ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Ars Technica on the problem with adblocking

<< < (13/13)

@f0dder: I suspect that we have approached a point of relative ignorance in this discussion, beyond which neither of us (well, certainly me, anyway) really knows enough about or is qualified to discuss what we are discussing. Without further research on our part, or input from others who know more, we may be unable to throw any new or useful light on the subject.
I only know what I know about surfing using AdBlocking and anonymity "cloaks" (both serving important principles of freedom to me) from what I have experienced having used or experimented with different software including, for example:

* JunkBuster
* Privoxy (which " based in part on code originally developed by Junkbusters Corp. and Anonymous Coders.")
* Guidescope
* Hoster
* Proxomitron
* AdBlock
* NoScriptAs an example, you don't know about how AdBlock seems to affect browsing in Chrome, but I do, having used it. That doesn't make me an expert though.

JunkBuster really did minimise my bandwidth utilisation (as explained in a post above), but it I gather that its technology may have effectively been made obsolete by changes in other technology (e.g., including SSL). I recall reading a paper by a software developer (it might have been for SpeakFreely) where he said he was giving up on the idea of privacy of information because (I think) he said it had all been made virtually impossible by the default use of NAT technology in the modem/router.

My view is that if DonationCoder coders were up to the challenge of picking up the threads of JunkBuster and Privoxy (say), and developing from what the developers in Junkbusters Corp. and Anonymous Coders had done, then that might be really interesting.

This is an old thread being revived here, but I just thought I'd mention that I had very little sympathy for Ars Technica and other sites who begged and pleaded and tried to guilt-trip us into not blocking the ads on their site.

But I just saw this today on

And I thought, "Heh heh, that's kind of funny/cute." And then, "Gosh. Now I feel kind of bad for blocking the ads on this site."

EDIT: Added site where I saw that funny/cute adblock graphic.

@Deozaan: If you pursue that line of thought, then you risk giving something valuable away - freedom of expression.
As per my above post, after their unfortunate article, Ars are still invited to "get lost".
The ars technica article on adblocking was an amazing 1,101 words long, adding up to what some people (not me, you understand) might say was impressively specious - if not downright fallacious - reasoning, with begging thrown in for good measure and all intended as an attempt to substantiate an otherwise unfounded and insubstantial POV whilst at the same time attempting to twist the arms of the readers into conceding to that POV.

Some people might particularly notice the implicit and powerful threat:
"We've done a test and you know what? If you don't unblock our ads, then we'll...we'll jolly well take our toys away, and boy! - will you be sorry then! Try to read our site then, sucker!"

--- End quote ---
Those people might go on to add that whatever content they wish to appear on their PC monitors, what is deserving of their finite cognitive surplus and what they wish to pay for with their finite and hard-earned cash is largely up to them and that no amount of coercion or implied threat is going to alter that, so get lost.
--- End quote ---
Wow! What have we here? Oh no! Eyes hazing over with red...anger...must destroy...cannot stop...nooooooo!...not that!...not a rant!...
--- WARNING! Start of rant ---
When you consider that this medium (the web) that we are using was originally designed to enable the free flow and communication of scientific information and research, it is not easy to understand why the users would wish to allow it to become so dominated by political or commercial interests - i.e., by Big Brother or Big Business and other commercial entities - that they give away their freedoms and let it be turned into another form of the Commercial v. Paid-for TV business model.

I stopped watching commercial TV years ago because I could not tolerate the incessantly repeated drivelling adverts and execrable quality of programming. I could not tolerate the Paid-for TV providers either, because, if anything, they provided an even worse experience in terms of quality of programming (though a lot of it is arguably due to the sheer volume of Americanised dumbed-down programming).

The Internet has transformed the world of human freedom of communication of information. This freedom is under attack.
The Internet use (e.g., blogging) has caused a slow death in traditional biased and Big Business-driven monopoly newspaper media, with some of those media trying to retire behind pay-walls as a last-gasp strategy for survival, or, like Ars, employing blackmail to get you to "do it their way".

Consider the millions of dollars spent by the RIAA over the last few years as they attack their customers in a last-ditch struggle to turn back the tide and control the medium, rather than develop a new business model to replace their obsolete business model (made obsolete by the use of P2P and other file sharing across the Internet).
Alternatively, consider what is currently happening to Wikileaks as Big Brother and Big Business attempt to attack and muzzle the freedom of access to public information.
It is one helluva sick society that enables and condones such attacks on our freedoms.
--- End of rant ---

PS: By the way, any sarcasm in any of the above is entirely intentional.

Sorry, IainB, I was unclear because I didn't mention that that cute image I saw was not on Ars Technica, but rather on

Like you, I still don't feel any sympathy for Ars. :Thmbsup:


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version