The ‘everything should be free’ on the Internet bozo crowd is getting more than it asked for. It’s hilarious to see them posting here and elsewhere about how they block everything and have this nirvana-like Internet experience now. Oh wait... advertisers are still getting to them and their web viewing habits. Talk about an arms race, and it’s just getting started.
There's no good reason content creators can't place text or an image based ads that won't be impacted at all by most blockers. Its the tracking scripts and invisible stuff that's going to get extincted.
The onus should be on content providers to provide data to advertisers about their own site's traffic and the click metrics of an ad. Unless there is a contract provided upfront before content, viewers have zero responsibility to share their habits and data with anyone. The current method of 'brand everyone like cows and follow them everywhere around the Internet' is a dying model. If content providers can't get hip to this, they die too. :smokey:
I have the crystal App and I can't even find where you can turn off this feature. They hid it so well I bet 90% of the people won't even know it exists.
You couldn't find it because the developer didn't implement it yet. So far Crystal blocks all ads. What AI is talking about here will be a feature that will be added in a future update. The developer has been answering questions all day about this on Twitter. I suggest you check it out. You've fallen a victim for AI anti-Adblock campaign.
You couldn't find it because the developer didn't implement it yet. So far Crystal blocks all ads. What AI is talking about here will be a feature that will be added in a future update. The developer has been answering questions all day about this on Twitter. I suggest you check it out. You've fallen a victim for AI anti-Adblock campaign.
This is not an "anti-Adblock campaign" as there are other content blockers to choose from that have not sold out to advertisers.
If the developer truly wanted to protect websites with nonintrusive and noninvasive ads, then he should provide a way for users to easily whitelist websites and benevolent ad networks like The Deck.
This is not an "anti-Adblock campaign" as there are other content blockers to choose from that have not sold out to advertisers.
How allowing users to choose is selling out? Are you upset because the guy is making money from his product or are you upset that he allows users to choose what ads they want to block?
Wasn't it few days ago that people here were saying they only block ads because if tracking and being intrusive and they wouldn't mind allowing ads if they weren't? Well this option gives you the choice. If the developer makes more money I am fine with it as long as it's an option.
How allowing users to choose is selling out? Are you upset because the guy is making money from his product or are you upset that he allows users to choose what ads they want to block?
Wasn't it few days ago that people here were saying they only block ads because if tracking and being intrusive and they wouldn't mind allowing ads if they weren't? Well this option gives you the choice. If the developer makes more money I am fine with it as long as it's an option.
Whitelisting of ads should be controlled by the user and should be designed to protect ethical ad networks, not those who pay a fee to bypass the ad blocking. Google is mentioned as one of the favored ad networks when they are among the worst offenders in terms of privacy and invasive ads.
Whitelisting of ads should be controlled by the user and should be designed to protect ethical ad networks, not those who pay a fee to bypass the ad blocking. Google is mentioned as one of the favored ad networks when they are among the worst offenders in terms of privacy and invasive ads.
The developer on Twitter said whitelisting sites will also be an option in future update. So I guess three options (block all ads, all only ads that we think are acceptable, and allow ad on websites the user specify) is bad.
The developer on Twitter said whitelisting sites will also be an option in future update. So I guess three options (block all ads, all only ads that we think are acceptable, and allow ad on websites the user specify) is bad.
"only ads that we think are acceptable"
This implies that those ad networks have been vetted and determined to be benign. The user is misled when in fact those ads are let through purely based on payola. I hope everyone abandons this app and the developer loses his ass on his meager development efforts.
Ridicuous. This like buying an anti-virus program and finding out some virus wont get deleted because some company paid the software maker to allow those virus to avoid detection.
You don't want the option then turn it off. Not that difficult to do.
I've changed my mind on this, especially because of the option that allows you to block all ads.
Originally I paid for Crystal and used it. But then I realized that web sites need to earn money somehow; else, they'll shutdown and I won't able to visit them. So I turned off Crystal.
This new option is a good compromise: it may disable the most annoying ads (such as the auto-play videos) but still allow other ads that enable websites to earn money and stay alive.
This isn't the point at all, the problem is advertisements having a massively negative impact on the user. This impact is in part caused by the significant slowdown in the web app (Safari, iExplorer, FireFox or whatever), in part it cost the users huge sums of money especially on mobile, some sites have traffic that amounts to 75% of the bytes downloaded.
I really have nothing against paying for a web site with a few non intrusive apps but when the site has ads popping up literally every minute, sometimes complete obscuring the content, then yes it is time to react and block ads. If the web sites stop making money then they will be forced to find a better way to finance the site or die. it isn't pretty I'm sure but frankly many sites are just excessively greedy.
To look at it another way, what if your broadcast TV channels started running ads every minute, add that you had to pay for because of the bandwidth they used. Would you be all that happy with the arraignment? I think most people understand that nothing is free, what we can't stomach is having our system completely taken over by adds and at the same time paying for the bandwidth they used to get there.
A1 post. I've been having discussions about this for a while now. Does the use of user mobile bandwidth for ads (or by ad companies) fall under any EULAs? In other words, is there (super)fine print in the AT&T wireless contract I signed that stated I have to eat advertising bytes?....or is there a class-action lawsuit in the making?
I think advertisers should have to pay my wireless provider for the cost of the bytes. I shouldn't have to pay for the bytes pushed to my phone if I didn't ask for or seek them out. I could probably halve my data plan if that were the case and this is reason, alone, to have mobile device ad blockers.
iOS 9 is the best it could happens to mobile. Advertisers have to find better ways to reach the end user, ad blockers will act as a regulator agency. At the end even users without ad blocker will benefit.
So you build a moat where people used to just walk across freely, then you build a bridge over the moat and charge people who want to go across the bridge. In what way is this not extortion?
Outbound Firewall = Reason my iDevices stay jailbroken.
It will adress this problem and the one nobody is talking about: apps connecting to various internet adresses when there is no obvious technical reason to do so.
Makes me angry when apps I payed for try to track me via Flurry, Criteo, Google Analytics or others...
For me, it's about having control over who you whitelist. Say I want to support one site but not another one for whatever reason ?. Maybe I object to the amount of data that google collects about me, so I choose to block their ads and tracking.
I can't do that with Crystal now, it's either all or nothing. And with over 70 companies apparently paying the author to allow their ads through, it's very likely going to end up making my mobile browsing experience no different to having no adblocker at all.
That's why i've uninstalled Crystal and paid for Purify. Not only does it render pages faster than Crystal, I can choose what I want to whitelist.
Comments
There's no good reason content creators can't place text or an image based ads that won't be impacted at all by most blockers. Its the tracking scripts and invisible stuff that's going to get extincted.
The onus should be on content providers to provide data to advertisers about their own site's traffic and the click metrics of an ad. Unless there is a contract provided upfront before content, viewers have zero responsibility to share their habits and data with anyone. The current method of 'brand everyone like cows and follow them everywhere around the Internet' is a dying model. If content providers can't get hip to this, they die too. :smokey:
You couldn't find it because the developer didn't implement it yet. So far Crystal blocks all ads. What AI is talking about here will be a feature that will be added in a future update. The developer has been answering questions all day about this on Twitter. I suggest you check it out. You've fallen a victim for AI anti-Adblock campaign.
You couldn't find it because the developer didn't implement it yet. So far Crystal blocks all ads. What AI is talking about here will be a feature that will be added in a future update. The developer has been answering questions all day about this on Twitter. I suggest you check it out. You've fallen a victim for AI anti-Adblock campaign.
This is not an "anti-Adblock campaign" as there are other content blockers to choose from that have not sold out to advertisers.
If the developer truly wanted to protect websites with nonintrusive and noninvasive ads, then he should provide a way for users to easily whitelist websites and benevolent ad networks like The Deck.
How allowing users to choose is selling out? Are you upset because the guy is making money from his product or are you upset that he allows users to choose what ads they want to block?
Wasn't it few days ago that people here were saying they only block ads because if tracking and being intrusive and they wouldn't mind allowing ads if they weren't? Well this option gives you the choice. If the developer makes more money I am fine with it as long as it's an option.
How allowing users to choose is selling out? Are you upset because the guy is making money from his product or are you upset that he allows users to choose what ads they want to block?
Wasn't it few days ago that people here were saying they only block ads because if tracking and being intrusive and they wouldn't mind allowing ads if they weren't? Well this option gives you the choice. If the developer makes more money I am fine with it as long as it's an option.
Whitelisting of ads should be controlled by the user and should be designed to protect ethical ad networks, not those who pay a fee to bypass the ad blocking. Google is mentioned as one of the favored ad networks when they are among the worst offenders in terms of privacy and invasive ads.
The developer on Twitter said whitelisting sites will also be an option in future update. So I guess three options (block all ads, all only ads that we think are acceptable, and allow ad on websites the user specify) is bad.
The developer on Twitter said whitelisting sites will also be an option in future update. So I guess three options (block all ads, all only ads that we think are acceptable, and allow ad on websites the user specify) is bad.
"only ads that we think are acceptable"
This implies that those ad networks have been vetted and determined to be benign. The user is misled when in fact those ads are let through purely based on payola. I hope everyone abandons this app and the developer loses his ass on his meager development efforts.
You don't want the option then turn it off. Not that difficult to do.
Block the blockers!
You don't want the option then turn it off. Not that difficult to do.
Ad blockers are supposed to be there to protect the end user, not to provide a new business opportunity for sleazy developers and advertisers.
Originally I paid for Crystal and used it.
But then I realized that web sites need to earn money somehow; else, they'll shutdown and I won't able to visit them.
So I turned off Crystal.
This new option is a good compromise: it may disable the most annoying ads (such as the auto-play videos) but still allow other ads that enable websites to earn money and stay alive.
what ad blocker do you use on your desktop computer?
uBlock
This isn't the point at all, the problem is advertisements having a massively negative impact on the user. This impact is in part caused by the significant slowdown in the web app (Safari, iExplorer, FireFox or whatever), in part it cost the users huge sums of money especially on mobile, some sites have traffic that amounts to 75% of the bytes downloaded.
I really have nothing against paying for a web site with a few non intrusive apps but when the site has ads popping up literally every minute, sometimes complete obscuring the content, then yes it is time to react and block ads. If the web sites stop making money then they will be forced to find a better way to finance the site or die. it isn't pretty I'm sure but frankly many sites are just excessively greedy.
To look at it another way, what if your broadcast TV channels started running ads every minute, add that you had to pay for because of the bandwidth they used. Would you be all that happy with the arraignment? I think most people understand that nothing is free, what we can't stomach is having our system completely taken over by adds and at the same time paying for the bandwidth they used to get there.
A1 post. I've been having discussions about this for a while now. Does the use of user mobile bandwidth for ads (or by ad companies) fall under any EULAs? In other words, is there (super)fine print in the AT&T wireless contract I signed that stated I have to eat advertising bytes?....or is there a class-action lawsuit in the making?
I think advertisers should have to pay my wireless provider for the cost of the bytes. I shouldn't have to pay for the bytes pushed to my phone if I didn't ask for or seek them out. I could probably halve my data plan if that were the case and this is reason, alone, to have mobile device ad blockers.
Then lucky for you they already have iOS app.
Then lucky for you they already have iOS app.
I'm happily using Peace until it stops working.
So you build a moat where people used to just walk across freely, then you build a bridge over the moat and charge people who want to go across the bridge. In what way is this not extortion?
It will adress this problem and the one nobody is talking about: apps connecting to various internet adresses when there is no obvious technical reason to do so.
Makes me angry when apps I payed for try to track me via Flurry, Criteo, Google Analytics or others...
I can't do that with Crystal now, it's either all or nothing. And with over 70 companies apparently paying the author to allow their ads through, it's very likely going to end up making my mobile browsing experience no different to having no adblocker at all.
That's why i've uninstalled Crystal and paid for Purify. Not only does it render pages faster than Crystal, I can choose what I want to whitelist.