't care at all. But I find it rude to use for instance blues for 6 years and never EVER give him back even a single ad-impression as a thank-you. I completely understand that not everybody can afford to pay for access to a site. People use lots of sites, it could tally up to big numbers in the end. All that's asked of is having a few insignificant non-intrusive ads there instead. But if I'm alone in feeling this, I guess I just had a different (better) parenting than you; frankly I think it's reeks of being a spoiled brat.

And about me having the nerve to accuse PHJF. Read the nineteenth entry. What the fuck? I cuss. I don't ask people to "rot in hell" just for having a different opinion.

This comment was edited on Mar 7, 2010, 22:51.

Prez wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 20:38:

To me, browsing with adblocker is the same as pirating software.

Wow. Just - WOW! That's a pretty huge (not to mention completely irrational) stretch.

You seem to think that because you entered into this business, somehow you are OWED a revenue stream. That just isn't the way it works. Businesses and markets are forever changing without regard for those in said businesses. Should the mass production of the automobile for the average consumer have been halted because it was destined to put the horse buggy makers out of business? When your business model becomes obsolete or unsustainable, it's time to adapt. Good businesses know this.

Like it or not, you entered a business in which the primary means to make money was to get away with essentially annoying your users. Some ads are less annoying than others, true. But for many users being bombarded with commercialism even while on the net is an annoyance to begin with. In case you didn't notice, advertising has taken over virtually every facet of our daily lives. Some of us would rather avoid it where at all possible.

Blue has in the past made mention that his only form of revenue to keep Bluesnews running is via ads. He is such a class act and gracious host that all he has to do is remind us of this once in a while and I'm willing to bet that enough of us will keep his ads unblocked just for him to stay in business. Contrast that with the self-righteous arrogance you displayed by insulting the very people who might make up your revenue stream. You then go on to draw these asinine parallels between using adblockers and software piracy, defacing restaurants, or robbing banks, still yelling at the people who might otherwise accommodate a reasonable request by you to whitelist your site.

And you have the nerve to accuse PHJF of "having issues". You tell him that "just because it's on the internet doesn't mean everything is by your damn rules". In the height of irony you are no doubt blind to because you are too busy frothing at the mouth about all of the "thieves" who would rather have a quiet, unobtrusive browsing session, you are oblivious to the fact that you are expecting the internet to be by YOUR rules. "I want to make money so this is how it is." Really?

I don't say this lightly - no one knows better than I how hard times are economically, but with the attitude you have, one of self-absorbed entitlement and hostility towards your user base, I'd rather see your site shut down and you looking for a new line of work.

Look, it's very simple. If a webmaster puts a site up, it is his or hers. If the rules for using the site is being over 18, or not blocking the ads, that is the webmasters perogative. No one is forcing you to use the site. If you don't like the ads, then don't visit the site, it's all very simple. As with pirating; if you don't like the price-tag, it doesn't mean you are somehow entitled to the game for free anyway. So, in case you really didn't understand it, "YOUR RULES" applied to the website I run. Of course I can't speak for other websites, but forgive me if I don't believe you when say they somehow differ in opinion, in the end.

I really don't see how the pirating software analogy is so different. You aren't stealing a physical object (in fact, the software-developer at least doesn't have to pay for any bandwidth..). If you don't like the price-tag (or drm), you can pirate it. Actually, the DRM-example is good. If you don't like the DRM in a game, it doesn't automatically give you the right to pirate the game. It gives you the right you had all along; don't buy the game! And tell the developers. To me, these things seem like a petty-excuse to somehow get a pirate-this freecard.

And I do have a premium-option, as many others have. If the ads were so obtrusive (which I promise you they are not), you can pay a small amount and be free of them (in addition to a lot of other things). The people that do this are a small small fraction compared to all the users. This is how it is almost everywhere with sites that use this model.

It sounds like you think that just because I run some site I am somehow entitled to money. That's not it at all. But I *do* feel users should not be using an ad-blocker. But in the end, it's like I said earlier in the thread: a user with ad-block can be better than not having that user. If everybody on blues used adblock, would it still be here after all these years? I doubt it. You think google would be what it is without adwords and adsense? Not even close. Even they, the pinacle of our internet-times, rely 90%+ on advertisement for revenue!

And like I also said earlier in the thread, this is *of course* not how I treat the topic on my site. It would be commercial suicide, and anyway it wouldn't create a good community.

Here, however, it fits right in. :p

This comment was edited on Mar 7, 2010, 21:08.

PHJF wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 20:13:
I'm on MY PC on an internet connection that I fucking pay for. You better fucking believe I have absolute control over what is and isn't displayed on my screen. You don't see Tivo forcing consumers to watch commercials, do you? I'm sure you think everyone should be forced to sit through the 40% of television programming that is commercials.

IF YOU MUTE YOUR TV DURING A COMMERCIAL BREAK YOU'RE A FUCKING THIEF PIRATE SCUMBAG BECAUSE I SAID SO.

It's not the same, because first they pay for a potential, they aren't measured on a per-visitor basis like sites are on the internet. And they also know that even if you usually skip commercials, over time, you are likely to be exposed for it provided you watch TV. On the internet, you use adblock. Zap, you never ever saw it. Web-sites with un-obtrusive ads do not force you to read or click them either. There's a reason there is something called a banner blindzone, you know.

PHJF wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 20:13:

And you still didn't say ANYTHING about how this is not in any way similar to pirating software. Because whoops, I guess you're out of adolescent arguments.

That's such a fucking stupid thing to say it doesn't need to be refuted.

And no, I will not just fucking let that just go. Tell me why it is not the same. Come on, because I just fucking know you have nothing to argument back with here other than ALL CAPS INSULTS. I bet since I corner you on this you won't reply, either. You think ads are just a big fucking joke to websites? That they don't really matter? Then why are they there? Do you think sites like having this dilemma?

PHJF wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 19:45:
I thought I made it perfectly clear I'm fucking tired of being bombarded every minute of my fucking existence by some fucking pencil pusher trying to sell me something I don't want. Browsing the internet is MY time. If you're so concerned about your hosting costs then start charging admission or fucking piss off because you're not going to take up MY TIME with your MICKEY MOUSE BULL SHIT POPUPS AND THROUGH ADS.

Haha. Breathe, breathe! You really do come off like a guy with issues PHJF..

First of all, it is your time, but it's the companies fucking SITE. You couldn't just walk into a fucking vault because its' YOUR TIME? Sod off, the air is free and all that?

And if a particular site is really obtrusive, fine, tell the owners, or leave the site. If it's really horrid block it. It does NOT mean you have to block the entire fucking internet.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean everything is by your damn rules. It just means it's a lot easier to bend your ethics.

And do you really think it's only about the HOSTING costs? If I wanted to break-even without a dime for myself I would have closed shops years ago. Who wouldn't? Fuck.

And you still didn't say ANYTHING about how this is not in any way similar to pirating software. Because whoops, I guess you're out of adolescent arguments.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 19:41:
Ad hosts are untrustworthy and the main source of malware. Don't like it tough, but until they've fixed the problem, people will continue to say "Screw and you."

• Safe ads(that means no various injections/false adverts
• Ads which are non-agressive(that includes popups/unders/overs/sliders/screamers/non-mutable elements)
• Don't take up 40% of the screen, hazard to navigation. Abuse click-overs via java. Continuing on with js, abuse of cs/css/xscripting abilities for forced redirection and/or force resizing of browsers

Adverts abuse all of the above, flash or non-flash elements. The only thing that's close to being safe is plain text. Even then you have to trust that the site at the end isn't compromised. In this day and age it's irresponsible to use the web without blocking adverts because the entire thing is tainted.

Don't like it, tough. Blame the advertisers who decided over the last 10yrs that being more aggressive and then blaming users for saying "we've had enough." is the problem. While allowing shady adverts directly or indirectly into the pool. The sole issue in this lies at the foot of the advertisers.

I host my own ads using OpenX. It still happens. They are always on the same spot. ONE time some flash-add started playing music when the mouse hovered over it. I got a few complaints (I actually wasn't aware of it myself), and I removed it ASAP. Never has there been a popup, inline or not, and most of the ads are anim-gif based. Still a ridiculous amount of people turn to ad-block.

That ars article is interesting, because I've contemplated about doing the same thing myself.

(and by the way, removing the ability for js to resize the browser, do popups, override the statusbar etc isn't really rocket-science without blocking all the ads.)

PHJF wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 19:24:

Leela: "Didn't you have ads in the 20th century?"

Fry: "Well sure, but not in our dreams! Only on tv and radio...and in magazines...and movies. And at ball games, on buses, and milk cartons, and t-shirts, and bananas, and written on the sky. But not in dreams! No sirree."

Adblock Plus is the best thing to happen to the internet since porn.

First of all, if you go to a game, you've payed for an admission-ticket. Or the movies, whatever. That's different. Of course, it often means that the ticket itself is cheaper, not that you'd give a fuck about that.

PHJF wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 19:24:

To me, browsing with adblocker is the same as pirating software

Yeah, well, you're a fucking douchebag and I hope you rot in hell.

Okay, so instead of making it all about insults, how the fuck is it different? Explain! We can't all have a no-revenue-stream-lets-get-bought-before-going-bankrupt strategy. And while you're thinking about a clever reply, eat a dick.

Wolfen wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 19:05:
Yes, thanks to flash ad's I dont have flash installed any more either.

Yeah youtube et al has started experimenting with h264 etc, so once that happens the only reason left for flash is games, and I bet that's a lot fewer people than those using it for movies now..

beigemore wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 16:57:
Getting an adblocker is convenient. It's silly to expect people to decide they want to block certain ads but allow others, and then find some software that will do that. It's just too convenient to grab Firefox and Adblock Plus. If that's a problem, then maybe you shouldn't be running a website.

Flashblock doesn't block ads. It just doesn't activate any flash-element (unless you've whitelisted the site) untill you click on it.

Other things you could use is noscript, and get a static image instead of the flash-ad (unless the ad-agency is running some retarded software..).

My point still stands. The only way I make money is through ads. Saying it's some dying business-model (with no alternatives in sight) doesn't automagically make it okay to block everything.

I browse with ads. I've done it since long before I was a webmaster, so it's not because of any sudden personal incentive. I really don't see the problem. The exception though is sometimes having lots of flash-ads running, because yes, that can affect your system if you have many tabs. But flashblock or noscript takes care of that.

To me, browsing with adblocker is the same as pirating software. On some level, it's better that a person pirates the game if (s)he would never buy it anyway, provided they liked it and pass along the praise of course, but it still sucks for the developer.

Flatline wrote on Mar 7, 2010, 16:51:
You have to be aware of alternatives before you can use alternatives. Do you make an effort to educate that doesn't involve berating your visitors?

If not, shut the fuck up, because you're part of the problem too.

Also, way to berate your potential revenue stream. Rest assured that if I ever stumble onto your site, I'll make sure adblock is running at full strength because you're such a lovable, understanding guy.

Of course I don't word myself like this to my users. I'm not representing any site now.

And I don't see how I'm part of the problem. It's like saying just because you didn't like some painting at a resturant you decided to take it down because it didn't amuse you. What would happen? You'd be thrown the fuck out, of course. Yes the resturant change the painitng if people were complaining, but that is different. With adblock, people are blissfully unaware of the painting in the first place, there's nothing to complain about. And they are never switching back.

Either you take it for what it is, or you leave.

(And as for your last comment, I'm not worried, you are obviously using adblock anyway.)

Then why the fuck are you using an AD-BLOCKER? Use something like flashblock, which will save you from those "annoying flash ads" unless you click on them.

Don't try to hide behind the "I have to use adblock because of flash"-crap, because it's bullshit. There are alternatives.

Don't like the site because of this? Don't use it! It's like all these ad-blocking morons think every site on the net ownes THEM something. WTF.

(yes, I run a site. yes, it is 100% dependant on ads. no, they are not intrusive. yes, it is usually better with an active user that blocks ads than not having that user. yes, it fucking BLOWS that > 50% use adblock. yes, I still think he's a dip-shit for blocking the ads.)

This just looks more and more awesome with every trailer I see.

Yeah and not generic at all.

Add a few meaningful classes seen before everywhere, times 2 because there exists only a binary-world of course where you are either pure good or pure evil, so you need 2 class-sets. And for some reason we must kill each other. All of the day and all of the night, yeah!

That's a first!

LOL @ all you haters. Another case that proves internet-boycotts and signature-campaigns mean squat.

One things for sure, the whole boycott was a massive waste of time. This game is everything L4D was and then some.

I agree (and did all the time while waiting for this). So, where are those bitching teenagers who raged with foam comming out of their mouth over the atrocity Valve was doing?

Oh, can't talk right now? Playing L4D2? Thought so.

then you'd be wrong.

Prove it, eXFeLoN. In game with many players and with demands for STABLE low ping, using P2P technology is just not feasible.

The fact that they provide the servers OR force one of the players starting the game to host (like in GoW2) is certainly not the same as using peer-to-peer technology.. They just took away the ability to host your own dedicated server. The technology behind the scenes is still 100% client/server based.

Because it would directly compete with their MMO and because they wanted to deliver this game in less than a year?

You are aware they did this whole game in less than year, right?

You're also aware it's $20 not, $40, $60, etc.? It's a budget title and they made it very clear from day one that it would not have multiplayer.

I was not looking for factual reasons! I'm quite aware that this was a strategic choice by the developers. I don't care. This is just how I feel about the game. This game with 4-8 player coop would be the sweetest game in a long time for me. The absense of that feature made it far less interesting for me.

You think I care about reasons? I'm just saying, it would have been superawsome, and I would have gladly payed full-price for it. And I know what it costs, I bought it on release-day.

Oh, and I dig how they cared more about solid gameplay than Crysis-graphics. Who cares about graphics? This thing runs on my netbook!

oh boy, another person who's in for a rude awakening when they try to play multiplayer and find out they're connecting to someone's hosted game thousands of miles away

Read my post again. I said "between either the players or the company-supplied ones"
Just because players themselves have no control over who is hosting the game does NOT mean the technology in not client/server-based anymore. I don't believe for a second that an FPS-game like this will be P2P-based!