Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Port scan defense Date: 6 Dec 2016 16:56:25 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 72 Message-ID: References: <2v6dnX63GZra1dnFnZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

<0001HW.D46B30A0030C988CB02919BF@news.astraweb.com>

<4Lmdnbf8keXbjdvFnZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com>

X-Trace: individual.net UCa+kwIHOmgaOy3lgYBfAgrfZWFyvxpbYL0LMdJIa8qFItXjoL Cancel-Lock: sha1:qORzUaCxvrQFGbMVt9HVd26Q0RA= Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:97612 On 2016-12-06, Barry Margolin wrote: > In article , > Jolly Roger wrote: > >> Alan Browne wrote: >> > On 2016-12-05 23:28, Lewis wrote: >> >> In message <4Lmdnbf8keXbjdvFnZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> >> >> Alan Browne wrote: >> >>> On 2016-12-05 19:34, Jolly Roger wrote: >> >>>> I don't have any such rules, but then I always use AdBlock Plus when >> >>>> browsing the net. >> >> >> >>> I've had to back off of AdBlock for some news sites that require >> >>> blockers be removed. >> >> >> >> I refuse to do that. Especially since the sites insisting are sites that >> >> have previously served malicious ads to users. >> > >> > You'll find more and more sites unresponsive then. >> >> Bitch, please. I've been surfing the web since the very beginning, and >> mandatory advertising was never part of the deal. > > I don't remember making any "deal" with web sites. Like I give a shit. >> I control what appears on my screen. If a web site refuses to exist >> without serving crappy advertising that distracts from actual content >> and puts my security at risk then I say fuck 'em. They don't deserve >> my traffic anyway. > > And they don't need your hits Laughable. Ad views and clicks are how most of them get paid. For the overwhelming majority of sites that display ads, it's their *entire* business model. > if you're not going to help them pay for the cost of providing the > service. Their service isn't all that valuable. > I work for a web-based service that gets much of its revenue from > advertising. Given your response, I'm not at all surprised. > We've talked about checking for ad-blockers, but decided that they're > still enough of a fringe that it would be more trouble than it's worth > to try to block them, and we don't want the bad PR. All you will do is drive people away from your site - especially if they can get their information elsewhere, which is almost always the case. > But we also have an alternate revenue stream: we have pay features, > and every time you use one of them you get a 1-day reprieve from ads. "Pay us money, and we won't plaster annoying insecure ads on your screen!" Shit, someone should give you guys a humanitarian award or something. I'll stick with my ad blockers, thanks. And if you can't make it without ads, you don't deserve to make it. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR