I'm hating the youtube ads before the video, it's so stupid.
They think they can force me to watch ads...
To bad, because I have the perfect solution, I close the tab, I don't watch the video, because I lost interest, and I don't care how much I wanted to see that.
All of a sudden it seems I cannot CLOSE the idiot ads plastered ACROSS the bottom of Youtube vids.....I didn't care so much when I could just shut the stupid things, now it's not even an option. Does Adblock kill these malicious ads? Does any advertiser actually believe I am going to click on and BUY from them when they are actively annoying me by blocking out part of a video/captions I am trying to view?
@fiona3637 Which ads do you mean, Fiona? The ones which show up over the content of the video itself? I just noticed banner ads below the video frame, and I can confirm that Adblock Plus can block those. Right-clicking on the ad and choosing "Adblock: Block Image" should do the trick. If you can find me a video which has the overlay ads, I will try to test that. We also recommend Lavasoft Ad Aware for PCs.
How are sites supposed to monetize if they can't use legitimate ads that attract attention? Flying drinks=bad...dynamic ads are another.
I'd find it even more deceptive to find an ad that was so seamless (i.e., didn't attract attention) I couldn't even tell it was an ad.
Re: Adblock - It *does* hurt the good sites that provide quality information (e.g., Lifehacker). Most people don't take the time to whitelist sites that don't have evil interfaces and are just trying to make an honest buck.
@isaacaggrey All ads are required to mark themselves as ads in some way, and though they don't always do it as obviously as they should, it's still better than having something that moves and flashes and distracts from what you're trying to read. My understanding is that Google AdWords, even though it mostly provides text ads, does pretty well. So why do we need "dynamic" ads?
What about newspapers? Are newspapers an evil interface? Readers just want to get the news, but newspaper publishers are unethically trying to distract them with all these ads!
@bandislife I see what you're getting at, and yes, we do think ads are a distraction everywhere (see our latest video about the Hollister Clothing Co. for more on why Weena flips out about ads). What we think about when we think about newspaper ads, though, is "news hole," and how dependent newspaper content is on ad revenue. The same is becoming more true online, too. Thanks for bringing this up -- I think we will have an episode about it soon!
@themediashow NoScript is another add-on for Firefox, akin to AdBlock, that blocks JavaScript/Java/Flash scripts from being run without the user's permission.
Personally, I've found it to be a nuisance to have installed since, if you're trying to be *really* safe, you have to verify each script is something you want to run. Even if you allowed scripts on a per-site basis, a whitelisted site could still be injected with malicious scripts and the user's still out of luck.
If it's a users right to use "wonderful" adblock to block out adverts, should a webmaster be able to block out users who are running adblock? Most sites rely on adverts for revenue after all.
@BuckoA51 How do you know that people who use AdBlock will click through on ads anyway? Maybe it's just an audience that doesn't like ads. And how is the user to distinguish between sites with malevolent ads and sites with benevolent ads?
Perhaps Adblock should clearly give users an option---maybe right after installation---to allow only verified/benevolent ad providers and block all other ads instead of blocking both types wholesale.
some of the advertising is used to fund the 'free web' - i.e. servers to host content and the bandwidth to host this costs money, so if everyone starts blocking adds may have some negative implications for future of otherwise free content
most of his complaints aren't about interfaces, I can agree with some of them but the one about typos, I don't want my isp to filter web domains, that's just evil.
Clicking ads is a great way to tip on web sites you like. Sometimes, the ads are even interesting, which is not surprising since they're tied to content. With adblock you can block some ads retain the ability to tip on sites that aren't obnoxious. I wish more people would do this, because it would send a message to advertisers -- keep the ads simple, inoffensive, and relevant and there's a chance we'll click. Annoy us and you're banished to the block list, your ads never to be seen again.
sorry if 10k of actual information comes with 7 megs of flash and js-loaded images, leading to xss and all the flash vulnerabilities. and simple info that should be passed in the initial GET that are left to an AJAX loader? there's no reason for a simple website to load so much trash. so much waste and overhead. lost of wasted bandwidth.
@jbgandhi2 Great question about the patch! Like many punks, Weena has picked up an army patch because she thought it looked cool, without knowing what it was about. A visit to her awesome cousin who works at the Presidio, though, made her proud to be affiliated with that San Francisco-based unit.
Adblock is silly. The bad guys will work around it while the good guys who rely on advertisement to economically sustain their websites get hurt. Don't make the good guys put up paywalls. (I'm not actually a web site owner.)
@badpazzword Far from silly, AdBlock is wonderful. I use it to block ads to which I would have responded negatively. I wouldn't have clicked them; I haven't clicking web ads in 15+ years. The ads still get downloaded, the site gets whatever credit their advertising scheme gives. Blocking the crap from my view has not changed the ad-provider/website-owner dynamic in any way, it's like leaving the room or channel-surfing when TV ads come on.
@RobTFirefly : The ones who buy the ads. They are paying to have a return on investment. No ROI = no ads. No ads = your beloved websites could ask you to pay for content.
@voltaris As I explained in my other comment, they wouldn't have gotten any more return on the investment from me even if I ha to see the ads. So, in my case at least, the only thing AdBlock is changing for anyone on any side of the equation is it makes my own web experience more comfortable.
@badpazzword Additionally, I'm a website owner many times over. As a web user I know what I hate about the web, and so I don't do that stuff to my visitors. There are lots of ways for the "good guys" to support a website without spammy ads or paywalls, but the mainstream just aren't interested. The big guys seem to love the aggravating old-fashioned ad models too much, no matter how irrelevant those models become in new media's world.
@badpazzword. Adblock is your friend! Dont diss it! Adblock and adblock fashioned often have whitelist feature for the sites/people you are cool with. You know, some guy trying to make a little money is not entitled to obnoxious "please buy me intrusive harassment. I pay for the bandwidth I use yet I receive no compensation for all this exposure to all these uncalled for ads...
I'm hating the youtube ads before the video, it's so stupid.
They think they can force me to watch ads...
To bad, because I have the perfect solution, I close the tab, I don't watch the video, because I lost interest, and I don't care how much I wanted to see that.
Hope more people do this.
STOP FORCING ME TO WATCH ADS
nuno0alex0rocha0 1 year ago
All of a sudden it seems I cannot CLOSE the idiot ads plastered ACROSS the bottom of Youtube vids.....I didn't care so much when I could just shut the stupid things, now it's not even an option. Does Adblock kill these malicious ads? Does any advertiser actually believe I am going to click on and BUY from them when they are actively annoying me by blocking out part of a video/captions I am trying to view?
fiona3637 1 year ago 2
@fiona3637 Which ads do you mean, Fiona? The ones which show up over the content of the video itself? I just noticed banner ads below the video frame, and I can confirm that Adblock Plus can block those. Right-clicking on the ad and choosing "Adblock: Block Image" should do the trick. If you can find me a video which has the overlay ads, I will try to test that. We also recommend Lavasoft Ad Aware for PCs.
themediashow 1 year ago
How are sites supposed to monetize if they can't use legitimate ads that attract attention? Flying drinks=bad...dynamic ads are another.
I'd find it even more deceptive to find an ad that was so seamless (i.e., didn't attract attention) I couldn't even tell it was an ad.
Re: Adblock - It *does* hurt the good sites that provide quality information (e.g., Lifehacker). Most people don't take the time to whitelist sites that don't have evil interfaces and are just trying to make an honest buck.
isaacaggrey 1 year ago
@isaacaggrey All ads are required to mark themselves as ads in some way, and though they don't always do it as obviously as they should, it's still better than having something that moves and flashes and distracts from what you're trying to read. My understanding is that Google AdWords, even though it mostly provides text ads, does pretty well. So why do we need "dynamic" ads?
themediashow 1 year ago
Comment removed
isaacaggrey 1 year ago
Comment removed
isaacaggrey 1 year ago
What about newspapers? Are newspapers an evil interface? Readers just want to get the news, but newspaper publishers are unethically trying to distract them with all these ads!
bandislife 1 year ago
@bandislife I see what you're getting at, and yes, we do think ads are a distraction everywhere (see our latest video about the Hollister Clothing Co. for more on why Weena flips out about ads). What we think about when we think about newspaper ads, though, is "news hole," and how dependent newspaper content is on ad revenue. The same is becoming more true online, too. Thanks for bringing this up -- I think we will have an episode about it soon!
themediashow 1 year ago
Comment removed
dralezero 1 year ago
Comment removed
dralezero 1 year ago
they should have mentioned No-Script as well, but it was cool
NeuralZen 1 year ago
@NeuralZen What's No-Script? Tell us more!
themediashow 1 year ago
@themediashow NoScript is another add-on for Firefox, akin to AdBlock, that blocks JavaScript/Java/Flash scripts from being run without the user's permission.
Personally, I've found it to be a nuisance to have installed since, if you're trying to be *really* safe, you have to verify each script is something you want to run. Even if you allowed scripts on a per-site basis, a whitelisted site could still be injected with malicious scripts and the user's still out of luck.
isaacaggrey 1 year ago
@isaacaggrey why dont you write more comments dude
alienmode 1 year ago
Comment removed
isaacaggrey 1 year ago
If it's a users right to use "wonderful" adblock to block out adverts, should a webmaster be able to block out users who are running adblock? Most sites rely on adverts for revenue after all.
BuckoA51 1 year ago
@BuckoA51 How do you know that people who use AdBlock will click through on ads anyway? Maybe it's just an audience that doesn't like ads. And how is the user to distinguish between sites with malevolent ads and sites with benevolent ads?
themediashow 1 year ago
@themediashow Does anyone like ads? :-p
Perhaps Adblock should clearly give users an option---maybe right after installation---to allow only verified/benevolent ad providers and block all other ads instead of blocking both types wholesale.
isaacaggrey 1 year ago
some of the advertising is used to fund the 'free web' - i.e. servers to host content and the bandwidth to host this costs money, so if everyone starts blocking adds may have some negative implications for future of otherwise free content
chentiangemalc 1 year ago
the best way is to disable javascript and flash
pete275 1 year ago
I don't believe that guy is an expert in computers. He has a hickey, and everyone know computer geeks are virgins.
pete275 1 year ago
@pete275 What you don't know about computer geeks could fill a book, dude. Also? Give you herpes.
themediashow 1 year ago
most of his complaints aren't about interfaces, I can agree with some of them but the one about typos, I don't want my isp to filter web domains, that's just evil.
motus 1 year ago
Clicking ads is a great way to tip on web sites you like. Sometimes, the ads are even interesting, which is not surprising since they're tied to content. With adblock you can block some ads retain the ability to tip on sites that aren't obnoxious. I wish more people would do this, because it would send a message to advertisers -- keep the ads simple, inoffensive, and relevant and there's a chance we'll click. Annoy us and you're banished to the block list, your ads never to be seen again.
fyoderlarue 1 year ago
why does the puppet have the 6th Army SSI?
as for adblock and noscript, et al.
sorry if 10k of actual information comes with 7 megs of flash and js-loaded images, leading to xss and all the flash vulnerabilities. and simple info that should be passed in the initial GET that are left to an AJAX loader? there's no reason for a simple website to load so much trash. so much waste and overhead. lost of wasted bandwidth.
jbgandhi2 1 year ago
@jbgandhi2 Great question about the patch! Like many punks, Weena has picked up an army patch because she thought it looked cool, without knowing what it was about. A visit to her awesome cousin who works at the Presidio, though, made her proud to be affiliated with that San Francisco-based unit.
themediashow 1 year ago
Adblock is silly. The bad guys will work around it while the good guys who rely on advertisement to economically sustain their websites get hurt. Don't make the good guys put up paywalls. (I'm not actually a web site owner.)
badpazzword 1 year ago
@badpazzword Far from silly, AdBlock is wonderful. I use it to block ads to which I would have responded negatively. I wouldn't have clicked them; I haven't clicking web ads in 15+ years. The ads still get downloaded, the site gets whatever credit their advertising scheme gives. Blocking the crap from my view has not changed the ad-provider/website-owner dynamic in any way, it's like leaving the room or channel-surfing when TV ads come on.
So, who is being hurt?
RobTFirefly 1 year ago 5
@RobTFirefly : The ones who buy the ads. They are paying to have a return on investment. No ROI = no ads. No ads = your beloved websites could ask you to pay for content.
voltaris 1 year ago
@voltaris As I explained in my other comment, they wouldn't have gotten any more return on the investment from me even if I ha to see the ads. So, in my case at least, the only thing AdBlock is changing for anyone on any side of the equation is it makes my own web experience more comfortable.
RobTFirefly 1 year ago
@badpazzword Additionally, I'm a website owner many times over. As a web user I know what I hate about the web, and so I don't do that stuff to my visitors. There are lots of ways for the "good guys" to support a website without spammy ads or paywalls, but the mainstream just aren't interested. The big guys seem to love the aggravating old-fashioned ad models too much, no matter how irrelevant those models become in new media's world.
RobTFirefly 1 year ago
@badpazzword. Adblock is your friend! Dont diss it! Adblock and adblock fashioned often have whitelist feature for the sites/people you are cool with. You know, some guy trying to make a little money is not entitled to obnoxious "please buy me intrusive harassment. I pay for the bandwidth I use yet I receive no compensation for all this exposure to all these uncalled for ads...
virgule888 1 year ago
Ad Block Plus addon for Firefox is awesome, no ads on Youtube or hardly anywhere else
670Kiester 1 year ago
NEVER ENDING SURVEY!!! FALCORE!
caseedilla 2 years ago
Another great Media Show. And now in HD...
rdurff 2 years ago
I use Flashblock plug in for firefox.
it disables all flash based ads. like the hoverover ads.
they only downside is that you need to hit a play button when you want to look at flash content. like youtube for instance
rodbotic 2 years ago
Comment removed
RobTFirefly 2 years ago