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

Groups > comp.misc > #11543 > unrolled thread

What media companies don't want you to know about ad blockers

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  What media companies don't want you to know about ad blockers Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-07-16 15:30 +0000
    Re: What media companies don't want you to know about ad blockers Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2016-07-17 13:36 +0100
      Re: What media companies don't want you to know about ad blockers Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-07-17 12:41 +0000
      Re: What media companies don't want you to know about ad blockers "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-07-17 22:48 +0200
        Re: What media companies don't want you to know about ad blockers Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2016-07-17 22:02 +0100
    Re: What media companies don't want you to know about ad blockers Martin Barclay <tinbar@privacy.bank.me> - 2016-07-17 14:02 +0100
    Re: What media companies don't want you to know about ad blockers "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 13:44 -0500
      Re: What media companies don't want you to know about ad blockers Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2016-07-18 20:10 +0000
    Re: What media companies don't want you to know about ad blockers RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-07-17 19:15 +0000

#11543 — What media companies don't want you to know about ad blockers

http://www.cjr.org/opinion/ad_blockers_malware_new_york_times.php

Quoting from the URL above:

   New York Times CEO Mark Thompson caused a minor stir a couple weeks ago
   when he gave a speech at an advertising conference declaring that "No
   one who refuses to contribute to the creation of high quality journalism
   has the right to consume it." He went on to say that while the Times is
   "not there yet," the company may soon prevent users with ad blockers
   from accessing its site.

   But newspaper executives like Thompson often focus exclusively on the
   drawbacks of ad blockers, leaving a big part of the story untold.
   Thompson did not say one word in his keynote address about the
   significant security benefits of ad blockers, which is ironic, because
   his paper was one of several news organizations that served its users
   ransomware - a particularly vicious form of malware that encrypts the
   contents of your computer and forces you to pay the perpetrators a
   ransom in bitcoin to unlock it - through its ad networks just a few
   months ago. Several major news sites - including the Times, the BBC, and
   AOL - had their ad networks hijacked by criminal hackers who attempted
   to install ransomware on readers' computers.

   Advertising networks have served malware onto the computers of unwitting
   news readers over and over in the past couple years. Ads on Forbes, for
   example, attacked their readers in January, right after the magazine
   forced readers to disable ad-blocking software to view its popular
   annual "30 Under 30" feature. As Engadget reported, "visitors were
   immediately served with pop-under malware, primed to infect their
   computers, and likely silently steal passwords, personal data and
   banking information." It wasn't the first time this had happened at
   Forbes, either. And it's not just in the US. A couple months ago, almost
   every major news site in the Netherlands served malware through its ads
   to its users.

   ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11548

On 16/07/16 16:30, Rich wrote:
> New York Times CEO Mark Thompson caused a minor stir a couple weeks
> ago when he gave a speech at an advertising conference declaring that
> "No one who refuses to contribute to the creation of high quality
> journalism has the right to consume it." He went on to say that while
> the Times is "not there yet," the company may soon prevent users with
> ad blockers from accessing its site.

Bring it on. The mainstream media are little more than shills for 
banksters and zionists anyway. It will amount to self-censorship, their 
audience will become less inclusive, and there will still be people 
offering free news for folks who can't afford the corporate propaganda. 
I'm sure Russia Today, Infowars, National Vanguard and others would all 
welcome new readers.

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

#11549

On 2016-07-17, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> On 16/07/16 16:30, Rich wrote:
>> New York Times CEO Mark Thompson caused a minor stir a couple weeks
>> ago when he gave a speech at an advertising conference declaring that
>> "No one who refuses to contribute to the creation of high quality
>> journalism has the right to consume it." He went on to say that while
>> the Times is "not there yet," the company may soon prevent users with
>> ad blockers from accessing its site.
>
> Bring it on. The mainstream media are little more than shills for 
> banksters and zionists anyway.

*plonk*

-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 52nd day of Confusion in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

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

#11555

Op 17-07-16 om 14:36 schreef Hils:
> The mainstream media are little more than shills for banksters and
> zionists anyway.
What a complete tool you are.
Bye.

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

#11556

On 17/07/16 21:48, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
> Op 17-07-16 om 14:36 schreef Hils:
>> The mainstream media are little more than shills for banksters and
>> zionists anyway.
> What a complete tool you are.

Do tell, which mainstream media outlets:

Opposed the Gulf war?

Opposed the war in Iraq?

Opposed the war in Libya?

Opposed the war in Afghanistan?

Opposed the use of taxpayers money to support failing banks in Europe 
and the US?

Opposed the proposed US/UK military action against Assad's government in 
Syria?

Oppose the Israeli government's sponsorship of "settlements" and the 
forced eviction of the indigenous population?

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

#11550

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 15:30:55 +0000, Rich wrote:

> http://www.cjr.org/opinion/ad_blockers_malware_new_york_times.php
> 
> Quoting from the URL above:
> 
>    New York Times CEO Mark Thompson caused a minor stir a couple weeks ago
>    when he gave a speech at an advertising conference declaring that "No
>    one who refuses to contribute to the creation of high quality
>    journalism has the right to consume it." He went on to say that while
>    the Times is "not there yet," the company may soon prevent users with
>    ad blockers from accessing its site.

Well I don't know about US laws, but under EU laws that could well be
illegal:
Ad-blocker blocking websites face legal peril at hands of privacy bods.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/23/anti_ad_blockers_face_legal_challenges/

>    But newspaper executives like Thompson often focus exclusively on the
>    drawbacks of ad blockers, leaving a big part of the story untold.
>    Thompson did not say one word in his keynote address about the
>    significant security benefits of ad blockers, which is ironic, because
>    his paper was one of several news organizations that served its users
>    ransomware - a particularly vicious form of malware that encrypts the
>    contents of your computer and forces you to pay the perpetrators a
>    ransom in bitcoin to unlock it - through its ad networks just a few
>    months ago. Several major news sites - including the Times, the BBC,
>    and AOL - had their ad networks hijacked by criminal hackers who
>    attempted to install ransomware on readers' computers.
> 
>    Advertising networks have served malware onto the computers of
>    unwitting news readers over and over in the past couple years. Ads on
>    Forbes, for example, attacked their readers in January, right after the
>    magazine forced readers to disable ad-blocking software to view its
>    popular annual "30 Under 30" feature. As Engadget reported, "visitors
>    were immediately served with pop-under malware, primed to infect their
>    computers, and likely silently steal passwords, personal data and
>    banking information." It wasn't the first time this had happened at
>    Forbes, either. And it's not just in the US. A couple months ago,
>    almost every major news site in the Netherlands served malware through
>    its ads to its users.
> 
>    ...

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

#11552

On 7/16/2016 10:30, Rich wrote:
> He went on to say that while the Times is
>    "not there yet," the company may soon prevent users with ad blockers
>    from accessing its site.


I can not imagine paying cash for anything the NYT produces.  (They cost 
me a bundle indirectly and in November I am going to try again to reduce 
their influence.)

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

#11560

Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. <lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/16/2016 10:30, Rich wrote:
>> He went on to say that while the Times is
>>    "not there yet," the company may soon prevent users with ad blockers
>>    from accessing its site.
> 
> 
> I can not imagine paying cash for anything the NYT produces.  (They cost 
> me a bundle indirectly and in November I am going to try again to reduce 
> their influence.)

Good! That will save me some time when I follow links to the NYT from
other sites. I end up reading 3 or 4 paragraphs and wondering what in
the world I'm reading. I then look at the url, see nytimes and close
the tab. Life is too short to read the endless drivel that passes for
a news story at the NYT. I want to know *what* happpened, not how I'm
supposed to think about what happened, if I can even find *what
happened* among the NYT's "analysis".

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

#11553

On 2016-07-16, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.cjr.org/opinion/ad_blockers_malware_new_york_times.php
>
> Quoting from the URL above:
>
>    New York Times CEO Mark Thompson caused a minor stir a couple weeks ago
>    when he gave a speech at an advertising conference declaring that "No
>    one who refuses to contribute to the creation of high quality journalism
>    has the right to consume it." He went on to say that while the Times is
>    "not there yet," the company may soon prevent users with ad blockers
>    from accessing its site.

This thing has always been a delicate balance.  If you (media company) keep
your adverts subtle, don't interrupt the reading experience or annoy the
reader, then you're welcome to do it.  Put in too many pop-ups, pop-unders,
screen-obscuring overlays, and the like, and we (the readers) will revolt.

Deny services to ad-blockers - go ahead.  But you'll have to make up the
revenue via paid subscriptions.  How's that going for you?  And ultimately,
by reducing the number of readers, you reduce the value of your site as an
advertising platform anyway.

I subscribe to the NYT and like it, and unlike another poster here, think
it's generally worth it.  But that's my own choice.  I'm familiar with the
"free" news outlets and find you mostly get what you pay for.  Remember in
about 2004 when suddenly blogs were going to take over the world?  Very few
of them did, and precious few of them remain at all anymore since the advent
of Facebook, which is where all the readers went.  With few exceptions,
bloggers purporting to do journalism are either poor quality or are so
under-resourced they can't do what the big boys do.  How many bloggers are
sending staff into Northern Nigeria to see how Boko Haram is faring?  That's
what I thought.

We went through this once before, and Google found the solution.  Now the
marketers have gone overboard with annoying, intrusive ads, and consumrs are
reaching for tech solutions to fight back.  Don't be surprised, CEO Mark
Thompson: you're out of touch.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web