|
I work on a different principle.
When you first visit a site, you have no idea if the content is worth anything at all, but you get all the adverts anyway, and the site owner gets paid.
So I use an ad blocker and will selectively disable it for sites I use because they have worthwhile content. Fill your site with ads - and uBlock counts them on a page-by-page basis - and it's not likely you'll go on that "approved" list. That way the worthwhile sites get paid, and the rubbish ones aren't encouraged to proliferate.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I work on a different principle.
I suppose whatever makes it so you can feel justified.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
My justification is that my browser has sent a "Do Not Track" header, but the ads try to track me nonetheless. Since they have not honored the fact that I have not given them consent to track me, I block their content. I do not block ads that do not track.
I use the Privacy Badger add-in.
|
|
|
|
|
Spot on.
Pay for good service, not for the privilege of being allowed to use the Internet. If a web-site does not provide good product, don't pay them for it.
Those who argue against that principle will be people who cannot produce good product, so have to use more devious means to snatch money.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I use IE for sites I trust, like CP, google, MSDN, etc - looking at an ad for IBM Cloud even as I type this.
Chrome with ad-blocker enabled for other sites.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Sometimes someone links to an ad heavy site in here and I end up closing the site before it can even finish loading. There's nothing so important on any site that I either will wait for all the ads or install malware ad blocking
You do realize that there are plenty of "big name sites" (forbes.com anyone?) that will infect your computer with the first ad downloaded? Before you even have a chance to decide if the site is overly ad-laden or not?
Not blocking ads in today's malware-infested ad world is the very definition of unsafe computing.
|
|
|
|
|
Vark111 wrote: very definition of unsafe computing.
I guess that is how you justify stealing to yourself. OK. To each their own.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: I guess that is how you justify stealing to yourself. OK. To each their own.
To me, it's more like switching channels when a commercial comes on TV.
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Nishant wrote: it's more like switching channels when a commercial comes on TV.
Only the commercial is still there when you switch back. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Only the commercial is still there when you switch back.
Not for me, I switch back after a few minutes by when the commercial's finished 
|
|
|
|
|
So, it's OK for websites to push out malware but not for the users to take preventive measures to protect themselves? I hope you're aware of the forbes story[^]?
Forbes told me that I need to disable my malware blocker or I can't read their content. Fair enough, I've stopped visiting their site (added forbes.com to my hosts as well) and have resorted to one of dozens of other competing websites serving similar content (minus the malware).
modified 13-Sep-16 23:06pm.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of Indian news sites are doing that too. Not one of them is worth the risk of disabling a blocker though, no surprises there I guess
|
|
|
|
|
The default settings I run under prevents most scripts from running. I visit sites I trust with another browser (just noticed that's what you do) and pretty much everything else will be treated with suspicion.
I also use a custom hosts file (you'd know - from the MVP group) which offers excellent passive safety. While my intention is not to prevent any website from making revenue, I can't trust webshites like forbes with my privacy or safety.
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: So, it's OK for websites to push out malware but not for the users to take preventive measures to protect themselves?
If you think that is what I said or implied, you are wrong.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
What were you implying then? The person you responded to mentioned that he had to block forbes.com from displaying adverts because they started serving malware. To him, you responded that he's stealing.
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: that he had to block forbes.com
Quote: that there are plenty of "big name sites"
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Am I missing something here? 
There are plenty of high traffic websites, serving up a steaming pile of malware. So, the other poster blocks it. He was very clear in implying that he wouldn't know if a website could be trusted until it's visited, so what's wrong in being proactively safe?
There are other people here saying that they visit trusted websites using a different browser, which sounds very reasonable to me (it's what I do). There's no reason for forbes or any other crap website to track me and invade my privacy in spite of my browser settings telling them precisely not to do that. If they're not playing fair, why should the user do so?
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: Am I missing something here?
Yes.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: There's no reason for forbes or any other crap website to track me and invade my privacy in spite of my browser settings telling them precisely not to do that.
I agree.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: Am I missing something here?
Yes.
Want to substantiate that claim?
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: Want to substantiate that claim?
No. I have no interest in this topic anymore. I made my statement very clear and people are going to disagree with me. And people like Mark Wallace are going to be childish jerks and that's life on the internet.
You can disagree or agree. I do not care.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
You did in fact make your opinions very clear and yes, many seem to disagree with it for one underlying reason: privacy, and security.
As to the trolls, I can't comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: trolls
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: I guess that is how you justify stealing to yourself.
What a total @rse you are, talking to honest people that way.
Visiting a web-site is not stealing.
If you don't want people to visit your web-site without paying, lock it off with usernames and passwords.
If your only reason for presenting a web-site is to gain advertising revenues, it's probably not worth visiting anyway.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, thanks Forbes. If it were not for their heavy-handed attempt to circumvent adblockers, I would have never would've thought to learn how to write a program to make web calls so I can read the text response directly*. All the articles I want without the ads and the browser. At some point, I might just write a parser to coax out and display only the text of the body. It's a pain reading through all the HTML.
* I just wanted to see if I could
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Try using Privacy Badger in Chrome or Firefox...I don't seem to have any trouble reading articles at Forbes.com.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
