“Ads keep our content free to you to enjoy, please allow ads.”
** Allowing ads to the site **
LOL!! You fell for it!!! You need to subscribe too, LOL!
“Ads keep our content free to you to enjoy, please allow ads.”
** Allowing ads to the site **
LOL!! You fell for it!!! You need to subscribe too, LOL!
see, I don’t negotiate with terrorists, so I use PopUpOFF and Bypass Paywalls Clean. Also AdNauseam, TrackMeNot, CanvasBlocker, and SponsorBlock to round out the “fuck you, fuck your ads, and fuck your tracking” suite.
Hostile consumer practices becoming ubiquitous? Become a hostile consumer.
Calling a news site terrorist for asking for payment for the articles they write in the current political landscape sounds so… first-world-problems.
Running malware on someone else’s computer does not exactly make you the good one.
Big reach from running ads to it being malware
https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/cybercrime-and-digital-threats/forbes-readers-served-malicious-ads-after-asking-them-to-disable-adblocker
I didn’t say ads can’t contain malware, but it’s a bit of a “(some) internet malware is ads, but not all ads are malware” scenario, it’s very dependent on who they get the ads from and how tight those ads get reviewed. Broad statements like that are just ignorant, and I say that as someone who uses an adblock on all of their devices.
Websites that serve ads don’t review them ESPECIALLY if those ads are coming from third parties.
I know dummy, I meant the ad supplying platforms reviewing them
They don’t review them either and let’s not resort to name calling.
That’s backwards. (Most) ads are malware, but not all malware is ads.
The majority of ads are, at best, dangerous and, at worst, actively malicious. The ad networks don’t care to review them because they make money either way.
The overwhelming majority of ads are malware. Which is why I block aggressively and refuse to budge on that.
It was probably an entertaining exaggeration, but I don’t like how the term is being diluted by overuse. If a mosquito bites me, it’s a terrorist. Got a stone in your shoe? Believe it or not: Terrorist.
The term has serious legal consequences in many countries, therefore we should make sure people don’t forget what its true meaning is.
*the articles they copied somewhere else
Saying that based on…?
Based on the fact that I haven’t lived under a rock for the last 10-20 years. The more the internet expanded the more sources there were to copy from and since then it has increased greatly. Sometimes you only need to search the headline and you’ll find several “sources” < I mean in general and not related to the article
That’s just arguing in bad faith, unless you can at least demonstrate that this particular journal has copied their articles in the past.
Even if you were to entertain that thought however it doesn’t make them any more guilty of “terrorism” like op called them
I did not respond to the OP’s statement. I merely corrected your statement, as an extremely large number of articles are copied from somewhere these days. Which is absolutely no secret. International articles that are then chased through a translator and then published without being read. including nonsense from the translator.
The terrorizing then takes place later with copyrights etc. between publishers and the public. Yes, DRM is already terrorizing
If you don’t pay you’re not the consumer. Why wouldn’t they be hostile to you?
I dunno, maybe provide such a good service that it makes me want to pay, voluntarily? Like I do with Steam?
also, “you aren’t paying them, therefor they have the right to invade your privacy and serve malicious ads to you” is such a stupid, shit take. Are you some megacorp CEO’s personal ball-gargler or something?