Your statement implies you have a right to view and access any website for free and without ads. That's incorrect.
You’re right. That’s incorrect. “That” meaning your statement about what my statement implies. It doesn’t say anything like that.
I won’t say that you have a mental illness because you hold an opinion different from mine...
What’s so hard about this for you to comprehend? This isn’t a matter of opinion. The statement made is definitionally false. It’s objectively wrong. You can always tell the leftists by the fact that they recoil at the suggestion that their way of thinking might actually be harmful in addition to being wrong.
Don’t like that you’ll go to jail for saying [X]? Don’t say [X]. Don’t like that you will be executed for eating [X]? Don’t eat [X]. Don’t like that you’ll be fired for liking yellow? Don’t like yellow.
Freedom of expression.
How is it "definitionally false"? How is it "objectively wrong"?
Free access to someone else's property is not a natural right.
Good for it. That’s not what we’re discussing.
...question the mental health of someone who sees things differently...
Once again, you have zero comprehension of what is actually being said. THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION.
I take it you don’t believe in objective truth, then.
No skin off my nose.
Except that you’re objectively wrong and will be aversely affected by this belief.
I don't believe I am
It doesn’t matter what you believe. What matters is the truth.
and you've not provided any compelling reasoning or logic to persuade me that I am.
Read it again, then.
...utterly ridiculous and superficial as advertising on websites.
We’re not even discussing that anymore. Do you have a problem with the logical chain I laid out here? That’s really the argument at hand. Your statement–that if you don’t like something you should just run away from it because it can never ever be changed again ever you filthy bigot–is complete and utter nonsense.
Free access to someone else's property is not a natural right.
No, but manipulating the data on my end to make it accessible to myself should not be illegal, nor is it illegal to block my access when this type of manipulation is detected.
I have no qualms about using an ad blocker on sites that make their content impossible for me to read otherwise, and I have no problem with choosing between either disabling ad-blocking or simply not viewing the website, if they counter-block me in response.
If their stuff is desirable and strikes a balance that doesn't deteriorate the usability of the site, I view it. If not — their loss.
Hey, why give up a talking point even when show to be wrong eh? Hold fast sir, hold fast....
Continue to claim Google is scanning student accounts and/or enterprise GMail for ads . FUD does serve a purpose.
I'm sorry, I beg your pardon, but Google is TOTALLY indefensible and I really can't understand how a competent guy, like you clearly are, can't see that.
I could link literally dozens of cases where Google got caught data mining. It's their core business and they have no ethics at all.
Apple and Microsoft are charity institute in comparison (and all the multinational companies aren't blameless in this regard), but Google REALLY is evil, and Im going mad about it.
Apple and Microsoft are charity institute in comparison (and all the multinational companies aren't blameless in this regard), but Google REALLY is evil, and Im going mad about it.
I can see that. Because... ads.
In the meantime you seem to have little anger directed towards the true privacy thieves, those that provide absolutely zero to you. Nothing. Not even a free game. They simply gather up everything they can find about you, list it by your name, address and SS or ID number and sell it to anyone, literally anyone, who can pay. They don't ask for you permission, they don't discuss what it's used for. They don't reveal who their sources are and few provide any way to opt-out. . Unlike Google (who does allow opting-out by the way) you don't even have to play online for them to know about you. Just go pick up a prescription and they know.
Whether it be for a loan, an insurance policy, an agency investigation, an employer, a client, or just some curious potential date or jealous foil it's out there for sale. And that stuff ain't comin' from Google. Perhaps you can muster up a bit of madness about them? Enough folks do the same and just maybe we can expand the conversation and truly start getting back at least a little control over our privacy. Anonymized ads? Meh. Package you up by real name, address, phone, birthdate, health, income, family, etc. and sell you for "30 pieces of silver"? Yes, get angry by all means . . . .
In the meantime you seem to have little anger directed towards the true privacy thieves, those that provide absolutely zero to you. Nothing. Not even a free game. They simply gather up everything they can find about you, list it by your name, address and SS or ID number and sell it to anyone, literally anyone, who can pay. They don't ask for you permission, they don't discuss what it's used for. They don't reveal who their sources are and few provide any way to opt-out. . Unlike Google (who does allow opting-out by the way) you don't even have to play online for them to know about you. Just go pick up a prescription and they know.
Whether it be for a loan, an insurance policy, an agency investigation, an employer, a client, or just some curious potential date or jealous foil it's out there for sale. And that stuff ain't comin' from Google. Perhaps you can muster up a bit of madness about them? Enough folks do the same and just maybe we can expand the conversation and truly start getting back at least a little control over our privacy. Anonymized ads? Meh. Package you up by real name, address, phone, birthdate, health, income, family, etc. and sell you for "30 pieces of silver"? Yes, get angry by all means . . . .
With tht
What's your point ? Just because others are even worse than Google doesn't mean I can see Google in a better light.
Google is not for "transparency". When they are caught , they go in full defensive mode for a while .... in the meanwhile they are studying other ways to mine your data. It's their business and I don't like it.
Are there even worse company out there ? Sure, I know it. But not as big as Google....
Ad blocker not blocking only ads but also block some website JAVA script features, might be help for easy view content. So developer wants to make app like not for all but some selected website that actually harming browser.
Are there even worse company out there ? Sure, I know it. But not as big as Google....
Acxiom and Facebook would be good candidates. Both are likely to have a more "personal" stash about you than Google IMHO. But if you're talking about richer, or with more employees I would agree.
Acxiom and Facebook would be good candidates. Both are likely to have a more "personal" stash about you than Google IMHO. But if you're talking about richer, or with more employees I would agree.
BTW if you have any interest in a decent summation:
Comments
You’re right. That’s incorrect. “That” meaning your statement about what my statement implies. It doesn’t say anything like that.
What’s so hard about this for you to comprehend? This isn’t a matter of opinion. The statement made is definitionally false. It’s objectively wrong. You can always tell the leftists by the fact that they recoil at the suggestion that their way of thinking might actually be harmful in addition to being wrong.
Don’t like that you’ll go to jail for saying [X]? Don’t say [X]. Don’t like that you will be executed for eating [X]? Don’t eat [X]. Don’t like that you’ll be fired for liking yellow? Don’t like yellow.
Freedom of expression.
Can’t revoke a natural right.
They don't scan student accounts either. I don't think either you or the OP were talking about use'ta, could'a, would'a but instead saying they DO.
They don't.
They got caught. And sued about that.
So they DO this kind of things....
If you’re okay with being wrong.
If you don’t like my analogy, go away.
Good for it. That’s not what we’re discussing.
Once again, you have zero comprehension of what is actually being said. THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION.
I take it you don’t believe in objective truth, then.
Except that you’re objectively wrong and will be aversely affected by this belief.
It doesn’t matter what you believe. What matters is the truth.
Read it again, then.
We’re not even discussing that anymore. Do you have a problem with the logical chain I laid out here? That’s really the argument at hand. Your statement–that if you don’t like something you should just run away from it because it can never ever be changed again ever you filthy bigot–is complete and utter nonsense.
You do an incredible disservice to actual war and actual evil by making this argument.
If the ads overwhelm the content, don't go there. Vote with your "feet". Publishers will get the message.
Im voting with ad blockers, whitelisting websites that doesn't annoy me with excessive ads.
Continue to claim Google is scanning student accounts and/or enterprise GMail for ads . FUD does serve a purpose.
Free access to someone else's property is not a natural right.
No, but manipulating the data on my end to make it accessible to myself should not be illegal, nor is it illegal to block my access when this type of manipulation is detected.
I have no qualms about using an ad blocker on sites that make their content impossible for me to read otherwise, and I have no problem with choosing between either disabling ad-blocking or simply not viewing the website, if they counter-block me in response.
If their stuff is desirable and strikes a balance that doesn't deteriorate the usability of the site, I view it. If not — their loss.
Easy.
Epic analogy fail on your part.
Replying again to reiterate that you don’t seem to comprehend what you’re saying.
Replying again to reiterate that this isn’t what I was supporting.
Hey, why give up a talking point even when show to be wrong eh? Hold fast sir, hold fast....
Continue to claim Google is scanning student accounts and/or enterprise GMail for ads . FUD does serve a purpose.
I'm sorry, I beg your pardon, but Google is TOTALLY indefensible and I really can't understand how a competent guy, like you clearly are, can't see that.
I could link literally dozens of cases where Google got caught data mining. It's their core business and they have no ethics at all.
Apple and Microsoft are charity institute in comparison (and all the multinational companies aren't blameless in this regard), but Google REALLY is evil, and Im going mad about it.
In the meantime you seem to have little anger directed towards the true privacy thieves, those that provide absolutely zero to you. Nothing. Not even a free game. They simply gather up everything they can find about you, list it by your name, address and SS or ID number and sell it to anyone, literally anyone, who can pay. They don't ask for you permission, they don't discuss what it's used for. They don't reveal who their sources are and few provide any way to opt-out. . Unlike Google (who does allow opting-out by the way) you don't even have to play online for them to know about you. Just go pick up a prescription and they know.
Whether it be for a loan, an insurance policy, an agency investigation, an employer, a client, or just some curious potential date or jealous foil it's out there for sale. And that stuff ain't comin' from Google. Perhaps you can muster up a bit of madness about them? Enough folks do the same and just maybe we can expand the conversation and truly start getting back at least a little control over our privacy. Anonymized ads? Meh. Package you up by real name, address, phone, birthdate, health, income, family, etc. and sell you for "30 pieces of silver"? Yes, get angry by all means . . . .
With tht
I can see that. Because... ads.
In the meantime you seem to have little anger directed towards the true privacy thieves, those that provide absolutely zero to you. Nothing. Not even a free game. They simply gather up everything they can find about you, list it by your name, address and SS or ID number and sell it to anyone, literally anyone, who can pay. They don't ask for you permission, they don't discuss what it's used for. They don't reveal who their sources are and few provide any way to opt-out. . Unlike Google (who does allow opting-out by the way) you don't even have to play online for them to know about you. Just go pick up a prescription and they know.
Whether it be for a loan, an insurance policy, an agency investigation, an employer, a client, or just some curious potential date or jealous foil it's out there for sale. And that stuff ain't comin' from Google. Perhaps you can muster up a bit of madness about them? Enough folks do the same and just maybe we can expand the conversation and truly start getting back at least a little control over our privacy. Anonymized ads? Meh. Package you up by real name, address, phone, birthdate, health, income, family, etc. and sell you for "30 pieces of silver"? Yes, get angry by all means . . . .
With tht
What's your point ? Just because others are even worse than Google doesn't mean I can see Google in a better light.
Google is not for "transparency". When they are caught , they go in full defensive mode for a while .... in the meanwhile they are studying other ways to mine your data. It's their business and I don't like it.
Are there even worse company out there ? Sure, I know it. But not as big as Google....
Ad blocker not blocking only ads but also block some website JAVA script features, might be help for easy view content. So developer wants to make app like not for all but some selected website that actually harming browser.
BTW if you have any interest in a decent summation:
http://qz.com/213900/the-nine-companies-that-know-more-about-you-than-google-or-facebook/
http://gizmodo.com/5991070/big-data-brokers-they-know-everything-about-you-and-sell-it-to-the-highest-bidder
Acxiom and Facebook would be good candidates. Both are likely to have a more "personal" stash about you than Google IMHO. But if you're talking about richer, or with more employees I would agree.
BTW if you have any interest in a decent summation:
http://qz.com/213900/the-nine-companies-that-know-more-about-you-than-google-or-facebook/
http://gizmodo.com/5991070/big-data-brokers-they-know-everything-about-you-and-sell-it-to-the-highest-bidder
Oh, Facebook isn't any better than Google for sure ... I avoid it too
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/google-deceptively-tracks-students-internet-browsing-eff-says-complaint-federal-trade
It would be disingenuous for me to not report this after reading about it.