Bild.de is now blocking users who have ad-blockers installed. Which I think is great. I no longer accidentally see their stupid tabloid shit when I click on a link, and they get the signal that I don't care.
Can you be more specific - what post were you actually referring to? You seem to be all over the map these days - your cartography tag seems to be failing you.
;-)
I believe he's referring to the app named in the article.
The answer from a number of sites has been simply to deny access to users with an ad-blocker enabled. Certainly fair enough IMO. Suing the makers of apps that enable ad blocking is going too far.
EDIT: AI's source, TechCrunch, includes this in the last paragraph:
"Axel Springer is not the only publisher that’s taking a confrontational approach to dealing with ad blockers, The FT recently reported. U.K. newspaper City AM banned ad blockers from its website; U.K. broadcasters ITV and Channel 4 have now done the same; and the Washington Post redirects readers to a subscription page, or asks them to sign up to newsletters, or disable their ad-blocking software. Even Yahoo has gotten in on the action, blocking users from their email when they have AdBlock running."
and a bit further up in the article:
"In October, Axel Springer forced visitors to Bild to turn off their ad blockers or pay a monthly fee to continue using the site. Earlier this month, the publisher reported the success of this measure, saying that the proportion of readers using ad blockers dropped from 23% to the single digits when faced with the choice to turn off the software or pay.
“The results are beyond our expectations,” said Springer chief exec Mathias Döpfner at the time. “Over two-thirds of the users concerned switched off their adblocker.” He also noted that the Bild.de website received an additional 3 million visits from users who could now see the ads in the first two weeks of the experiment going live."
And people wonder how they were getting all this content for free. I think some people thought the fees they pay for internet access paid for all the free content.
I like how Yahoo blocked people from their emails unless they turned off the ad blocker. nothing free in the world. Google does not need to do this since they just read your emails then places ads on everyone elses website based on what they read in your email.
I like how Yahoo blocked people from their emails unless they turned off the ad blocker. nothing free in the world. Google does not need to do this since they just read your emails then places ads on everyone elses website based on what they read in your email.
With perhaps 32 Billion GMail messages flowing between Google servers every day (16% of the estimated total 205B daily emails across all services) "read" would be highly unlikely. Machine scan and keyword index would be more accurate. FWIW nearly all email providers, including big ones like Apple and Microsoft, will read machine scan content to track spam, malware and in some cases illegal content, but I've no idea how many also do so to assist with advertising. Google of course is one of the latter as would be Yahoo, Earthlink and AOL.
There are very few email services that do not scan (sometimes broadly written as "read") your messages, and they are all relatively small and unknown. They certainly would not be appropriate for the average home user IMHO.
I wasn't attacking you. You quoted above a TechCrunch article that stated the Washington Post is blocked if you use a CB. I use the the CB this article is about and accessed the WaPo site without any issues.
Similarly I was able to access iTV as well. I didn't try Channel 4.
Also if people are getting blocked by Yahoo when trying to access their Yahoo emails, I would suggest the easiest way around this is to use the build in iOS Mail app and load their Yahoo details in there.
I wasn't attacking you. You quoted above a TechCrunch article that stated the Washington Post is blocked if you use a CB. I use the the CB this article is about and accessed the WaPo site without any issues.
I didn't think you were. I just had no idea what I had said about "WaPo". Now I know.
With perhaps 32 Billion GMail messages flowing between Google servers every day (16% of the estimated total 205B daily emails across all services) "read" would be highly unlikely. Machine scan and keyword index would be more accurate. FWIW nearly all email providers, including big ones like Apple and Microsoft, will read machine scan content to track spam, malware and in some cases illegal content, but I've no idea how many also do so to assist with advertising. Google of course is one of the latter as would be Yahoo, Earthlink and AOL.
There are very few email services that do not scan (sometimes broadly written as "read") your messages, and they are all relatively small and unknown. They certainly would not be appropriate for the average home user IMHO.
You seem to think it is a hard task for google read emails, it is not, they have thousands of servers which are dedicated to the task at hand plus they store every pieces of information on 9 unique hard drives to be process and indexed at a later date. so you gmails do not exist once but 9 times and even the one you deleted Google hangs on and if ask them when you die they will send you a CD of every email you ever sent. If you doing things you never want your family to find out about, do not use gmail, your family can request those emails legally upon your death.
Considering most service provider like say a Cpmcast only operate minimal pop servers they are not reading emails. SPAM filtering is based on some known information about the originating source, so they looking at the header of the email not the content. The quickest way to find spam is to check the originating IP address against the registered domain of the email server to for the @ address if they are not authenticated then the email is dumped a SPAM. I know this since I worked with doing mail merges and such and when it done for other companies not on their servers they have to register the originating IP address with their mail server service provider. Oh some service provider will not all you to list other IP as originating email other than their own. The other way to catch SPAM is to see how many email in a period of time originate form a particular IP address if it hits threshold they IP is blacklisted.
So Google is one of free emails who read all emails even the corporate account they have. By the way they have to read all words or to use your word scan to find the keyworks, Computer are not like humans who can scan a page of words and pull out keyword without reading or even seeing all the words on the page. My wife worked for the inventory of this technology who found a company which deployed this technology back in the 1980's for the first time. If could read any correspondence and summarize the content of that communications. The company this guy worked for prior to starting his own company was ESI in Sunnyvale CA, their primary customers usually have 3 letter names, if that gives you an idea why kind of things they are doing.
To may point this technology has been around since the 80's and I have been familiar with it since then and it still being used today by lots of companies for various things. One being headhunting, recruiters no longer read resumes the computers tell them who is the best person to talk to and hire.
If you choose to visit a webpage with one or many ads, then it's your decision to view the content of that page, including ads. Pages you don't choose to visit does not affect your bandwith, nor your pocket.
One may dislike what a web page contains, but it's a free choice to view them.
Page owners providing ad-free pages for money has my cents.
And people wonder how they were getting all this content for free. I think some people thought the fees they pay for internet access paid for all the free content.
Not exactly how you meant it, but:
Quite literally, that is exactly what has been happening.
When 60% of the data from a page is advertising, surreptitiously loaded (and re-loaded, and re-loaded…) in the background, you are definitely paying for their content in internet access fees.
THAT is the situation that got me, personally, to use ad blocking as soon as it was available. I've never used it before, on any platform (I've had Ghostery installed on my Macs for years to block tracking scripts, but never blocked ads).
But over the past year or so, it's got to the point on iOS that it was just obscene. They've been making it as difficult as possible to actually use their sites. So I use an ad-blocker. Now they block me from accessing what little "content" they have hidden between all those layers of data I have to pay for. Nothing new — just making it difficult for me.
Fine. They win.
I'd rather just do without their crap, anyway, than deal with it.
If you're a reputable site, put up a paywall and make me want to subscribe.
Sure it is, they are using bandwidth that I pay for! There isn't any other way to look at this, especially when ad data usage is often many times the content usage.
It is up to the content owner to figure out how to pay for the content they are delivering.
Look at it this way if you are running a brick and mortar store and people reject your latest Strawberry Jam, you don't continue to sell it if you want to make money selling jam. Instead you find a way to appeal to your customers.
By the way most of us aren't saying that all ads are bad what we are saying is that many sites go overboard and cause real harm to the users by stealing their bandwidth and more so by impacting their machines usability. Every user has a right to keep their machines secure from such exploitation.
I don't know about that "all for free" attitude. I is more of a question of people not want to get screwed over by these destructive practices.
In many cases former readers will simply tell the site to go to hell.
I do t think we're far apart in terms of opinions.
Upfront, I'm not a fan of ads and I use content blockers with white lists.
I fully agree on your image of the jam. The website owners should make the site more appealing to buy the jam rather than continue to create more obstrusive and annoying ads.
But that's their choice, not mine. And as long as I chose to visit such sites it is my job how to deal with it. If i keep the ads and have bandwidth consumed then that's my choice. You'd probably not complain of the site would be more heavy on the multimedia side and consume the same bandwidth. Or are you still using wap sites?
And if the site is appealing you'd likely pay for its content. Either by enduring the ads or by paying directly. If it is not then you can continue to enjoy he site with ad blockers until they chose the next escalation step and "block the effing blockers" ((in a reference to Monty Python).
Then they go down of their jam is not appealing enough. Probably rightfully so.
Regarding the "all for free" attitude: not few people are obviously of the opinion that already paying the ISP there is something like a right to see all the web for free. Including the high quality news site they visit every day. And they make some big eyes the day they find out that "stupid publisher" all of a sudden wants money for letting them see the news. Can you imagine? Real money for real work?
Anybody with their senses together should realize there is not free lunch.
I was by coincidence discussing ad blockers with a legal counsellor and he said that an ad blocker, by removing the ads from a page, actually modifies the page without the consent of the owner of the page. In other words the ad blocker violates the copyrights of the content owner of the page. As such he thinks that the content owner has a valid case to go to court. Of course a lot depends on the national law that is applicable in the country of the content owner, but he would not be surprised that a German judge orders Apple to block ad blockers from the German App Store.
I do not have a license to practice law but I disagree with your legal counsel's supposition. All of the electrons that land on my screen belong to me to do with as I please with the exception of republishing the content.
I was by coincidence discussing ad blockers with a legal counsellor and he said that an ad blocker, by removing the ads from a page, actually modifies the page without the consent of the owner of the page. In other words the ad blocker violates the copyrights of the content owner of the page. As such he thinks that the content owner has a valid case to go to court. Of course a lot depends on the national law that is applicable in the country of the content owner, but he would not be surprised that a German judge orders Apple to block ad blockers from the German App Store.
I do not have a license to practice law but I disagree with your legal counsel's supposition. All of the electrons that land on my screen belong to me to do with as I please with the exception of republishing the content.
When I pick up the morning paper and the ad section slips out and lands on the floor The contents of the ads nor the paper have changed. It is no different with the site, the ads are still on the server just as before. If you run an ad blacker and I don't, I still get to see the ads. Your lawyer doesn't understand how an ad blocker works.
When I pick up the morning paper and the ad section slips out and lands on the floor The contents of the ads nor the paper have changed. It is no different with the site, the ads are still on the server just as before. If you run an ad blacker and I don't, I still get to see the ads. Your lawyer doesn't understand how an ad blocker works.
Ad blockers don't really block ads, such as jpegs or gifs, they block Javascript/Ajax that are sourced from known ad brokers. Javascript is client side so the ad blocking work is done after the the HTML of the page loads, including the Javascript, then immediately the script is made null by the ad blocker before the actual ad has a chance to download from the ad server. This only works on ads served from a known ad brokers. If I was to write my own ad on my own site and send the link to my own sponsor, the ad blocker would not know to block it and it would be displayed regardless. If site owners are too lazy to find their own sponsors and write their own code, but instead rely on an ad broker, then they deserve to be blocked.
Tough. If their websites weren't so shitty and littered everywhere with ads I might be more sympathetic but as of right now I block all ads and do so happily sans remorse.
Only site I allow to show ads is SixColors, because I think Jason Snell is a great guy.
Ad blockers don't really block ads, such as jpegs or gifs, they block Javascript/Ajax that are sourced from known ad brokers. Javascript is client side so the ad blocking work is done after the the HTML of the page loads, including the Javascript, then immediately the script is made null by the ad blocker before the actual ad has a chance to download from the ad server. This only works on ads served from a known ad brokers. If I was to write my own ad on my own site and send the link to my own sponsor, the ad blocker would not know to block it and it would be displayed regardless. If site owners are too lazy to find their own sponsors and write their own code, but instead rely on an ad broker, then they deserve to be blocked.
Ad blockers block all sorts of stuff, INCLUDING images hosted at known ad-hosting services. They can also block video, as well as the scripts you mention.
Ad blockers block all sorts of stuff, INCLUDING images hosted at known ad-hosting services. They can also block video, as well as the scripts you mention.
I don't think you'll find any ad of any sort, image or video or even HTML5 and trackers, which is delivered by and ad broker that is not controlled by Javascript, hence, my earlier comment was focused on Javascript. I've written my own ad blockers for some of the sites that I visit often. That way they can't even detect that I have an ad blocker.
Comments
LOL! I'm not sure what YOU'RE talking about.
A win for all sides.
I believe he's referring to the app named in the article.
The answer from a number of sites has been simply to deny access to users with an ad-blocker enabled. Certainly fair enough IMO. Suing the makers of apps that enable ad blocking is going too far.
EDIT: AI's source, TechCrunch, includes this in the last paragraph:
"Axel Springer is not the only publisher that’s taking a confrontational approach to dealing with ad blockers, The FT recently reported. U.K. newspaper City AM banned ad blockers from its website; U.K. broadcasters ITV and Channel 4 have now done the same; and the Washington Post redirects readers to a subscription page, or asks them to sign up to newsletters, or disable their ad-blocking software. Even Yahoo has gotten in on the action, blocking users from their email when they have AdBlock running."
and a bit further up in the article:
"In October, Axel Springer forced visitors to Bild to turn off their ad blockers or pay a monthly fee to continue using the site. Earlier this month, the publisher reported the success of this measure, saying that the proportion of readers using ad blockers dropped from 23% to the single digits when faced with the choice to turn off the software or pay.
“The results are beyond our expectations,” said Springer chief exec Mathias Döpfner at the time. “Over two-thirds of the users concerned switched off their adblocker.” He also noted that the Bild.de website received an additional 3 million visits from users who could now see the ads in the first two weeks of the experiment going live."
And people wonder how they were getting all this content for free. I think some people thought the fees they pay for internet access paid for all the free content.
I like how Yahoo blocked people from their emails unless they turned off the ad blocker. nothing free in the world. Google does not need to do this since they just read your emails then places ads on everyone elses website based on what they read in your email.
readmachine scan content to track spam, malware and in some cases illegal content, but I've no idea how many also do so to assist with advertising. Google of course is one of the latter as would be Yahoo, Earthlink and AOL.There are very few email services that do not scan (sometimes broadly written as "read") your messages, and they are all relatively small and unknown. They certainly would not be appropriate for the average home user IMHO.
I wasn't attacking you. You quoted above a TechCrunch article that stated the Washington Post is blocked if you use a CB. I use the the CB this article is about and accessed the WaPo site without any issues.
Similarly I was able to access iTV as well. I didn't try Channel 4.
Also if people are getting blocked by Yahoo when trying to access their Yahoo emails, I would suggest the easiest way around this is to use the build in iOS Mail app and load their Yahoo details in there.
Tracking free browsing and Yahoo emails sorted.
FWIW other articles are saying the blocking is intermittent for now.
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/use-an-ad-blocker-the-washington-post-is-now-probably-blocking-you/
With perhaps 32 Billion GMail messages flowing between Google servers every day (16% of the estimated total 205B daily emails across all services) "read" would be highly unlikely. Machine scan and keyword index would be more accurate. FWIW nearly all email providers, including big ones like Apple and Microsoft, will read machine scan content to track spam, malware and in some cases illegal content, but I've no idea how many also do so to assist with advertising. Google of course is one of the latter as would be Yahoo, Earthlink and AOL.
There are very few email services that do not scan (sometimes broadly written as "read") your messages, and they are all relatively small and unknown. They certainly would not be appropriate for the average home user IMHO.
You seem to think it is a hard task for google read emails, it is not, they have thousands of servers which are dedicated to the task at hand plus they store every pieces of information on 9 unique hard drives to be process and indexed at a later date. so you gmails do not exist once but 9 times and even the one you deleted Google hangs on and if ask them when you die they will send you a CD of every email you ever sent. If you doing things you never want your family to find out about, do not use gmail, your family can request those emails legally upon your death.
Considering most service provider like say a Cpmcast only operate minimal pop servers they are not reading emails. SPAM filtering is based on some known information about the originating source, so they looking at the header of the email not the content. The quickest way to find spam is to check the originating IP address against the registered domain of the email server to for the @ address if they are not authenticated then the email is dumped a SPAM. I know this since I worked with doing mail merges and such and when it done for other companies not on their servers they have to register the originating IP address with their mail server service provider. Oh some service provider will not all you to list other IP as originating email other than their own. The other way to catch SPAM is to see how many email in a period of time originate form a particular IP address if it hits threshold they IP is blacklisted.
So Google is one of free emails who read all emails even the corporate account they have. By the way they have to read all words or to use your word scan to find the keyworks, Computer are not like humans who can scan a page of words and pull out keyword without reading or even seeing all the words on the page. My wife worked for the inventory of this technology who found a company which deployed this technology back in the 1980's for the first time. If could read any correspondence and summarize the content of that communications. The company this guy worked for prior to starting his own company was ESI in Sunnyvale CA, their primary customers usually have 3 letter names, if that gives you an idea why kind of things they are doing.
To may point this technology has been around since the 80's and I have been familiar with it since then and it still being used today by lots of companies for various things. One being headhunting, recruiters no longer read resumes the computers tell them who is the best person to talk to and hire.
If you choose to visit a webpage with one or many ads, then it's your decision to view the content of that page, including ads.
Pages you don't choose to visit does not affect your bandwith, nor your pocket.
One may dislike what a web page contains, but it's a free choice to view them.
Page owners providing ad-free pages for money has my cents.
And people wonder how they were getting all this content for free. I think some people thought the fees they pay for internet access paid for all the free content.
Not exactly how you meant it, but:
Quite literally, that is exactly what has been happening.
When 60% of the data from a page is advertising, surreptitiously loaded (and re-loaded, and re-loaded…) in the background, you are definitely paying for their content in internet access fees.
THAT is the situation that got me, personally, to use ad blocking as soon as it was available. I've never used it before, on any platform (I've had Ghostery installed on my Macs for years to block tracking scripts, but never blocked ads).
But over the past year or so, it's got to the point on iOS that it was just obscene. They've been making it as difficult as possible to actually use their sites. So I use an ad-blocker. Now they block me from accessing what little "content" they have hidden between all those layers of data I have to pay for. Nothing new — just making it difficult for me.
Fine. They win.
I'd rather just do without their crap, anyway, than deal with it.
If you're a reputable site, put up a paywall and make me want to subscribe.
I do t think we're far apart in terms of opinions.
Upfront, I'm not a fan of ads and I use content blockers with white lists.
I fully agree on your image of the jam. The website owners should make the site more appealing to buy the jam rather than continue to create more obstrusive and annoying ads.
But that's their choice, not mine. And as long as I chose to visit such sites it is my job how to deal with it. If i keep the ads and have bandwidth consumed then that's my choice. You'd probably not complain of the site would be more heavy on the multimedia side and consume the same bandwidth. Or are you still using wap sites?
And if the site is appealing you'd likely pay for its content. Either by enduring the ads or by paying directly. If it is not then you can continue to enjoy he site with ad blockers until they chose the next escalation step and "block the effing blockers" ((in a reference to Monty Python).
Then they go down of their jam is not appealing enough. Probably rightfully so.
Regarding the "all for free" attitude: not few people are obviously of the opinion that already paying the ISP there is something like a right to see all the web for free. Including the high quality news site they visit every day. And they make some big eyes the day they find out that "stupid publisher" all of a sudden wants money for letting them see the news. Can you imagine? Real money for real work?
Anybody with their senses together should realize there is not free lunch.
I was by coincidence discussing ad blockers with a legal counsellor and he said that an ad blocker, by removing the ads from a page, actually modifies the page without the consent of the owner of the page. In other words the ad blocker violates the copyrights of the content owner of the page. As such he thinks that the content owner has a valid case to go to court. Of course a lot depends on the national law that is applicable in the country of the content owner, but he would not be surprised that a German judge orders Apple to block ad blockers from the German App Store.
I do not have a license to practice law but I disagree with your legal counsel's supposition. All of the electrons that land on my screen belong to me to do with as I please with the exception of republishing the content.
When I pick up the morning paper and the ad section slips out and lands on the floor The contents of the ads nor the paper have changed. It is no different with the site, the ads are still on the server just as before. If you run an ad blacker and I don't, I still get to see the ads. Your lawyer doesn't understand how an ad blocker works.
When I pick up the morning paper and the ad section slips out and lands on the floor The contents of the ads nor the paper have changed. It is no different with the site, the ads are still on the server just as before. If you run an ad blacker and I don't, I still get to see the ads. Your lawyer doesn't understand how an ad blocker works.
Ad blockers don't really block ads, such as jpegs or gifs, they block Javascript/Ajax that are sourced from known ad brokers. Javascript is client side so the ad blocking work is done after the the HTML of the page loads, including the Javascript, then immediately the script is made null by the ad blocker before the actual ad has a chance to download from the ad server. This only works on ads served from a known ad brokers. If I was to write my own ad on my own site and send the link to my own sponsor, the ad blocker would not know to block it and it would be displayed regardless. If site owners are too lazy to find their own sponsors and write their own code, but instead rely on an ad broker, then they deserve to be blocked.
Only site I allow to show ads is SixColors, because I think Jason Snell is a great guy.
The war has begun ....
A couple of websites already asked me to disable ad blocker before let me in.
I don't visit them anymore.
Ad blockers block all sorts of stuff, INCLUDING images hosted at known ad-hosting services. They can also block video, as well as the scripts you mention.
Ad blockers block all sorts of stuff, INCLUDING images hosted at known ad-hosting services. They can also block video, as well as the scripts you mention.
I don't think you'll find any ad of any sort, image or video or even HTML5 and trackers, which is delivered by and ad broker that is not controlled by Javascript, hence, my earlier comment was focused on Javascript. I've written my own ad blockers for some of the sites that I visit often. That way they can't even detect that I have an ad blocker.