Well of course...
Shoving unwanted ads into people's browser windows is Google's job!
More than 100,000 Chrome users have complained to Google about extensions injecting ads into their browser windows since January 1, 2015 alone, and now The Chocolate Factory is moving to block the worst offenders. Ad injectors are extensions – or occasionally standalone apps – that replace native advertising on web pages with …
Use Firefox for Android,as it is the only one that uses extensions,or add-ons. Ghostery is pretty good,and they also have a new stand alone browser in playstore. Also other adblocking extensions are available. Now if you want something that works on the whole device,use Disconnect or Adgaurd both available from their websites. They have a free and premium sudscriber version. Another adblocking Android browser is Mercury,but if you have a Chinese aversion then skip it. Firefox is by far the best option for all kinds of privacy helps, And it will save data too. Now if you have limited ram,then use Opera mini because their compression technology will eliminate a fair amount of bs. So you see,lots of options if people only do their homework.
A Firefox Addon called "DoNotTrackMe" was sold out to Abine, and became "Blur" an ad delivery system.
There is no way in anybody's hell I'm going to call it what their promo web page claims, because straight off the bat it delivers ads to your browser's 'desktop'.
You can get rid of those ads - but you have to register and pony up a heap of your personal information.
Ironincally, this was exactly what DoNotTrackMe was trying to stop anyone from doing in the first place.
Fuck you Abine, fuck you very much.
I changed to using Ghostery, after DoNotTrackMe decided it needed read + write access to my (desktop) system's network settings. (Like wf!?)
Asked Albine why it needed those permissions, and their spokesperson did the bullshit "have you tried turning it off/on again" type of no-answer "there's no problem here" routine. :(
Then contacted Ars Technica... to point out the problem... and no response there.
So, it's interesting to know I wasn't wrong about something going rogue there.
Disagree. The need for ABP, and I can't understand how people browse without it, is a symptom, it's not the cure. That will come when the advertisers understand that they haven't got a god given right to shove their crap in your face 24,7 whether you want it or not. But it's going to be a chilly day in hades then
> That will come when the advertisers understand that they haven't got a god given right to shove their crap in your face 24,7 whether you want it or no
Which will come when "users" realise they also have a right to pay for the content they are consuming on the internet. It all has to get paid for somehow, and the general trend so far is that users are a bunch of tight fisted folks who would rather put up with adverts (indirect costs) rather than pay up front (direct costs).
Not just web - happening in gaming too with "free to play" - people just don't like paying for software.
"Not just web - happening in gaming too with "free to play" - people just don't like paying for software."
Another case for the +100 button! And what makes it worse is that the same people who refuse to pay for stuff then start ranting about how good games do make money and if you're not making any return then your game must be shit...
Pint for you, Pete_H!
In other news, people are a-ok with providing data to the Zuckoberg/NSA complex and to cloudify stuff on companies established on the "4-eyes" compact.
They also vote in the same dumb fucks who a currently driving the car to the next wall at breakneck speed every single time.
The experiment has failed.
Soooo, it's fine to advertise a game as 'free to play' with a tiny (may need in-game purchases to get anywhere off the first level)?
They are NOT 'free to play' they are 'we'll get you hooked then demand money to get anywhere with the game'.
Free to play?
Nah, 'free to be pwnd'
"Free to play?
Nah, 'free to be pwnd'"
Yes and no, it depends on the transaction model used. Where the primary source of revenue is XP boosters and cosmetic items it's not that bad TBH. Wargaming.net and Gaijin are probably the two best that I've seen for this, while you can hand over some money to speed up the process all of the game is available without doing so, you'll just spend a long time at each tier past about 5.
Of course you're still likely to get owned as some of the players are just insanely good and there's always the conveniently timed lag spike, the one that only kicks in when you try to hit the fire button causing instant death as they get the drop rather than you...
"I don't believe that paying to get rid of ads will get me rid of advertisers. Just like cable or satellite TV."
Does PBS (in the US) need to routinely run ads? (I don't know/can't remember).
PBS is now available in the UK, but afaict it's only available as part of a for-money bundle on a for-money satellite broadcaster.
"Does PBS (in the US) need to routinely run ads? (I don't know/can't remember)."
Not as such. From time to time they'll have fund drives where people interrupt the shows to beg for money from the viewers. I'm not sure which is worse. I suppose on a small scale, shows on PBS (and NPR) are often sponsored by one or more backers. "$SHOWNAME is sponsored by JimmyWidget, makers of fine widgets for discerning tastes and The Croydon Arts Council, presenting Oliver Twist from March 3rd until April 1st at the Dabs Theatre".
@Pete H Which will come when "users" realise they also have a right to pay for the content they are consuming on the internet.
OK Pete, you've convinced me. Can you provide a list of the sites that are worth paying for so that we can all subscribe?
Or the advertisers accept that their business model isn't working.
The music business went through this. They wanted to carry on with physical music sales. Then filesharing took off and everyone sat around and bitched about how the companies couldn't deal with it, their business models didn't work and they had to accept it.
Well, same deal for the ad companies and for sites which rely on their income. We don't want ads. We install adblockers. Your current business model doesn't work, so you need to change it or die.
Except one ad company in particular is too powerful. They release a browser which can't have ad blocking. They release whole operating systems with advertising systems baked in. The customers will have ads and will like it. And their defenders stand up for them because the up-front costs are lower than the competition. The downstream costs? They don't count.
"But then again, neither are adverts in general."
Yes totally agree, all ads should be banned. We should be back to BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, BBC NEWS and the BBC radio stations only in the UK.
BBC Could then use the extra freeview space to expand all the way up to BBC56 or have BBC1+1, BBC1+2, BBC1+3 all the way to BBC1+24.
Your life should be filled with non commercial tv and radio. Newspapers also - creat a BBC newspaper for everyone to read.
"Yes totally agree, all ads should be banned. We should be back to BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, BBC NEWS and the BBC radio stations only in the UK."
Hmm, wonder how else we'd do it.
Well just like sky sports then, you know every 15 minutes through a football game it stops to advertise chocolate, or beer, or football boots.
Or...you know people could produce great content and I could well subscribe and pay them money to watch it.
Na, it would never catch on, who'd pay money to watch football and other sports on Television...
"Well just like sky sports then...you know people could produce great content and I could well subscribe and pay them money to watch it."
Oh yeah, I forgot Sky (Including Sky Sports) don't have any adverts for their subscribers. Oh no they do, ads and subscription the best of both worlds for you.
every 15 minutes through a football game it stops to advertise
1) They are not allowed to do this and they don't. All the action is shown live as it happens. You'd know this if you'd ever watched sport on SKY rather than just making shit up.
2) ITV did do this once accidently (some eejit thumped the play button while cueing up the ads for half-time). They got arseraped by OFCOM for their pains.
Half-time ads are no big deal. That's when you go and make the tea anyway.
You have pretty much described my TV watching as it stands...
I do listen to commercial radio(kerarrang replacement services, what ever it calls it self), right until the first ad break, then it's time for radio 4 (or a CD, if the archers is on). News papers could be financed by an old fashioned method where by you give them money and they give you news.
</grumpy old man>
IMHO, I have no real objection to small advertising files being part of each page I view - its pretty much a necessary evil - as long as it doesnt consume huge amounts of bandwidth. But I do object to large video stuff, flash etc, so surely surely "Third Party Injectors" have NO place on the web.
For the system of ad supporting content to work then the page owner gets to decide who he is selling ad space to and receive something for each page impression viwed, not some scammer coding hidden function into extensions which pretty much become malware.
As a company that has grown on the back of advertising, Google should understand this and stop ALL the injectors - unless they can be shown to be financially contributing to the upkeep on the sites they steal advertising space on.
But then we know that ad men are the most venal of groups.
"IMHO, I have no real objection to small advertising files being part of each page I view - its pretty much a necessary evil - as long as it doesnt consume huge amounts of bandwidth. But I do object to large video stuff, flash etc, so surely surely "Third Party Injectors" have NO place on the web."
Yes. Adverts are not intrinsically bad, but the arms race between the advertisers to be "bigger and better" and more in-your-face than the competition is what has destroyed the experience and lead to ad-blockers, flash blockers, script blockers etc.
Auto-play video ads are the spawn of the devil!!!!!
So we probably don't really care who's getting the money for the click through but these things are annoying. Recently had the misfortune of using a friends machine which had exactly one of these extensions. Type your search in google and the list pops up as expected and then just as you're about to click on the link the whole page scrolls down while a new list of mostly the same links is shoved in at the top.
Would be interesting to see what happened with 3 or 4 of these installed - browser injector wars! Only the strongest will survive!!
google are cleaning plugins out that inject ads ......
Many of those plugins are likely injecting ugly crap and doing ugly things. ABP is a good tool, and most of us techy type folk are likely using that or some variant. Even ABP is going down the path of least *cough*financial*cough resistance... Google certainly don't want to loose revenue to other advertnets but I suspect that they will clean up a few plugins that are likely doing more than just injecting adverts.
<removes *very* long rant about how the internet has changed the way we do business in this world>
I'm calling today RantDay instead of thursday.
My problem with ad injectors is that my own website, my business, my bread and butter, carry no ads.
An ad injector will be context sensitive, so it will put ads on my pages which will be for rival businesses of a similar nature, and worst of all, I will never know it's happening.
How can I protect my own sites from having adverts placed in them by these obnoxious apps?
You can't. All you can do is have a tag to "Our Ad Policy" stating that you do not use advertising, and that anything the user is seeing is the product of after-market display tampering over which you have no control.
Then you hint broadly at the ethics of anyone relying on such tactics using phrases like "it is not for us to say" and "though the motives of this tactic cannot be reduced to the general case" and all your competitors are painted as villains without your saying so.
About six months ago, due to miserable performance in my very slow DSL environment, and several barely-thwarted security attacks (and one suspected bot that two experts have been unable to dislodge). Back to IE, slow but sturdy. Not going back until I am assured that Chrome is clean, and so is my computer. I am not tech-savvy, so I am a late-adopter and very cautious.
Miserable performance in your very slow DSL environment seems it might be due to your very slow DSL environment?
Stop using IE, add the ScriptSafe plugin to Chrome, and start using the content white-listing it enables you to do. Firefox's is called ScriptNo, NoScript, something like that
Have the experts used MalwareBytes Anti-Malware from a safe boot with networking support(F5)?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019