Google Cracks Down on Adblock
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Or just have it actually use your current volume level instead of maximum.Joccaren said:
I leave my headset turned up all the way and just turn down YouTube. The ads literally hurt my ears sometimes. That said I have YouTube whitelisted anyway.
There is an awful lot of salt in this thread for something that Google is completely within their rights to do.
I use adblock, sure, but I don't understand getting pissy with websites that try to circumvent it in whatever way they can. "Oh, that terrible Google, trying to stop something that loses them money! How dare they!"
I use adblock, sure, but I don't understand getting pissy with websites that try to circumvent it in whatever way they can. "Oh, that terrible Google, trying to stop something that loses them money! How dare they!"
The way I see it, forcing me to watch anything will make me hate it. I'm not your *****, google. Go ahead and spy on me (this is satirical, I'm not giving you explicit permission to spy on me Google Inc.), go ahead and actively stagnate and make content creation shit (I saw Jeremy Kyle and social "experiments" on the front page of Youtube, art is dead and you killed it), go ahead and milk the viral cow until your arms fall off, I don't care, just don't fuck with my day. I have a short life span and an even shorter patience.
I've disabled Flash. Well, if I ever really need to use it, I enable it, but for the vast majority of time, it's disabled. That would be 99% of the time, and that's not me just pulling a large number - I have, in fact, rounded that down - if I ever use flash, it's for several minutes, and then I usually don't need it again for at least a month. At worse, I suppose, I'll use Flash for 2 hours a month, which, if we assume a month has 30 days, is coming up as ~99.72 of the time there is no Flash.RatGouf said:
I have done this for two simple reasons: 1. Flash on the web is vile and it's high time it dies. If I contribute, even a tiny little bit, I'm happy. 2. For approximately 99% of the time, I don't even need it. Seriously, I turned it off partly because I was curious what would that affect, and the answer was...almost nothing. I've had it off since at least the start of this year, if not earlier.
For the record, I've also disabled Java in the browser, and that ha had approximately zero effect. I've had it off for at least 4 years now, and very, very rarely have I had to enable it, even then, it's because I've explicitly sought out sites that use it.
Oh, and there is Silverlight. I've never, ever, had any browser, nor any device, that had Silverlight. I've ran into it exactly twice - one was during University, one of the systems it had was with a Silverlight interface (and that was a fucking abomination anyway), the second time was when I tried Amazon Video, which had a fallback Flash support.
Sucks for Chrome users *sits back and sips for the 'Firefox Master Race' mug* But seriously though did they really think this would work? They must be painfully stupid if they thought this would help them pull in more add revenue.
AHAHAHAHAHAHahahaha ah... And less than 4 posts later a mod was preparing for hammer time. I swear, you can't even script shit to be that funny. Anyway, I think the tone of this conversation needs to change a bit. We all know the current ad strategies suck (so please, we need to keep driving that home), but what would be the "happy medium"? I honestly don't know because I feel like ad companies will never be content.IceForce said:
It is the site's fault when the goal posts keep getting moved. You are a mod, speaking with mod-ly authority, yet the CoC doesn't support what you said. Unless I'm missing something this, "Further, discussions instructing or otherwise advocating the circumvention of The Escapist's advertisements, site sponsors, security mechanisms, media protections or similar facilities will not be tolerated." is the only mention of it in the CoC. So, again, unless I'm missing something you can talk about it, advocate it's use, and admit to using it... so long as it doesn't involve this site. Seems like the CM agrees with that assessment too. As for the user base QCing ads on the site, I ain't getting paid to do the staff's work for them. I'll just come here less, like I did when the full screen pop ups and (repeated) autoplay ads were the norm. Perhaps they should do a better job of screening what goes on their site. And before you ask, I don't even use adblock software. I have to sit through the same fucking ads over and over and over on youtube AND another place. At least youtube will let me skip them sometimes, unlike some folks who shove them down your throat.Barbas said:
So let me get this clear. Google doesn't want people to use ad-blockers, so it uses the exact same sort of adds which made people resort to ad-blockers in the first place?
Well, congratulations, Google. I didn't know this level of clueless was even possible to attain.
Well, congratulations, Google. I didn't know this level of clueless was even possible to attain.
Google wouldn't get a clue if you frigging typed 'CLUE' in their search engine and hit enter for them.Alleged_Alec said:
But but but, it's right there on the OP, asking people to whitelist escapist (which I did for the other comps cause I totally forgot about it after doing fresh reinstalls cause of LOLtier shit with Win10 and OMFG tier of techsupp cause of conduit and SweetIM malwares), that has GOT to be one of the most clever catch 22 in recent memory.Barbas said:
You either can't talk about the OP, or you might get the hammer for discussing the OP.
Yes, flash and silverlight should burn, burn like no tomorrow. Flash's numerous security makes my life hell as updates "takes too much time" so these people never updates it, and when shit breaks, it's somehow IT's fault. Then you get the poor suckers doing techsupp to fix a problem that wouldn't have become a problem in the first place. One thing people don't seem to understand is that IT, when given the chance, will put the most restrictive adblock on their machines when possible to prevent future problems. I'm talking about users that "just know enough to be dangerous", ie. ppl that KNOWING download malware because they want that emoticon on their social media shit (this... is a recurring problem for more than a decade now, if anyone recalls the embedded Netbus exploit, same shit, different tune).DoPo said:
I'd say the largest "users" of adblock-esque tools would be administrators and IT people cause the problem they create. Considering the size of the white-collar workforce, that isn't a small number since their usage isn't affect just "one" user, it's entire companies.
The rule about AdBlock is that you shouldn't advocate, link to, or admit to using it. However, I asked the CM about it (since we had a rather unhappy Jimquisition thread a while ago in which people misunderstood or didn't read the CoC and got wrathed), and I should direct you to this post here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.882055.22229866].BrokenTinker said:
A lot of people undeniably use AdBlock because they can't stand intrusive ads that often slow down the loading of the page they're on, so I imagine the OP felt it was the more diplomatic option to ask politely if they'd disable it for this site. I think it makes more sense to go easier with that rule in this thread. Saying you've whitelisted the site is fine, since that ultimately means that you're viewing the ads in the end and that view is being counted, ergo you're not really breaking the rule on the Escapist.
Setting aside the fact that your "never" is obviously hyperbole - even you bought something you saw advertised - here's the point from an advertisers perspective: Nobody buys a product they're not aware of. Sure, the vast, vast majority of the people you advertise to won't buy your product, but that's okay, so long as the people who would like to buy your product do find out about it. Maybe by seeing ads, maybe word of mouth, maybe by reviews or articles - oh, and an ad buy might just go a long way towards having such articles or reviews of your product exist.Leon Royce said:
I really only see this resulting in people avoiding the use of Chrome entirely. I've always found that giving people an incentive to do something is much better than punishing someone for not doing something. This is especially when people have the option of using another service because it's more likely that they will just leave.
I only started using ad blocker because some sites would run 5 ads at once, which would just kill my computer. For me it was a move of self-preservation. Google doesn't even give most of the ad revenue to the producers of content, so I feel no shame in using it. If they start, then congrats Firefox! You're relevant again!
"Don't be evil"
How about being annoying and just plain obtrusive
I wonder how long it will be before Google buys Mozilla
How about being annoying and just plain obtrusive
I wonder how long it will be before Google buys Mozilla
Thank you, I had forgotten about that bullet point. But now we have an interesting dilemma, we have conflicting rules in the CoC...IceForce said:
"Further, discussions instructing or otherwise advocating the circumvention of The Escapist's advertisements, site sponsors, security mechanisms, media protections or similar facilities will not be tolerated."
"Ad Blockers - Do not link to, advocate, or admit to using ad blockers." (at all it would seem)
Further obfuscated by the Mod getting ready to go full hammer time based on the second rule, the CM going by the first rule, and then the Mod saying, "Saying you've whitelisted the site is fine, since that ultimately means that you're viewing the ads in the end and that view is being counted, ergo you're not really breaking the rule on the Escapist."
Ya know what, imma do this...
Can we get some clarification on this from on high and perhaps an addendum to the CoC to make this clearer please? The fact this OP came from the news room and a mod was getting ready to bring the cleansing hammer signals to me that the root issue raised by the Jimqusition debacle has yet to be sorted. Thanks.ffronw said:
Sarge034 said:
Yeah, you're right. These two quotes seem to contradict. Mainly because there's nothing in the COC that says you can talk about adblockers so long as you stipulate via a disclaimer that you whitelist The Escapist.Sarge034 said:
If avoiding a mod warning is as simple as putting a disclaimer on the end of a post, then that should really be written in the rules somewhere.
EDIT: Actually, there's a good example just a few posts up from this. Scroll up to post 117 (made by NeoAC). He freely and openly admits to using an adblocker, and doesn't stipulate that he whitelists The Escapist. On the face of it, this would seem to be in breach of both of the quotes above.
@Mods and Staff: I'm not meaning to derail or make a nuisance of myself here, I'm just seeking clarification on what has traditionally always been a rather muddy issue.