Exiting new Firefox feature in the latest nightly build
-
These tangentials regarding morality vs legality are monstrously irrelevant. No one is arguing that legality == morality, they are arguing that adblocking/dabflurpsing != stealing. Whether or not the action is isomorphic to taking something without paying for it is secondary to the point that that the payment is fundamentally voluntary.
And WhyTF are we on the fifth page of this ridiculous thread?
-
@Xyro said:
adblocking/dabflurpsing != stealing
That should be 'adblocking != stealing/dabflurpsing'. The moral definition of stealing is the only relevant one in a discussion of morality, and it's a very broad one. Morally, stealing is only definable as taking that which it is wrong - that is, immoral - for you to take. If adblocking is immoral, it's a form of stealing to obtain the related content. If it's not immoral, it can't be stealing in a moral sense. The criminal aspect is the totally irrelevant part in this debate.@Xyro said:
And WhyTF are we on the fifth page of this ridiculous thread?
I'm guessing it's my fault, mainly. :)
-
@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
@Xyro said:
So, exactly what is taken when ads are blocked? Please don't say that the ad blocker users are taking revenue from the content providers, because that would stretch the definition of "take" even farther that "steal" has been stretched. If neither of us have it (the revenue), then it wasn't taken. You could make an argument that is was destroyed, but not taken. I prefer to think of it as being conserved. Surely you can't be morally against conservation. The most correct word is probably obstructed.adblocking/dabflurpsing != stealing
That should be 'adblocking != stealing/dabflurpsing'. The moral definition of stealing is the only relevant one in a discussion of morality, and it's a very broad one. Morally, stealing is only definable as taking that which it is wrong - that is, immoral - for you to take.
-
One other question. I seem to remember ad servers don't pay for showing ads, they pay for click through rates (it may be different now).
Those who consider adblock stealing, do you actually click on ads and visit the sponsors? Does it make a difference to you?
-
@Jaime said:
So, exactly what is taken when ads are blocked?
I begin to see what you're asking here. The content would be what is 'taken'. 'Obtained' might have been a better choice of word; 'taking' really means 'taking possession of', or something similar here, but it's complicated by the nature of the good/service we're dealing with. Obviously, a tv programme, say, is intangible, so we might talk about (fairly or unfairly) obtaining the moral right to watch it.
-
@b-redeker said:
One other question. I seem to remember ad servers don't pay for showing ads, they pay for click through rates (it may be different now).
Depends. Some ad exchanges pay per click, some per impression, some a combination of the two. Impressions are always valuable, though, as the higher your impressions, the higher rate you can charge for your space.
-
@b-redeker said:
do you actually click on ads and visit the sponsors?
I have a clicked a banner or two, and I bought a book as a direct result of an ad on the TDWTF homepage (though I did not click it).
The banners I clicked were nearly all projectwonderful, because nearly every online comic publisher uses that one, and they've taken me to some pretty awesome comics. Some shittyones as well, but it's a matter of score. PW is in the plus, Atlas and DblClick are way way way way way way beyond the molten core of our planet and its score extends quite deeply into hell.
Despite this unfortunate association, I believe that the responsibility of proper bannering lies squarely with the content publisher; they should pick ads that suit the demographic, and pick ads that are not Fucking Obnoxious. But the issue is probably not as clearcut as that. Take The Vault wiki, for example. They have fucking annoying ads. They're on wikia. Does The Vault staff have control over which ads are displayed, or does wikia enforce it? The content is good— but who's to blame?
-
@blakeyrat said:
@b-redeker said:
Dave: "officer, someone has stolen my car!"
Officer: "But isn't that your car, right there?"
Dave: "Yes, but someone looked at my car and didn't pay for it. To me, that's morally wrong."
Officer: "It still isn't stealing, sir".
Dave: " You can call it whatever you like. If you don't think that's what stealing means, call it something else. I call what I'm talking about stealing, since it is by my broad, morally-based definition - but if you want to get hung up on exact technical definitions, go for it. Let's stipulate that, indeed, by your narrow legalistic definition it is not stealing, and move onto whatever it was we were talking about now that might be of some vague interest to an intellect bigger than that of an amoeba."
Officer: gets handcuffs.
Congratulations. That is officially the worst car analogy ever made.
I'm happy to provide a car analogy if you like*. Is it like...
You're driving your car one night and you see a hitchhiker so you stop to pick them up. They hop into the car and you start to chat to them. As you start talking they take out their MP3 player and start listing to music.
Is the hitchhiker...
a) under no moral or legal obligation to listen to you whitter on
b) stealing a lift to the next town
c) guilty of automotive dabflurpsingIs the driver...
a) right to feel cheated
b) wrong to feel cheated
c) happy that he's not lying in a ditch with a knife in the ribsDo you the reader...
a) not give a shit
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
You're driving your car one night and you see a hitchhiker so you stop to pick them up. They hop into the car and you start to chat to them. As you start talking they take out their MP3 player and start listing to music.
Is the hitchhiker...
a) under no moral or legal obligation to listen to you whitter on
b) stealing a lift to the next town
c) guilty of automotive dabflurpsingIs the driver...
a) right to feel cheated
b) wrong to feel cheated
c) happy that he's not lying in a ditch with a knife in the ribsThat is an interesting analogy, because I would feel cheated being the driver, and I remember a case where I was the hitchhiker, fell asleep (I hadn't slept all night) and basically slept the whole 4 hours from Lyon to Marseille or sth - and then I felt I'd cheated the guy.
The difference I think is that that's one on one. If a site is made specifically for me, and then I refuse to even view the ads, that's a bit childish. Of course it changes when the ads are horrible/disgusting or when the driver is just being racist or obnoxious - then you can block the ads or put on the mp3. However, the sites we're talking about, can be compared to a bus. Out of the 100 hitchhikers, one is bound to chat with the driver; so if 2 other ones want to put on the mp3, so be it.
-
@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
@Jaime said:
The content was offered for free. The server will gladly give you the entire content without any ads if you issue a proper HTTP GET to the web server. There can be some discussion about whether there is an obligation to view that content in its intended context, complete with ads. However, this wouldn't be a discussion about accessing information, it would be a discussion about contract law and the morality issues surrounding implicit contracts. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, any moral infraction would be related to the overall behavior of the ad blocking web surfer not playing within the rules of society, not about whether or not he "took" the content. The distinction here is that a well-behaved citizen takes the content and also takes the ads, a non-well-behaved citizen only takes the content and refuses the ads. The issue isn't about the taking part of the exchange, it's about the refusing part.So, exactly what is taken when ads are blocked?
I begin to see what you're asking here. The content would be what is 'taken'. 'Obtained' might have been a better choice of word; 'taking' really means 'taking possession of', or something similar here, but it's complicated by the nature of the good/service we're dealing with. Obviously, a tv programme, say, is intangible, so we might talk about (fairly or unfairly) obtaining the moral right to watch it.
-
I cannot wait until Microvision's (or any other company's) normal-looking AR glasses really hit the shelves. Then I can actually a dblock in the real life.
On the matter of web ad blocking, my stance is pretty simple: When I installed Opera, I didn't use any ad blocking lists. But if I found annoying ads, generally the whole server/service that served them went right into my content block list. Same happens (with ads and tracking services like Analytics) if they are slow to load and thus block the content from showing. They had a chance and they blew it.
If there is a site that blocks me using it with silly (=client-side) techniques, I take it as a challenge to get past it.
-
@Jaime said:
So, exactly what is taken when ads are blocked? Please don't say that the ad blocker users are taking revenue from the content providers, because that would stretch the definition of "take" even farther that "steal" has been stretched. If neither of us have it (the revenue), then it wasn't taken. You could make an argument that is was destroyed, but not taken. I prefer to think of it as being conserved. Surely you can't be morally against conservation. The most correct word is probably obstructed.
It's pretty easy to detect if a user is blocking ads. I have encountered a couple of sites that do this and put up a nasty "you are not welcome here if you block ads" message. That's perfectly OK with me. It's your website and you can decide how to run it. But the real question is; If you truly believe that blocking ads is "stealing" or "dabflurpsing" or "stickin' it to the man" then why dont all websites simply deny access to anyone who is blocking ads? Seriously. Why?
-
@El_Heffe said:
It's pretty easy to detect if a user is blocking ads.
No it's not.
@El_Heffe said:
If you truly believe that blocking ads is "stealing" or "dabflurpsing" or "stickin' it to the man" then why dont all websites simply deny access to anyone who is blocking ads? Seriously. Why?
- Because detecting ad-blockers isn't easy at all. (Despite your assertion.) (Unless the ads are self-hosted, but that's one site in a million.)
2) There's a benefit to having more customers, even if a lot of customers are dabflurpsing from you. Network effects, mindshare, potential for referrals.
Microsoft doesn't want people to pirate their software; but if you're going to pirate software, they want you to pirate Microsoft software. That doesn't make pirating software right or moral, it just means Microsoft has made the conscious decision that it's not worth pursuing in some cases. The world's a complex place, not everything is black-and-white.
Which is why, as I've said several times in this thread, if you're trying to give the message "hey I don't appreciate your advertising" to a particular site, the only way to do that is to *not visit it at all*. If you visit it, but block ads, you're giving the weird mixed message "I don't appreciate your ads, but I'm still giving you hits to increase the value of your advertising" which nobody knows what to do with.
I've yet to be convinced by any arguments in this thread that keeping an ad blocker on by default is moral. I also am highly doubtful that a lot of people arguing for the ad blocker position have an internalized moral code, which is really really depressing. Also, the thought that all the knowledge-workers in this thread are perfectly ok with screwing over other knowledge-workers.
-
@blakeyrat said:
dabflurpsing
Ok, I give up. Where did this word come from, and what does it mean exactly? (Or what's it derived from.)
Google's only showing this thread for it.
-
@PJH said:
@blakeyrat said:
dabflurpsing
Ok, I give up. Where did this word come from, and what does it mean exactly? (Or what's it derived from.)
Google's only showing this thread for it.It's perfectly cromulent. Are you trying to refudiate dabflurpsing?
-
I'm reminded of Flusspferd, and from there, this:
-
@blakeyrat said:
Which is why, as I've said several times in this thread, if you're trying to give the message "hey I don't appreciate your advertising" to a particular site, the only way to do that is to not visit it at all. If you visit it, but block ads, you're giving the weird mixed message "I don't appreciate your ads, but I'm still giving you hits to increase the value of your advertising" which nobody knows what to do with.
If you don't visit the site at all they might get the message "I don't like your content". There's no way for a webmaster to actually tell the difference between that and "I don't like your ads". The best way is to actually tell the content provider directly, being passive-agressive and just shuning/ignoring them isn't going to do much.
-
@PJH said:
@blakeyrat said:
Does this help?dabflurpsing
Ok, I give up. Where did this word come from, and what does it mean exactly? (Or what's it derived from.)
Google's only showing this thread for it.
-
@Lingerance said:
@blakeyrat said:
Which is why, as I've said several times in this thread, if you're trying to give the message "hey I don't appreciate your advertising" to a particular site, the only way to do that is to not visit it at all. If you visit it, but block ads, you're giving the weird mixed message "I don't appreciate your ads, but I'm still giving you hits to increase the value of your advertising" which nobody knows what to do with.
If you don't visit the site at all they might get the message "I don't like your content". There's no way for a webmaster to actually tell the difference between that and "I don't like your ads". The best way is to actually tell the content provider directly, being passive-agressive and just shuning/ignoring them isn't going to do much.Ok then do that.
But it doesn't change my point-- blocking ads isn't effective on its own.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I've yet to be convinced by any arguments in this thread that keeping an ad blocker on by default is moral. I also am highly doubtful that a lot of people arguing for the ad blocker position have an internalized moral code, which is really really depressing.
In order for ad blocking being to be considered immoral, you have to hold the view that the content provider has a natural right to set the terms under which their content is viewed. Without this, what the content provider wants is merely a suggestion and has no bearing on morality. That would mean the you would have to believe that intellectual property rights are natural rights.Five hundred years ago, copying things was seen as flattery and no government had any law that even resembled intellectual property law. This shoots a big hole in the idea that intellectual property rights are natural rights. Over the next several hundred years, various specific laws were granted to protect specific acts, always with the knowledge that the rights of the many to do whatever they want with their own stuff were being traded for an opportunity to either drive commerce or encourage the production of artistic work. In the 1800s, more general laws were passed that are the root of our modern intellectual property laws. Most of these laws started with a preamble recognizing that it was a concious decision to limit the natural rights of the population in order to have a legal structure for creative activities to be turned into viable businesses.
Therefore, intellectual property is not based on morality, but on compromise. It's up to the ad supported content industry to navigate the waters they chose to make home, not the viewers to blindly do whatever is "expected" of them. Paywalls are a good example of content providers feeling out their territory. Some have good luck with it and some have totally screwed it up.
Content providers have to deal with us, we don't have to deal with them. We have the moral high ground in any case where we haven't ceded it in intellectual property law.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Also, the thought that all the knowledge-workers in this thread are perfectly ok with screwing over other knowledge-workers.
You can argue from a position of morality or your wallet, but not both.
-
@Jaime said:
@blakeyrat said:
Also, the thought that all the knowledge-workers in this thread are perfectly ok with screwing over other knowledge-workers.
You can argue from a position of morality or your wallet, but not both.- I've already made it quite clear I'm not arguing "my wallet," since I don't make any money from web advertising*.
2) Why couldn't someone argue both? "screwing over people in the same (vague) industry as you are" sounds like another morality argument to me, frankly.
I'm sorry I violated your little imaginary debating rule you just made up 5 minutes ago.
* And seriously, people, stop trying to make arguments black and fucking white. It's possible for someone to believe viewing web ads is moral and also not get paid by advertising. Of course, if you've read my posts (and Jamie obviously hasn't) you'd realize I'm not really against blocking ads, either. Fuck, I spent 3 pages of this post giving a detailed explanation of how AdBlock Pro could be modified to meet my ad-blocking needs.
But, of course, since people like Jaime have to have stupid black-and-white arguments that must mean:
1) I'm an ad blocking Nazi, and anybody who uses ad blocking will get sent straight to the gas chambers
2) The only possible reason I could argue point 1 is because the advertising industry sends me 3 brand new BMWs a day stuffed with $100 billsOk, do you really want the debate to be as stupid as the last paragraph? Then stop it. Stop putting words into people's mouths. Stop mis-representing their positions. Stop making up strawmen. Thank you.
-
@Jaime said:
ve hundred years ago, copying things was seen as flattery and no government had any law that even resembled intellectual property law.
Trademarks have existed since the 14th century. And possibly during the Roman empire, but history on that is fuzzy. (BTW, copyright dates to the 17th century.)
@Jaime said:
Content providers have to deal with us, we don't have to deal with them.
And I'd be fine if people "didn't deal with them" by literally not dealing with them. The problem is people are dealing with them, but it's not a fair deal: "I get your content. You get nothing in return."
@Jaime said:
We have the moral high ground in any case where we haven't ceded it in intellectual property law.
I don't know who "we" is in this sentence. But if you're talking about "people who block all ads all the time", then I obviously disagree about having the moral high ground.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Jaime said:
Trademarks are about misrepresentation, not about copying. So, basically you're saying the same thing I am.ve hundred years ago, copying things was seen as flattery and no government had any law that even resembled intellectual property law.
Trademarks have existed since the 14th century. And possibly during the Roman empire, but history on that is fuzzy. (BTW, copyright dates to the 17th century.)@blakeyrat said:
@Jaime said:
You don't get it. The content provider put the content out there knowing that there is no arrangement that people will view their ads, there is only a hope that people will view their ads. A hope on the part of someone else does not constitute an obligation on my part.Content providers have to deal with us, we don't have to deal with them.
And I'd be fine if people "didn't deal with them" by literally not dealing with them. The problem is people *are* dealing with them, but it's not a fair deal: "I get your content. You get nothing in return."@blakeyrat said:
@Jaime said:
"We" refers to the viewers of the content. The problem with our disagreement is that your position is recursive. You say it's not morally right because it's not morally right. I'm trying to show that morality is against intellectual property laws, which are simply a device to enable commerce (and as such, they are a good thing). Intellectual property law balance two sides: those that have the means to copy a work (users) and those who put the effort into creating the work (rights owners). If the balance goes too far in the direction of the users, then there will be less incentive to be a creative professional. If the balance goes too far in the direction of the right owners, then the natural rights of the users to live their lives unimpeded are excessively compromised. Intellectual property rights are a voluntary suspension of some natural rights of the users for the greater good of society.We have the moral high ground in any case where we haven't ceded it in intellectual property law.
I don't know who "we" is in this sentence. But if you're talking about "people who block all ads all the time", then I obviously disagree about having the moral high ground.The users have the moral high ground because the right to control your own web browser is a natural right. Some of that natural right has been given up in the form of intellectual property law. Since the right to block ads has not been given up, it is only morally right that the users are able to exercise this natural right.
-
@Jaime said:
Trademarks are about misrepresentation, not about copying. So, basically you're saying the same thing I am.
Actually that's better than your criteria, you were only talking about things that "resembled intellectual property law," and I gave you something that is "intellectual property law." Now, sure, trademarks aren't relevant to the discussion at-hand, but they're still intellectual property law.
@Jaime said:
Since the right to block ads has not been given up, it is only morally right that the users are able to exercise this natural right.
Again you're conflating "moral" with "legal." Not all things that are legal are moral, and not all things that are moral are legal. This thread already went through establishing that; please read before posting.
Yes, it's legal for you to be a jerk. I'm still going to call you a jerk though.
-
@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
@__moz said:
A blind person will always block audio adverts on a visual web page. Think about it.
Not seeing it. Wait, that's not the best choice of words. I don't understand the point you're making. Is it that blind people use text-to-speech engines to read webpages? Because that doesn't preclude having ads inserted, although I'll grant that it's purely hypothetical at the moment since the software doesn't actually do that.
It depends on how the advert is presented to the user. If it starts playing when the page loads, anything the screen reader does before it finishes may just come out garbled. This makes the advert more disruptive than the advertiser intended. If the audio content is designed to work alongside some images on the page, a blind person may not be able to make sense of it anyway. Even if the audio explains everything except how to take advantage of the offer, that little bit of extra effort will lose you most of the clicks blind people could have brought you.
With more disruption and fewer sales than with the rest of your audience, it's better for everyone that screen readers ignore adverts.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Jaime said:
I am not conflating moral with legal. I'm specifically saying that intellectual property law is a category of law that is not based on morality. Denying someone the use of a natural right is almost always on the wrong side of morality. The reason I brought up IP law was to show that user's have a natural right to use media as they choose and blocking ads isn't in the specific set of exceptions that have been made by society in this area.Trademarks are about misrepresentation, not about copying. So, basically you're saying the same thing I am.
Actually that's *better* than your criteria, you were only talking about things that "resembled intellectual property law," and I gave you something that *is* "intellectual property law." Now, sure, trademarks aren't relevant to the discussion at-hand, but they're still intellectual property law. @Jaime said:Since the right to block ads has not been given up, it is only morally right that the users are able to exercise this natural right.
Again you're conflating "moral" with "legal." Not all things that are legal are moral, and not all things that are moral are legal. This thread already went through establishing that; please read before posting.Yes, it's legal for you to be a jerk. I'm still going to call you a jerk though.
It's up to you to show why someone in their own home, exercising a natural right, not causing any harm to any one, is being immoral. Additionally, if you want to call ad blocking doing harm, you'll have to explain how it is different from watching an alternate Super Bowl halftime show on another channel, or many other examples or intentionally ignoring ads that are considered acceptable.
... or you can just dodge the question again by finding a small technical error in my post and focussing on that as usually happens when a hard question is asked.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@__moz said:
Maybe not, but if you sell ten times as many widgets as normal in the week after you run a TV ad, you should be able to draw an inference. Even if half of them used a sponsored link from a search engine to find you afterwards (oh, the perils of having a company name which is related to the product you sell).
If a company has ever done a truly controlled A/B test with television vs. no advertising, I'd probably be inclined to believe their results. I doubt it's been done in the entire history of television.
As far as I know, A/B testing can only really be controlled if you can split your audience into several similar populations. Channels such as TV, billboards and point of sale advertising don't give you the fine control over what different people see you would need to make that work.
@blakeyrat said:@__moz said:
It's doubtless true that the most successful advertising approaches used on TV are not the best ones to use on the internet. This does not mean that they haven't proved themselves to be the best approaches to use on TV.
Prove it.
I was trying to create a tautology. I can't see the flaw in my statement, so I can't comply with your request. Sorry.
@blakeyrat said:TV has no reliable analytics. You can't even figure out how many people *viewed* your ad, much less how many of those people went on to buy the product (or request information or whatever your conversion is.) The value of TV advertising is grossly inflated, IMO, exactly because it's impossible to measure. Without data, you don't have crap.
You have sales figures, and you may have figures for expressions of interest. If you need more than that, you either need to ask people and hope they know the answer, or fiddle with something and watch what happens.
TV isn't a precise tool, but I can't think of another way (for example) to promote a price comparison web site to people who rarely use the internet.
-
@blakeyrat said:
The problem is people *are* dealing with them, but it's not a fair deal: "I get your content. You get nothing in return."
To me, that is the way it works on the internet. That's always been the deal, from the moment it was invented. The fact that people have tried to find business models that build on top of that, doesn't change that. Most of those business models have to accept that usually they get nothing, unless they have a paywall and make it very clear that for them the deal is different.
If we're talking about "moral rights", I bet that the first time someone added ads to otherwise "free content", some people will have had heated discussions about whether you could morally do that.
-
@b-redeker said:
@blakeyrat said:
The problem is people are dealing with them, but it's not a fair deal: "I get your content. You get nothing in return."
To me, that is the way it works on the internet. That's always been the deal, from the moment it was invented. The fact that people have tried to find business models that build on top of that, doesn't change that. Most of those business models have to accept that usually they get nothing, unless they have a paywall and make it very clear that for them the deal is different.
If we're talking about "moral rights", I bet that the first time someone added ads to otherwise "free content", some people will have had heated discussions about whether you could morally do that.
Possibly; but since it happened in the 17th century (newspapers), I doubt the moral argument was still around in the early-90s when it came up again on the web.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Possibly; but since it happened in the 17th century (newspapers), I doubt the moral argument was still around in the early-90s when it came up again on the web.
When European soccer teams started using shirt advertising in the 1970/1980's, not everyone was convinced that was right. It was banned for a while in most leagues, then in the end, they allowed it. Later, the trend of renaming stadiums to include sponsor names still causes controversy (at least in Europe). I personally remember when Mad magazine started placing real ads (instead of the spoofs) in 2001 - I hated that and I wasn't the only one. So yes, it's still possible to have a discussion in 2010 over whether ads/sponsorship is (morally) right in certain situations.
If I'm right, your point was: yes, you can use ad-block if you use it selectively; blocking everything is ineffective/wrong (dabflurpsing). Right? So how selective can I be in your opinion?
-
@b-redeker said:
If I'm right, your point was: yes, you can use ad-block if you use it selectively; blocking everything is ineffective/wrong (dabflurpsing). Right? So how selective can I be in your opinion?
In my opinion you can do whatever the fuck you want.
Other than that, I've already answered the question (I think you were trying to) ask previously in this thread. So read it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@b-redeker said:
If I'm right, your point was: yes, you can use ad-block if you use it selectively; blocking everything is ineffective/wrong (dabflurpsing). Right? So how selective can I be in your opinion?
In my opinion you can do whatever the fuck you want.
Other than that, I've already answered the question (I think you were trying to) ask previously in this thread. So read it.
If I had to guess what b-redeker was actually trying to ask you was where on the selectivity continum it becomes dabflurpsing. And again if I had to guess (don't want to be one of the many yelled at for putting words in your mouth) your previous answer was along the lines of it is dabflurpsing if you block ads, but it may be justifiable dabflurpsing. That is what I got from my alternate reading/scimming of this excessive thread anyway.
-
@locallunatic said:
If I had to guess what b-redeker was actually trying to ask you was where on the selectivity continum it becomes dabflurpsing. And again if I had to guess (don't want to be one of the many yelled at for putting words in your mouth) your previous answer was along the lines of it is dabflurpsing if you block ads, but it may be justifiable dabflurpsing. That is what I got from my alternate reading/scimming of this excessive thread anyway.
If he's asking how selective *I'd* be when blocking ads, or "if I had my blacklist-enabled version of AdBlock Pro, which sites would I use it on?" then I'd answer: "almost exclusively sites that attach advertising to somebody else's content." Like this one. (And even then, I probably wouldn't have blocked them, except the ads we so obnoxious they interfered with the video.)
I'd also highly think about it on those video sites that only have 2 actual ads, and play them in front of every clip even if you're going through the whole archive in a day. Like this guy's videos. Although in that case:
1) I like his content, so I can tolerate the ads
2) AdBlock probably wouldn't be able to block the streaming ads without also blocking the content anyway (since they're not in separate placements)I'd call that acceptable dabflurpsing.
And like I said above, I'd find AdBlock Pro a perfectly acceptable product if it had a blacklist-based mode, and that mode was on by default when it was installed. Sure, geeks will always switch it to block everything, but the *default* should be to block nothing without at least a little user interaction.
-
@locallunatic said:
If I had to guess what b-redeker was actually trying to ask you was where on the selectivity continum it becomes dabflurpsing.
Yup. I still think it's an interesting debate, exactly because I don't quite understand the thinking; and I prefer trying to understand to just shouting "you're a jerk". I consider myself never too old to learn or change my mind, given good arguments.
-
Oh hey, are you a Blake's 7 fan? Is that where your nick comes from? Can we derail the thread in that direction instead?
-
@blakeyrat said:
And like I said above, I'd find AdBlock Pro a perfectly acceptable product if it had a blacklist-based mode, and that mode was on by default when it was installed. Sure, geeks will always switch it to block everything, but the *default* should be to block nothing without at least a little user interaction.
Even though the point of the product is to enable dabflurpsing? Is the reason that it then becomes acceptable is because the useability (for most user's choice of use) would be decreased and thus effectively not exist for most users (feature that must be turned on is less usable then one on be default)?
-
@b-redeker said:
@locallunatic said:
If I had to guess what b-redeker was actually trying to ask you was where on the selectivity continum it becomes dabflurpsing.
Yup. I still think it's an interesting debate, exactly because I don't quite understand the thinking; and I prefer trying to understand to just shouting "you're a jerk". I consider myself never too old to learn or change my mind, given good arguments.
And then from blakeyrat's post above yours:
@blakeyrat said:
I'd call that acceptable dabflurpsing.
Which I agree with (though a bit more permissively then he allows). Its not that it isn't dabflurpsing, but rather that there are differing levels thereof. This is closer to the homeless man dabflurpsing a loaf of bread then it is to the CEO defrauding investors or someone sticking up a bank. All are forms of dabflurpsing, but the base reaction to the action is different for most of us.
-
@Xyro said:
Oh hey, are you a Blake's 7 fan? Is that where your nick comes from? Can we derail the thread in that direction instead?
I used to role-play on a MUD, I had a skaven (like Warhammer skaven, basically anthromorphic rats) that I named Blake after the show. His personality was much more Vila, but that didn't match the naming guidelines for skaven. So when I was creating a AIM account to talk to MUD friends, obviously Blake was taken, so BlakeyRat.
My previous handle was ElMesaLoco. I used that in Warcraft II gaming. I also use MechaGamera sometimes. (I was a launch-day Xbox Live customer, but somehow BlakeyRat was already taken.)
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Xyro said:
... I have no idea what you are talking about, but I like their hair-dryer guns and that Star One song about the show.Oh hey, are you a Blake's 7 fan? Is that where your nick comes from? Can we derail the thread in that direction instead?
I used to role-play on a MUD, I had a skaven (like Warhammer skaven, basically anthromorphic rats) that I named Blake after the show. His personality was much more Vila, but that didn't match the naming guidelines for skaven. So when I was creating a AIM account to talk to MUD friends, obviously Blake was taken, so BlakeyRat.
My previous handle was ElMesaLoco. I used that in Warcraft II gaming. I also use MechaGamera sometimes. (I was a launch-day Xbox Live customer, but somehow BlakeyRat was already taken.)
-
@Xyro said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Xyro said:
... I have no idea what you are talking about, but I like their hair-dryer guns and that Star One song about the show.Oh hey, are you a Blake's 7 fan? Is that where your nick comes from? Can we derail the thread in that direction instead?
I used to role-play on a MUD, I had a skaven (like Warhammer skaven, basically anthromorphic rats) that I named Blake after the show. His personality was much more Vila, but that didn't match the naming guidelines for skaven. So when I was creating a AIM account to talk to MUD friends, obviously Blake was taken, so BlakeyRat.
My previous handle was ElMesaLoco. I used that in Warcraft II gaming. I also use MechaGamera sometimes. (I was a launch-day Xbox Live customer, but somehow BlakeyRat was already taken.)
Hey stop complaining, derailing is derailing, and you did ask if it was where the nick comes from.
But yeah, the show was pretty damned epic. Probably the best sci-fi writing ever seen on TV... too bad about the effects budget. (One episode, an advanced alien is represented by a painted rock. Literally a painted rock.) I also loved how the show's writers (and even the effects guys) simply did not give a crap about world-building, it was all about the characters. How fast is "standard"? Well, nobody knows, the only thing that matters is that their ship can travel faster than Federation ships. The effects guys would add about 40 random planets and moons in every exterior shot, it made no sense at all, but it sure was a distinctive style.
And how about Avon, who was (and let's be fair) a complete monster with no remorse? Especially in the last season! How you make a character like that likable is a mystery only Blake's 7 writers have solved.
-
@blakeyrat said:
The effects guys would add about 40 random planets and moons in every exterior shot, it made no sense at all, but it sure was a distinctive style.
+1, as dhromed would say. Sadly, I never finished the series, as I lost my download source when I first investigated the show many years ago in high school. I really need to go back and watch the full show! The way the characters were presented and handled really changed my perception of TV sci-fi, which until that point consisted predominately of Star Trek.Have you ever heard of Star One's song Intergalactic Space Crusaders? If not, go check out the live performance of it on YouTube, it's quite amazing, it's a worthy epicness. (Sorry, no direct link, as I'm at work right now and it's blocked.)
-
@Xyro said:
Sadly, I never finished the series,
Oh man. Wait until you get to Season 4, where they really cross the line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorists". And not in the good direction.
-
I've never heard of this Blake's 7 show before, but its sounding interesting. Any tips on where I may locate it to check out (other than just checking torrents)?
-
@locallunatic said:
I've never heard of this Blake's 7 show before, but its sounding interesting. Any tips on where I may locate it to check out (other than just checking torrents)?
You could click the link I provided that brought the subject up in the first place. (Use AdBlock.)
-
@blakeyrat said:
@locallunatic said:
I've never heard of this Blake's 7 show before, but its sounding interesting. Any tips on where I may locate it to check out (other than just checking torrents)?
You could click the link I provided that brought the subject up in the first place. (Use AdBlock.)
Ah, sorry at work and so cautious on links I don't recognize.
-
@blakeyrat said:
the default should be to block nothing without at least a little user interaction.
