Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #244144 > unrolled thread

"The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet"

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.freeware

Contents

  "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2015-09-27 15:43 +0200
    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Derald <derald@invalid.net> - 2015-09-27 13:02 -0400
    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2015-09-27 16:26 -0300
      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" G. Morgan <sealteam6@osama-is-dead.net> - 2015-09-30 04:51 -0500
    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Jonno <me@privacy.nob> - 2015-09-27 20:48 +0100
    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 01:39 -0700
      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2015-09-28 12:24 +0100
        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "John Corliss (ES)" <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 08:36 -0700
      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-09-28 12:34 +0100
        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-09-28 08:12 -0700
          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-09-30 11:21 +0100
            Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-09-30 15:18 -0700
              Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-01 11:23 +0100
                Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:47 +0200
                  Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-10-01 13:10 +0000
                    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:14 +0100
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-01 09:22 -0700
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2015-10-01 18:47 +0100
                    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> - 2015-10-01 15:40 +0200
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:09 +0000
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2015-10-01 15:17 +0100
                          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-01 08:06 -0700
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> - 2015-10-01 17:00 +0200
                          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-10-01 15:11 +0000
                            Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-01 08:27 -0700
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Bucky Breeder <Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out> - 2015-10-01 14:17 +0000
                    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-10-09 16:30 -0400
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-10-09 21:14 +0000
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-10-20 06:03 -0400
                          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 12:23 +0200
                          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-10-20 12:15 +0000
                  Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:12 +0100
                    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-01 06:36 -0700
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2015-10-01 15:14 +0100
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-01 07:38 -0700
                Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-01 06:24 -0700
                  Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-03 11:22 +0100
                    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-03 07:10 -0700
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-03 15:44 +0100
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-03 14:12 -0700
                          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-04 09:09 +0100
                            Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-04 05:11 -0700
        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-10-09 16:42 -0400
      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "The Sorceress of Qar" <sorceress@qar.qanar.com> - 2015-09-28 09:44 -0500
      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2015-09-28 19:12 +0200
        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2015-09-28 16:46 -0300
        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "John Corliss (ES)" <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 03:05 -0700
    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2015-10-01 10:43 -0400

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#244599

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:12:34 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>Stephen Wolstenholme was thinking very hard :
>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:10:43 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> 
>>>> To demonstrate this I will give you a free copy. If you email me I'll
>>>> tell you how to get it.
>>> 
>>> More diversion.  You are an illogical hypocrite. You advocate killing 
>>> people who advertise, but you continue to pollute Usenet with your own 
>>> advertising.  Really, can you not see your own hypocrisy?
>>
>> Where do you get the idea that I'm killing people? I just don't read
>> WEB sites with adverts. 
>
>Here is the MID where you advocated "killing the advertisers"
>
>Message-ID: <8d9i0bhqa71s8onfblj6ohkjmqg2em9den@4ax.com>
>

There's a big difference between killing and blocking. I use AdBlock
to block WEB sites that may send me adverts. I don't kill anyone.

Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244604

Stephen Wolstenholme presented the following explanation :
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:12:34 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Stephen Wolstenholme was thinking very hard :
>>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:10:43 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> To demonstrate this I will give you a free copy. If you email me I'll
>>>>> tell you how to get it.
>>>> 
>>>> More diversion.  You are an illogical hypocrite. You advocate killing 
>>>> people who advertise, but you continue to pollute Usenet with your own 
>>>> advertising.  Really, can you not see your own hypocrisy?
>>> 
>>> Where do you get the idea that I'm killing people? I just don't read
>>> WEB sites with adverts. 
>> 
>> Here is the MID where you advocated "killing the advertisers"
>> 
>> Message-ID: <8d9i0bhqa71s8onfblj6ohkjmqg2em9den@4ax.com>
>> 
>
> There's a big difference between killing and blocking. I use AdBlock
> to block WEB sites that may send me adverts. I don't kill anyone.
>
> Steve

The statement you quoted and agreed with:

"First thing we do, we kill all the advertisers."


Definition of "Advocate":

To speak, plead, or argue in favor of:


Hopefully this clears up the last bit of confusion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#245818

Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> writes:

> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 01:39:21 -0700, John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"First thing we do, we kill all the advertisers."
>>
>>I don't feel the least bit guilty for using AdBlocker Plus.
>
> +1

I use it, but I disable it on some sites that I use regularly. I also
use the option to allow some "well-behaved" ads. (I might change my mind
if the Adblocker developers don't uphold their stated standards.)

I recognize that _somebody_ has to pay for operating a web site (or
other service or site on the net). I can either kick in some cash or I
can allow ads for sites that get their revenue that way. (Sites like
microsoft.com or honda.com are obviously completely commercial and I
don't feel any need to allow them to serve me ads _or_ attack my privacy.)

I don't want to be tracked or otherwise have my privacy breached, so I
take measures to prevent this.

I feel that, if I really can't accept the things that a web site does, I
just won't use that site. Life is too short to waste time on sites like
that abuse visitors.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244219

On 9/28/2015 3:39 AM, John Corliss wrote:

>
> I don't feel the least bit guilty for using AdBlocker Plus.
>

+1
-- 
A Paradoxial World, for Sure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244227

John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com>:

> > I could perhaps accept simple ads (not web streams), but never the
> > "surreptitious tracking of browsing habits by outfits that sell that
> > information to advertisers".
 
> "First thing we do, we kill all the advertisers."
> 
> I don't feel the least bit guilty for using AdBlocker Plus.

So you only want free lunches? Who's going to pay for hardware,
hosting, website building & maintenance, producing content, etc.? 

Yrrah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244243

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:12:10 +0200, Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid>
wrote:

>John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com>:
>
>> > I could perhaps accept simple ads (not web streams), but never the
>> > "surreptitious tracking of browsing habits by outfits that sell that
>> > information to advertisers".
> 
>> "First thing we do, we kill all the advertisers."
>> 
>> I don't feel the least bit guilty for using AdBlocker Plus.
>
>So you only want free lunches? Who's going to pay for hardware,
>hosting, website building & maintenance, producing content, etc.? 

	Like I said, it should be public supported NGOs, with
absolutely transparent finances. Something like the WHO without big
Pharma bribes. (am I dreaming ?)
	We already have enough open source software for any
chats/emails/web designing etc. What we DONT need is 20 Kb of
datamining scripting on every webpage, plus the mandatory 3-4 Mb
images and malware that come with them.
	I'm sure the net without ads will turn out much cheaper, if
only in bandwidth saved. I'd happily pay my 100 dollars a year tax,
and that amount would be an overkill.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244276

Yrrah wrote:
> John Corliss wrote:
>> Yrrah wrote: 
>>> I could perhaps accept simple ads (not web streams), but never the
>>> "surreptitious tracking of browsing habits by outfits that sell that
>>> information to advertisers".
>> 
>> "First thing we do, we kill all the advertisers."
>>
>> I don't feel the least bit guilty for using AdBlocker Plus.
> 
> So you only want free lunches? Who's going to pay for hardware,
> hosting, website building & maintenance, producing content, etc.? 

Please stop Yrrah, you're breaking my heart.  80)>

-- 
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share,
spy, time-limited, trial or web wares. No warez for me either please:
just freeware -which I define as legally obtainable, local install or
portable computer programs that can be used indefinitely at no cost,
monetary or otherwise.

I filter out any messages to this newsgroup which come from Google
Groups and recommend that you do likewise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244426

On 09/27/2015 09:43 AM, Yrrah wrote:
> "(...) Most people nowadays probably understand that in relation to,
> say, social networking services, if the service is 'free' then the
> users (or, more precisely, their personal data) are the product. But
> this also applies to stuff that you haven't signed up for - websites
> that you browse, for example. The site may be free to view, but
> there's often a hidden cost.
> One part of that cost comes from surreptitious tracking of your
> browsing habits by outfits that sell that information to advertisers.
> (If this is news to you just install the Ghostery browser extension to
> see who's monitoring your browsing.) The other cost comes from ads
> that are placed on a webpage either directly by the site owner or as
> the outcome of a real-time auction that goes on in the depths of the
> internet.(...)
> Pervasive ad-blocking will dramatically undermine the predominant
> business model of the 'free' web, which is that the price of freedom
> is exposure to ads. Without those ads, online publishers will have to
> find a new business model or go under. And currently, there are not
> that many alternative models out there.(...)
> Full article:
> <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/27/ad-blocking-herald-end-of-free-internet-ios9-apple>
>
> I could perhaps accept simple ads (not web streams), but never the
> "surreptitious tracking of browsing habits by outfits that sell that
> information to advertisers".
>
> Yrrah
>

This Wireless Carrier Will Block Ads Unless It Gets a Cut
http://time.com/4057356/wireless-carrier-ads/

-- 
Caver1

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.freeware

csiph-web