Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:33:41 +0200
From: monikerd <monikerd@...il.com>
To: Tremaine Lea <tremaine@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Unreal: a movement to block Firefox

You know this is all old crap and a load of smoke bowing up usb ports.

The entire point of the advertising industry is that they will try to
put adds everywhere
all over the place. And it's you're job to be a smart enough person to
avoid them, and
buy what you want.

The only reason we are seeing this flair up, is because we won  a
battle, and we are
eating a few less adds for a while. Technology will evolve, and they
will find new
ways to serve us up stuff we don't really want.

This is just as insane, if all spyware/adware software companies
complained against
a secure operating system, that their software doesn't work there.

Or spam hubs ignoring people with filters.

You have to look at some webpages. it's add's all over the place.
Websites I like, i will
follow the links from time to time. (not just load the page in the
background)
Generating more revenue, than when i would be annoyed with flashy
banners all day.

Not to mention all the porn adverticements, that just don't belong on
the screen at all times.

The busyness model for some websites may need to be changed once again.
Because frankly
they made no sence. Only in an crappy IE6 monopoly. Where neighbours
_litterally rang my
bell asking me to close all those popups with nude people before the
wife got home_

It was crazy, now technology evolved, and the busyness models will have
to follow suit.

using all the things like promo codes, embeded add's in the video
streams, and all those
fancy things.

I will always be at war with the people that want to force me to view
other things than I want.

You crazy people can not force me what to see
You crazy people can not force me which browser and hence operating
system I have to use

Computers aren't add delivery machines. How about we consumers grab
control of our lives
control the computers. before corporations think they can control us.

You know the idea that add block is evil, is so crazy that you have some
people believing in it
just for the sake of it.

You know what. Let's follow google on this one. If there is one company
that trives on
online advertisements it's those guys. From the moment that they block
Firefox because of
addblock. I'll follow suit.


I will probably speak for a few people when I say: If I can't visit your
website with whatever
browser i _CHOOSE_ I do not need you're site.

this is nothing but pushing another agenda.

Suck it up, you douchbacks, you lost a battle, prepare for the next or
die out like the dinosaurs.


Tremaine Lea wrote:
> On 11-Sep-07, at 1:12 PM, Juergen Fiedler wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:58:24AM -0400, mbs wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I don't know about anyone else, but I happen to pay for my internet
> >> access. If I choose not to waste my bandwidth (and my time) with
> >> unwanted content, I would suggest that is my right.
> > This is not going to be a very popular opinion, but I submit that the
> > only honest way to exercise this right is to stay away from sites that
> > serve content that you don't want to see.
>
>
>
> How will a user know what content, precisely, is on the site without  
> visiting it?  You seem to be proposing that we should blindly trust  
> the other side until proven otherwise rather than proactively  
> protecting the system.
>
>
>
> > By serving ads on a site, the owner implicitly demands viewing them as
> > a form of payment for the content they provide. While I think that
> > blocking all Firefox users from a site makes very litle sense, I can
> > entirely disagree with the conclusion that blocking ads from ad
> > supported sites is uncomfortably close to theft.
>
> > Just my two cents...
> >  -Juergen
>
> These sites would be better off finding a way to ensure the  
> advertising content has loaded before the site content is provided  
> then.  As someone who administers perimeter security for a large  
> enterprise, I could care less what these sites *think* they are  
> entitled to push on users.  If their content (or advertising) matches  
> our filters, it gets blocked.
>
> Besides, taking action based on information provided by the client  
> side has been considered a less than intelligent practice for some  
> time ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
> ---
> Tremaine Lea
> Network Security Consultant
> Intrepid ACL
> "Paranoia for hire"

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/



_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists