If You're Blocking Ads While On ATS, You Get A Big Ugly Message

a reply to: PersonneX

Yes the content here is user generated, but I am familiar enough without knowing the full extent, that to provide and present this accumulated user generated content for many years in a fashion that is being performed both in software and database maintenance as well as server performance requires a significant monthly outlay in cold hard cash.

And I suspect my words are grossly under exaggerated.

I don't like it. I would rather be forced to pay for participation than be marketed like livestock by these corporations that think they create our reality (Google, Microshaft, ect) . I realize that this is now how the internet operates as a whole. And that is a shame.

There seems to be two types of mindset on this. Those who don't care and would invite a stranger in to their bedroom if it meant they would get a free hamburger, and those who are close to pulling the plug on all this high tech monitoring/marketing.

I am amazed by the "oh well" attitude people can have towards someone infiltrating their personal decisions. Reminds me of Esau. And here we are discussing the method we can use to buy and sell the souls of men.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlordNo probing is done at all. A simple test is run to look for ad-blocking behavior.

Indeed.

That "simple" test involves running code within my browser. That code implements a function, which is run on my computer with the explicit idea of obtaining information (computer material) I do not want you to have. You are violating British Law: the Computer Misuse Act of 1990.

The literal text of that Law begins with:

1 Unauthorised access to computer material.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [F1, or to enable any such access to be secured] ;

(b)the access he intends to secure [F2, or to enable to be secured,] is unauthorised; and

(c)he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.

(2)The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at—

(a)any particular program or data;

(b)a program or data of any particular kind; or

(c)a program or data held in any particular computer.

Please refrain from executing these functions on my system, you do NOT have my permission.

a reply to: smirkley

That is why I offer 12$/Year. It's more than enough for the hosting service. If most of the user was paying that fee, the owner would have a enough to pay the server, himself and some expense.

Edit: My comment about the member generated is why I won't pay more. I'm just telling: "Want more of my money? You can, just work for it!" I don't think it's a bad message.

1. Whitelist ATS

2. Inject style elements into the DOM

3. NO ads.

4. ATS still gets its monies.

I realize what I am about to say is a double-edged sword to be sure, but...

"He who hath the most cheddar shall be the one anointed the power to form public opinion".

It's a paradox of sorts.

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: PersonneXYes the content here is user generated

Full stop, reread, rethink, conclude: without the users, ATS is nothing but an empty server.

Sometimes we're without options. I will log out here and will not log in again until the ad-block nonsense ceases.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Sometimes we're without options. I will log out here and will not log in again until the ad-block nonsense cease

Addblockers have long been part of the T&C:

20b) Ad Blockers: As the Websites are provided as a free service, in part through the income of our advertising, you agree not to use "ad-blocking" software or similar built-in web browser options designed to obfuscate or block online advertising while using the Websites.

This clause was added years and years ago. You agree to abide by the Terms & Conditions when you signed up. If you don't want to do that, then yes, you may log out.

~Tenth

For those who are using ad-blockers in order to avoid seeing the ads, here's an idea:

Participate more. Get your post count up to the point where you don't have to see them.

Don't just sit back on your asses waiting for others to do the hard work of entertaining you.

You don't get owt for nowt in this life, so try earning your 'right' not to be bothered by advertising.

I'm not suggesting quantity over quality either, but anyone who can put together a good whinge on this thread is more than capable of making a constructive contribution to another.

a reply to: PersonneX

On the other hand... people will leave ATS if asked to pay. And many don't like giving their personal details out to these types of sites!

It would cost less to just lift your ad-blocker... a lot less.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
That "simple" test involves running code within my browser.

Script that, by simply using a browser, you indicate that it can be run. It's actually significantly less than the script that determines if you are using a mobile device or not. It's no different than the code that decides what to display based on you being logged in, or not. It's very much less than the script you just used to post to ATS.

Edit to add: if you don't want the kind of script that comprises our test to run in your browser, then you'd better stay off the Internet.

originally posted by: Tsubaki
1. Whitelist ATS
2. Inject style elements into the DOM
3. NO ads.
4. ATS still gets its monies.

Incorrect.

The ad providers all utilize a visibility test. If the ad isn't "seen," then we don't get paid.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

The balance will have to live with ads... If they aren't to invasive think it would be fair. Sure thing, hosting and giving the tools worth money. Since some premium member would pay the server and the owner, the rest would be extra money. That should give the tool and weight to have good publicity deal. If the people are not to greedy the quantity and the quality of publicity would be reasonable.

Edit: Because they are not reasonable right now...

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

By the way, I consider my bandwith, my screen, my time and my information as valuable. So, letting the pub on a website I frequently see worth more than 12$/Year, and this is my limit for this website.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
So does this mean unless all acquiesce to the overwhelming advertising pressure on the internet that the whole internet will be subverted?

First of all. Let's look at this important component of my opening post:

White-listing from these shake-down artists is not specific to the ads, it's specific to the domain on which the ads appear. So even though we have ad alternatives available to use that would comply with their "behaving ads" standards, we still need to pay in order for those to appear.

Anyone using an ad-blocker is supporting a seriously unethical business model. Website owners are told by these firms that if they can find ad providers that will display "behaving" ads, those ads won't be blocked. But when it's finally time to petition for white-listing on my site because I now have those providers, they want money do to so. Serious money. More money than displaying those ads would represent.

This brings up an ethical question: would you rather support unethical businesses extorting small sites out of business?

That's exactly what's happening.



It Wasn't Always "Overwhelming Advertising"

I've seen this from the very beginning, the slow rise of ad-blocking to where nearly 30% of all Internet users are block ads (by many estimates).

The rise in ads that many would find "overwhelming," too numerous, or otherwise irritating is directly related to the rise in ad blocking. As more and more users blocked ads, advertisers and publishers were forced to find ways to monetize the impressions that weren't blocking. That brought into play a number of aggressive techniques. I guarantee you that if tomorrow, ad-blockers suddenly didn't work, and never worked again, I could significantly reduce the number of ads on ATS.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The rise in ads that many would find "overwhelming," too numerous, or otherwise irritating is directly related to the rise in ad blocking.

It is a sad, self-consuming cycle. What eventually made me decide to use an ad-blocker was the rise of autoplaying, impossible to avoid or pause or mute, sound-producing video ads.
While I may now be part of the problem, my hand was essentially forced.
I white list sites I like, such as ATS, if I am reminded. Though in ATS' specific case, I made a mistake and white listed incorrectly until a few months ago.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

How is this possible? Can you explain please? As far as I know, it counts once the ad gets loaded into the DOM. Removing it afterwards should cause no issues.

I'm curious, sorry if this may have been asked, but will this affect only ad blocking software or will any anti-tracking and script disabling software as well? I prefer to keep JavaScript and flash disabled on most sites unless I need them and have most trackers and smart cookies blocked. I don't mind disabling ad blocker on sites that rely on ad revenue though. I'm not entirely sure how ad delivery and everything works though.

originally posted by: Tsubaki
How is this possible? Can you explain please? As far as I know, it counts once the ad gets loaded into the DOM. Removing it afterwards should cause no issues.

As you're likely aware, every element in the DOM has attributes (size, position, z-index, etc.) that can be read and manipulated through JavaScript. One of those attributes is visibility. The ad networks are beginning to use the visibility state to determine if an ad impression is paid, or not.

I white listed ATS after getting the "ugly message" last night.

I have yet to notice any difference...how is this so?
I see not one single ad.

Where are the ads even supposed to be?