Feeds

back to article Viacom shuns Google's DoubleClick for Microsoft

After suing one Google acquisition for $1bn, US media behemoth Viacom has now divorced another, leaping headlong into the arms of Microsoft. Back in March, Viacom slapped a $1bn copyright infringement lawsuit on YouTube, and as lawyers continue to bicker about whether Google is responsible for Viacom-owned clips posted to the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

Ads? What are those?

Oh, some income producing things that appear (or not). Please go to https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865

for the proper way of observing the output of such mavens. Sorry IE users, it won't work on that platform.

0
0

Lesser of all Evils

I don't use ad-blocker to block google ads. They have never bothered me, and I've only accidently clicked it once, when a page (for El Reg) hadn't fully rendered, and did as I clicked, shifting the ad under my cursor. Unlike all the other flash shite ads with sound and what not. Those people need to go to hell.

0
0
Flame

doubleclick?

Oh, THAT Doubleclick. The one I've got hardcoded to 127.0.0.1 in my hosts file. Screw them and their invasive data mining.

0
0
Thumb Up

@Herby

I have been using Adblock (and now Adblock Plus) for a few years now. I only have to see ads when I go to work and use Internet Exploder instead of the superior and more secure Firefox.

0
0

@Herby

Thank you Herby. I just installed it and am very pleased and impressed.

0
0

Remember seeing some of those some time ago...

Ah, yeah, I remember they exist each time I go on hollidays and use an internet cafe that doesn't let me plug my usk disk and start portable Firefox....

0
0
Alert

market competition and online privacy?

"Redmond has vigorously fought the deal, claiming that a marriage between two of the most successful internet advertising operations will hamper market competition and destroy online privacy as we know it."

Is this the same Redmond that does everything in its power to hamper market competion in its own market so that it can continue to produce software so ridden with security holes that online privacy for its users is an uphill struggle requiring lots of third party protection? Shurely shome mishtake?

0
0
Thumb Down

Re: Ads? What are those?

They are probably the thing that pays for a lot of sites. Without them would the WWW be what it is today?

I think that hiding ads hurts the smaller sites and only helps the big sites (because they have a better cash flow). You dont have to click them you know.

0
0
Silver badge
Dead Vulture

Hate to guilt trip all you ad-blockers

But remember sites like El Reg need the ad money to survive. Those reporters dont work for free.

(dead vulture becuase thats what can be the result of ad blocking)

That said, can you please kill those ads with sound, thise rollover ads, and the ones that cover text without opening their own windows? I Promise to click more banner ads if you do.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Only themselves to blame

@ Matthew Bartlett

Advertisers only have themselves to blame. Ad blockers evolved because of aggressive web advertising (pop-ups, pop-unders, flash, animated, etc). Now they are reaping the rewards as their potential customers use ad blockers to block *all* ads.

0
0
Silver badge

@Matthew Bartlett

I'd probably be less inclined to block ads, or at least be more selective if there was a way to allow simple text-based ones and static images and filter out the pop-ups, pop-unders and animated graphics. Basically some of the advertisers have encouraged me to block everything because I have no easy way to remove the stuff that I find distracting and annoying (OK, I know they want me to notice their ads but...)

0
0
W

Problem?

"Without them would the WWW be what it is today?"

I'm not sure I agree. As has been mentioned, Google ads are a commendable compromise. Flash nonsense dumped from an adserver is unneccessarily obtrusive and Adblock has remedied the problem. It's fighting fire with fire. There's nothing stopping websites hosting their own revenue generating ads rather than clinically farming the whole process out to a third party.

I have a pal who sells ads for MSN. Always gives me a guilty chuckle to think that it's possible for me to render his day's work ineffective.

0
0

@Chad

Good point, never really thought about that. I use a combination of AdBlock, FlashBlock and GreaseMonkey to "tidy up" the various sites I look at, and never really thought that without the revenue from the ads the sites could be at risk.

Having said that I'd be happy to pay a small member fee for any sites such as El Reg that are "necessities".

0
0
Gold badge
Happy

@W

"....render his day's work ineffective."

Really? To do that you'd have go out and install FurFooks and AdBlock on every PC in the world. Very altruistic of you to offer to spend the time. Tell you what, I'll do me own and save you a little effort.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

To the devil with them...

You really have to wonder how much internet traffic is generated by those 500kB+ graphical flash ads oozing down the information super adway. The nice thing is that most browsers have an option to block the loading of images and cookies not originated from the website being viewed. Blocking them doesn't do much harm, most ads only generate revenue when clicked on, and for every one user who knows how to block them there are thousands of idiots just dying to know how to make millions in their underbritches - millions which can then be spent on cheap viagra and knock-off electronics.

0
0
Silver badge
Pirate

For the adblocker haters

I'm also an FF/AdBlock user, and I've had some real flamewars with those who whinge about adblockers destroying the internet. When that twat Danny Carlton set up whyfirefoxisblocked.com and started encouraging webmasters to block FF, it took me all of about 2 hours to come up with an absolute counter, allowing me to still use FF on the sites that were blocking it - even the ones that queried the FF API to detect it. I can view any site on the net I want, with my choice of browser, without annoying and distracting animations and sounds ruining my experience; and I left messages or emails on those sites to the effect that I've just "stolen" their content with FF. Fuck off.

Just to add insult to injury, I then created a means of infallibly detecting Firefox even with my own workaround, the User Agent Switcher and Noscript, since my method doesn't require Javascript, the user-agent string, or FF API queries to work - and kept the code to myself while blowing rasperries at the adblocker haters. And I will not reveal my secret trick until I see FF gain majority market share. Then I'll release it into the wild and see how many webmasters are willing to put into practice a scheme that will cut off most of their traffic!

I've specifically enabled Google Ads in my AdBlock because that is a sensible, non-intrusive form of advertising, that I want to encourage. I even click on the ads, even if I have no intention of buying the product, simply to help the webmaster, promote that this form of advertising gets results, and I encourage others to do the same. When the advertising droids realise that in-your-face jiggly-bouncy animated ads don't even get seen anymore they might wake up and realise that less is more, even in advertising. We can only hope.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.