| |||||||||||||
Ethical issueEthical issuePosted May 5, 2009 18:04 UTC (Tue) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010)In reply to: Ethical issue by BrucePerens Parent article: Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that but forcing me to use IE will not force me to view ads. I'll simply change from using Adblock to something like Privoxy and the devs of Privoxy and things like it will make it transparent to the web servers as possible.
Ad blocking isn't the exclusive domain of Open Source. Heavy handed action against open source network products won't force people to view ads. Or you may have meant ads support some subset of FOSS development. Possibly true but not enough to put any sort of end to FOSS.
(Log in to post comments)
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 18:57 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] DRM-enabled web pages can keep you from blocking ads. All they have to do is access the ad server via SSL, and fail to display content if the ad server connection fails.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 19:56 UTC (Tue) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link]
You really don't need DRM for that. I've seen a number of pages that don't load content until the ads are clicked through. Ads can also be incorporated more closely into content ala product placement as seen in most recent shows. Also if one wants to view flash content or movies, ads placed within those streams can't easily be gotten around. Adblocking software targets either keyword, construct, or external URL. All can be made much less obvious to adblockers for not much effort.
I suspect the truth of the matter is adblocking is far from universal and not enough of a hurt to advertisers to make my scenario more prevalent much less yours. It is also likely the truth that prevailing on people to view ads lest FOSS be screwed on the net isn't going to alter the situation one way or the other. And if a publisher really wants to employ that sort of DRM, I have no problem taking my money elsewhere and letting them know why.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 21:55 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
All that means is I have to waste bandwidth downloading the ads. It
doesn't mean the browser has to choose to display them. You *cannot control* what the browser chooses to display.
(More: an awful lot of people have to disable ads, and images, because
|
|||||||||||||