EFF fears ban of adblockers after US newspapers want FTC to investigate unlawful adblocking

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: EFF fears ban of adblockers after US newspapers want FTC to investigate unlawful adblocking[newsimage]http://www.myce.com/wp-content/images_posts/2016/02/adblock-95x75.jpeg[/newsimage]

The Newspaper Association of America (NAA) has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate unlawful ad blocking. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) fears that it could lead to banning popular privacy protection software.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/eff-fears-ban-adblockers-us-newspapers-want-ftc-investigate-unlawful-adblocking-79661/](http://www.myce.com/news/eff-fears-ban-adblockers-us-newspapers-want-ftc-investigate-unlawful-adblocking-79661/)

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

I hate to quote the NRA, but you can have my ad blocker when you pry it from my cold, dead browser.


#3

[QUOTE=MJPollard;2775951]I hate to quote the NRA, but you can have my ad blocker when you pry it from my cold, dead browser.[/QUOTE]
Better yet I don’t use such program I use my own PC hosts edit that is free and I have more control of it and does more then any adblocker program you can use. Adblocker are coming under the control of adware companies already if you haven’t read the news lately they are allowing so called ads from company to come through so they no longer are blocking but permitting adware.


#4

From the EFF article.

The FTC needs to proceed with extreme caution here to target truly deceptive and abusive practices without interfering with Internet users’ ability to protect their privacy, control their browsing experience, and be active participants in online innovation.
Extreme caution is the correct wording. There’s no denial intrusive advertising came before the Ad-Blockers. The latter was the answer to the first and like I said in another thread, this is in reality a result of both the advertisers not recognizing reasonable ethical limits on their own part and websites who allowed the ads to be displayed without censorship and a one-track mind on revenue.

So as I perceive it, this is whining… They got what was coming to them and I hope the case will be dismissed. At least that would be fair considering the chain of events leading up to it.
If not, let us hope the justice system has enough contact with reality to target only Ad-Blockers which has gone way too far on the other side :flower:


#5

[QUOTE=MJPollard;2775951]I hate to quote the NRA, but you can have my ad blocker when you pry it from my cold, dead browser.[/QUOTE] Adblockers don’t kill ads. People kill ads. :cool:


#6

On a second note, it would make an awful lot of us criminals, just think when the statistics tick in we could get numbers to headline… ‘70% of internet users are criminals’ (the number is fictional and not researched). :bigsmile:

Even with a ruling or otherwise judgement in court… When 70% of the population are considered wrong according to law, the only thing wrong is the law and they represent the democratic voice of the people to put law straight :stuck_out_tongue:

I actually think we may see such (dead wrong) laws in the future if the market and other egocentric forces get their will, it is long since Common Sense died :rolleyes:


#7

[QUOTE=Xercus;2775959]On a second note, it would make an awful lot of us criminals, just think when the statistics tick in we could get numbers to headline… ‘70% of internet users are criminals’ (the number is fictional and not researched). :bigsmile:[/QUOTE]Wait were criminals already oh yeah…bring it on… lol…

[QUOTE=Xercus;2775959]Even with a ruling or otherwise judgement in court… When 70% of the population are considered wrong according to law, the only thing wrong is the law and they represent the democratic voice of the people to put law straight :p[/QUOTE]Too late they said were criminals already…look at Napster and the likes.

[QUOTE=Xercus;2775959]I actually think we may see such (dead wrong) laws in the future if the market and other egocentric forces get their will, it is long since Common Sense died :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]Common sense died long ago when People claim to know the complete Constitution from start to finish but failed to read all it’s meaning but read what they want it to read.


#8

I don’t use an Adblocker as I want to support the websites I visit. That said they are making it hard to enjoy their content with pop down, pop out, pop over autorunning ads. Eventually, they will work out how to block anyone using their sites who use Adblockers (the nuclear option) but is it criminal, I for one think not. Â


#9

[QUOTE=rexroach;2776032]I don’t use an Adblocker as I want to support the websites I visit. That said they are making it hard to enjoy their content with pop down, pop out, pop over autorunning ads. Eventually, they will work out how to block anyone using their sites who use Adblockers (the nuclear option) but is it criminal, I for one think not. [/QUOTE]

Ideally you are right you know, but ultimately you hit a brick wall. just as you hint towards. Even here there is a weight and counterweight. Personally, I do not know your limits and while that does not really matters, they are somewhere. i do block sites myself though…:flower:


#10

What’s next… I will be arrested for switching TV channels during commercials to a second channel until the commercials are over on the first channel?


#11

[QUOTE=UTR;2776034]What’s next… I will be arrested for switching TV channels during commercials to a second channel until the commercials are over on the first channel?[/QUOTE]
LOL - Probably, friggin


#12

[QUOTE=UTR;2776034]What’s next… I will be arrested for switching TV channels during commercials to a second channel until the commercials are over on the first channel?[/QUOTE] You wish!

You won’t get a choice - they’ll use the Ludovico Technique on you, so you [I]can’t[/I] switch channels and [I]have[/I] to watch commercials.

You wouldn’t want to [I]steal[/I] from the content providers, now would you? :cop:


#13

Ha, telling on people how to handle their data abuse/theft coz 2000 newspapers want what?

Not that I care about US wish thinking but…

The FTC is not that stoopid and newspapers are free to make their valuable publications subscription based - other than that they truly can get F*ed. They won’t tell on anyone what to do.

[QUOTE=rexroach;2776032]I don’t use an Adblocker as I want to support the websites I visit. … [/QUOTE]

not your job to give 'em a free ride on your bandwidth!


#14

[QUOTE=Millennium12;2776066]The FTC is not that stoopid and newspapers are free to make their valuable publications subscription based - other than that they truly can get F*ed. They won’t tell on anyone what to do.[/QUOTE]

Here in the USA it is not only invasive advertising that that is sending news sites into an economic death spiral. It is mainly due to them providing news that is horrendously biased, especially to the liberal side. They have become whores to their political/corporate masters and this is their true problem …not ad blockers. They have, and are, trying the subscription model but hardly no one will pay for news that is mostly propaganda.


#15

Don’t be giving them any ideas!

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2776036]You wish!
You won’t get a choice - they’ll use the Ludovico Technique on you, so you [I]can’t[/I] switch channels and [I]have[/I] to watch commercials.

You wouldn’t want to [I]steal[/I] from the content providers, now would you? :cop:[/QUOTE]


#16

Well good for the money grubbing idiots who have destroyed the internet as it once was. May I please have my ARPANET back? But seriously, there are plenty of alternate ways to acquire news and the like for free. The only reason I can see for these biased liberal/conservative publications to survive is for peoples comfort level with their hometown homeboys and girls and who are willing to cough up the cash or white list their services. When I was a student way back when Marshall McLuhan was my GOD. News should be objective never subjective! Do you hear me Fox broadcasting idiots? However, I changed my major to electronics engineering and had a good career.
Jeff


#18

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2775956]Adblockers don’t kill ads. People kill ads. :cool:[/QUOTE]John Doe, professional advertisement assassin, at your service![QUOTE=Xercus;2775959]On a second note, it would make an awful lot of us criminals, just think when the statistics tick in we could get numbers to headline… ‘70% of internet users are criminals’ (the number is fictional and not researched).[/QUOTE]Wow, you made up wild accusations with made-up numbers! Have you ever considered joining the MPAA or the RIAA? As far as I can tell, that’s all they ever do.:flower:[QUOTE=UTR;2776034]What’s next… I will be arrested for switching TV channels during commercials to a second channel until the commercials are over on the first channel?[/QUOTE]I can see what the headlines will look like in the future: “Man tried to mute TV during ads, gets death sentence”. I used the word “tried” here, since smart TVs will probably have some stupid anti-feature to prevent muting during commercials. In order to circumvent this technology, one would have to either physically disconnect their speakers (which of course would require dismantling the TV), or crack the operating system. Both of which would likely be construed as a violation of section 1201 of the DMCA, which will someday be punishable by death.


#19

I agree that replacing ads with other ads and circumventing paywalls is a very dick move.

However, enforcing me to view ads, on my own network, in my time, is also a dick move. In fact, i own my entire infrastructure! I can do whatever the hell i want with my infrastructure. I decide what comes in and i decide what comes out. You don’t agree? Stop using my infrastructure! Get yer own.

Enforcing me what i should watch on my own equipment is also terrible. Unless i signed some weird agreement where i specifically say i will watch ads, you cannot make me.

Ads on tv? I change the channel! Ads on recordings? I fast forward. Ads on the internet? I do not allow certain ip adresses and dns names on my infrastructure. Ads on dvd? I use some menu tricks to skip them or just go do something else until the menu pops up. Ads on my systems? I deny their access to my systems.

Publishers banning me from their site because of that? Totally ok. It’s their site. If you don’t want me , then feel free to do so. I don’t care. The internet is a vast place. I do not need some specific site for my fix.


#20

[QUOTE=MJPollard;2775951]I hate to quote the NRA, but you can have my ad blocker when you pry it from my cold, dead browser.[/QUOTE]

Very true.

:bigsmile:


#21

[QUOTE=Mr. Belvedere;2776120]I agree that replacing ads with other ads and circumventing paywalls is a very dick move.

However, enforcing me to view ads, on my own network, in my time, is also a dick move. In fact, i own my entire infrastructure! I can do whatever the hell i want with my infrastructure. I decide what comes in and i decide what comes out. You don’t agree? Stop using my infrastructure! Get yer own.

Enforcing me what i should watch on my own equipment is also terrible. Unless i signed some weird agreement where i specifically say i will watch ads, you cannot make me.

Ads on tv? I change the channel! Ads on recordings? I fast forward. Ads on the internet? I do not allow certain ip adresses and dns names on my infrastructure. Ads on dvd? I use some menu tricks to skip them or just go do something else until the menu pops up. Ads on my systems? I deny their access to my systems.

Publishers banning me from their site because of that? Totally ok. It’s their site. If you don’t want me , then feel free to do so. I don’t care. The internet is a vast place. I do not need some specific site for my fix.[/QUOTE]

You really don’t like ads or commercials . . . :wink: