Users get fast, sleek ad-blocking capabilities to enjoy sites like YouTube interruption free.AdGuard for macOS has the distinction of being the world’s first standalone ad blocker for Mac. Or for clients who use it and I need to be compatible.The Adblock Plus for Chrome ad blocker has been downloaded over 500 million times and is one of the most popular and trusted on the market. It was created in New York and now have been used in almost every country. It is one of the oldest and most effective ad blockers.But I'm not a fanboi, It really helps out in the day job.)Google is definitely evil. It uses algorithms that detect scripts and.The only place Firefox is lacking is on the iPad Pro. Fair Adblocker is a fine adblocker extension that can be used on Chrome. As a result, many popular ad blockers either don’t work anymore, or they don’t work as well as they once did.My default browser is Firefox and of course being a Mac user, I have Safari.ad blocker mac - adblock for safari.We don't all write bs JavaScript.I'm not saying you do. Like the WSJ, I pay for it.Now why won't El Reg ever write an article about why major sites still have Google Analytics on them when they can easily do their own analytics themselves?This saddens me. I don't go to their site? Am I a freetard? No, I just believe that the value of their content is $0.00 USD. They check and then tell us that we're running an ad blocker and then refuse to let us see their content. I for one would love to talk to them about the dangers of 'big data' and how Google has a monopoly and will have a monopoly on search.Again, sites are getting a clue about adblockers.
![]() But they aren't anywhere near better enough to be worth the price they ask, at least not to me.The idea that Google gives me all these free things so I just should bent over and spread it for them to go up to their elbow collecting my "data" is moronic. Not saying Google's results aren't better - they have orders of magnitude more dollars to throw at the problem, after all. I'll do the "!g" thing when I don't find what I was hoping to find, but usually I won't find it at Google either so I'll need to refine my search terms or give up. It's also a fair indicator that the marketeers are in control of the site, and it'll have little in the way of genuine content anyway.Yep I agree with bombastic bob here, DDG does what I need almost all of the time. To do so is a conscious design choice from the site's developer, and is done in their interests, and against mine. If I pop down the noscript menu, and I see you're also trying to run scripts from 30 other domains such as creeptyadtracker.com, google analytics, facebook, bobsmarketresearch.co.uk et al I'm going to move along and probably never visit your site again.If I have to unblock some likely looking domains, reload the site, unblock some more, reload, and so on before the content even loads, then this shows that either the site is poorly designed (pulling in scripts from all sorts of places, which in turn try to pull in other scripts when run means you have no real control over their content), or, more likley, deliberately written in such as way so to make people give up and click "allow-all". To minimize my exposure to Google.I really hope that was meant to be sarcastic. In the meantime I avoid the problem as best I can by using DDG, iPhone, Firefox, uBlock Origin etc. Those of who don't will have the right to say no, and they'll be liable if they do it anyway against my expressed non-consent. People who feel the google love in their nether regions can click "yes please may I have another!" and enjoy all the free services Google offers. The problem with the under 30 crowd is they actually thing there is such a thing as "free" (I guess because they grew up with the internet "giving" them stuff their whole life).When I grew up in the 70s we had something called Encyclopedias. Of course, they only spend a small fraction of the wool money on carrots. The services are the carrots that draw the herd, which Google then shears, sells the wool to get money, to buy more carrots. They are paid for by the ad revenue which is generated BECAUSE of these services. The services you listed aren't free. V.Jeltz are both cunts.Google doesn't give us anything. The data they take without asking is valuable, and a service that does that isn't free, it's bait.Ads are one thing, but using my CPU power and my electricity to power trackers to do something I don't want done even if it didn't have to steal my resources to do it is too much.When I used to read paper magazines regularly, I didn't mind the ads. They would not be able to turn a profit offering costly services for "free" if they were actually free. They lure people in with claims of free stuff, and while you're there, they pick your pocket enough to not only pay for the "free" content, but to make massive profits on top of it. No one wants to pay for the internet stuff.Google gives away nothing for free. I know that seems weird but honest to God, that's how we "googled" stuff back then. They sold the books to pay for the research going into to making the next edition of them, which they would then sell next year. Hindi serial hotAs long as Google can keep them believing that, the money will keep rolling in.I bought a lot of things as a result of those print ads back in the day, and those ads never tracked me. They're also fleecing the advertisers, who have been led to believe that Google's targeted ads work so much better than the old-fashioned, un-targeted print ads of the olden days. Google isn't just fleecing the users of their "free" services. Somehow, though, without mining data about me and observing me at all, those ads managed to be far more relevant than anything I have seen on the internet.It looks to me that using all of the data collected for advertising purposes is a huge sham, and the real money is not in using that data to generate sales, but in selling that data to others who think they can use it to generate sales. The ads were targeted only in the sense that if I was reading a PC magazine, the ads were thought by the advertisers to be relevant to readers of PC magazines. I wanted to know which company was selling the products I was interested in, and for what price. How could those old print ads have been effective without all of that stuff? It seems a given now that if you want to get results, you need really obnoxious ads that do all of the things that print ads never could.If Google and the others are willing to return to that kind of ad, I will consider unblocking them, but as long as I go to a site and see trackers and other malevolent scripts trying to run, that's not happening.That doesn't matter, though Google doesn't care whether the ads they sling actually work. They never delivered a virus that would spread to all my other magazines and make them hard to read too. They never bogged down the magazine so that turning the page took several minutes rather than seconds. They never made noise and they never had distracting animations. The advertising client could provide their own picture if they really wanted their own counter, but it must be static and not distracting form the content.I'm teaching people to look for cached/archived versions of pages instead of allowing the ads to inhibit content, and teaching people that there's a couple of big alternatives to companies who annoy you with ads - 1) their competition probably has an equivalent product and 2) maybe you don't actually need it anyway.May once have been, now just the biggest piece of spyware.Check the T&Cs. A site can have a pool of advertisers with a bit of PHP to display an add on a page at random, and you can make a simple counter internal to the server to tell how often an add has been loaded. It's trivial to make the content flow around the ad. I don't return.I am more likely to respond to a plain text ad (maybe with a photo of the product) than I am to anything distracting. Nor do I think their taking record of my WiFi details - illegally - was a good thing either. Nothing "free" about it, they trawl the data for what pleases them to use.Google earth - they photograph the entire planet for youI don't actually think having some creepy guy riding past my house with a camera on his bike helmet that took photos of me while I was working on a friend's motorbike was a good thing. Those photos you were storing there planning to sell later? You no longer own the copyright to them, Google does. If they wish to make derivative works and sell it, that's their right - you gave it to them. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorJacqueline ArchivesCategories |