I would stay away from 1and1 in the future, but their customer service seems alright. The main thing to watch out for is they don't notify you when a contract is about to expire and instead send you the bill after it auto-renews. My fault for getting used to other registrar/hosting services' conventions. They waived and cancelled my account after I called though. I'd say they're a bit more upstanding than EIG's[1] brands.
That's a little unfair. With web hosting platforms like this offering increasingly low barriers to entry, they are accordingly attracting people who know less about technology, and are more likely to be persuaded by prices than informed industry opinion. For instance, I bought a domain from 1&1 when I was in middle school, just for a stupid personal website. I went with them because they were the cheapest and didn't know any better. I don't feel as if I would be to blame in that situation.
This is pretty much my situation, except my personal experiences have never actually been awful enough with them to persuade me to switch when all I really use them for at this point is easily sharing stuff.
By getting the user accustomed to seeing browser warnings and info there, you make it impossible for them to distinguish a legit browser warning from a fake one crafted by an unscrupulous site owner.
Browser warnings and notifications should significantly overlap the browser chrome (embedded in the address bar for example) so that no web page can make something that looks like it.
Thanks for bringing these two things to my attention. It's incredible what I can overlook in tools I use everyday. I love it when I learn something new though!
oh web.de easily the most dangerous free mail sites there is.
it belongs to 1&1[1] one of the bigger internet companies in germany.
it's really odd that no one ever shot them down. they are famous for tricking users into shady 2 year contracts, if they wanted to upgrade their 12 mb mailbox.
they also upgraded the freemail to 500mb if and only if you would install their browser toolbar, which would change the mail server etc. now it's 1gb with toolbar i think.
they tried to force my mum into a contract, because she clicked on a banner while logging(for free xxx mb click here style banners). then promptly closed the account should she not pay.
Confirmed.
I use web.de since 1998 as a spam-box, to keep my real account clean. During the last years they indeed try all tricks (we have a present for you, 3 weeks of free membership blah, blah..). If you leave this page now, the present will expire.
There is a way to simply ignore this sh..t. All of it.
But I agree that it takes discipline (germans are good at that :o). Gmail, on the other hand, cannot be trusted either. While web.de is evil, google is evil too, but google is bigger and google is not an european company. All of the data is used abroad thus circumventing civilized laws.
The real problem is this: these companies offer a service and everybody expects free services online. Of course the companies have to make money. Ask yourself: would you pay for an email account (I do)? If not, you have to accept ads. Or googles snooping in your data and selling your profile to everyone who pays. There is no free beer online. At least web.de shows us how ugly it gets, if things have to look like they were free.
This is not intended to excuse the primitive tricks we.de uses. But if you have a solution, post it here and I'll get rich.
I do agree with your point: if you don't want advertisements. Pay for the service. E.g. Google Apps for domains allows you to disable adds in Google apps. And since you can bring your own domain, you can move to some other service if you are not happy with them.
Even if you trusted such things, google will still do targeted ads. If DEA want to find drug users, all they have to do is ask google and they will use users emails to locate them.
Actually, the Snowden files show that is happening for non-US Citizens/US-persons.
The NSA only has the legal obligation to obtain warrents for US Citizens not for anyone else. The NSA is unlikely to get involved in civil legal disputes but yes, it can go in and ask for Kafka's data from Google if he is living in, say, Germany.
Even for that there is a due process requirement, contained in E.O. 12333. Obviously the requirements are far lower but even there a random NSA analyst can't simply ask for the data, they'd have to get a supervisor within NSA to approve sending that request outside the agency.
But on the other hand I've not seen evidence that Google simply sells information on specific individuals or otherwise gives it away without that legal mandate.
Actually, I was referencing the AT&T "go ahead, it's AT&T's data and we can do whatever we want with it". That was so bad that Congress passed an ex post facto law relieving them of any criminal or civil wrongdoing.
The problem here is that Google's data on us belongs to Google. They can do anything they want to that data: take a crap on it, process it for better ad targeting, analyze social media trends and figure out who we associate with, and/or give it to people like the FBI/CIA/NSA.
Or, Google was hacked. That's also well within the realm of possibility as well. But I think governmental "persuasion techniques" like http://xkcd.com/538/ work much better.
Just look at the stories of Qwest former CEO. He said no.
Complying with lawful search warrants is one thing, doing targeting ads based on users behavior for money is something else.
Targeted ads can be anything from a DEA honeypot that advertise cheap drugs, to quick guide for easy tax evasion made by the IRS. It might be ads targeted at people with specific sexual preferences. Any search-able trait imaginable that Google can target is exploitable, and the policy document is an official intent to do so.
Avoid collecting such information in the first place, which of course would require a different business model, which brings us back to the initial point.
Well, except that many users want full indexing of e-mails, including attachments, such that they can use an AJAX web interface to quickly search them.
So, storing all e-mails encrypted is not really feasible if you want to have such features as well [1]. It's a trade-off - convenience or security (I am sure someone will site Benjamin Franklin now ;)).
[1] Yes, I know that there is work on indexing encrypted data.
There is still a difference between storing the emails unencrypted and using them to profile users for ad targeting.
But anyway, what you are talking about could still be optional: if you wanted to search and be somewhat private you'd have to download the emails with a local client via IMAP - and if you really need search via web interface, you would toggle the option to store the emails unencrypted for that purpose.
Also, if you have a paid Google Apps account, you can disable ads in Google apps.
Personally, I'd like to see targeted ads more than 'random' ads. Of course, I don't like to be profiled. So, I use Ghostery, an ad blocker, and paid e-mail.
Uberspace is the best Option, you just need your own Domain.
Edit: I'll add an explanation. Uberspace ist a german hoster. It follows a pay what you want model (minimum: 1€) and practices data avoidance. For example, you can open an account and test it for a month, and then send money for that account to keep him, but you are never asked for your name.
I just use it for mails right now, but I could also host a webpage or something there. It's a full server.
The mailsystem has a nicely working roundcube-webinterface, one can of course also use IMAP. Without a custom domain the mailadress will look not very nice (but still work), but supporting a custom domain is very easy. It should ideally stay with a different domain registrar.
The whole administration interface is great - minimal on the webpage (though many things are possible to do there), and everything more complicated works via ssh.
you can host there, use ssh to do what ruby, node, python, php, perl, or what ever you wish, that does not need SU privileges, as it is a shared hosting model.
I am a customer for 24 month+ and am so unbelievable happy with these guys.
You have a question for their "support" at midnight (it is only these five guys and the do support themselves) and sometimes you get your answer at 2 o clock, because one of the guys was awake and just answered you.
These guys are nerds - and next to their business hosting wanted to build the perfect hosting for fellow nerds. Mission accomplished imho.
Just buy a domain and a small hosting plan that includes mail. I am using that setup for close to 10 years now and it is fantastic. I use all-inkl (hit me for my affiliate link if you want to sign up so I become rich) which are a high quality yet very affordable german host.
all-inkl has huge incompetencies when it comes to mail. Their servers end up on spam lists every 1-3 weeks. Effect: Your customers do not receive any more emails from you.
In addition if you inbox becomes larger than a specific size (1 GB is think) they will autoarchive your whole inbox to a folder... not nice if you have smart mail mailboxes
I've got confused by the definition of European over Wikipedia, "A citizen or attribute of or from the European Union[2]", but you're indeed right. I should know, as I live right under Switzerland :)
As was already said, any webhosting package with email will do. Here is a selection of hosters in Germany that I find have a clean website an pricing structure and therefore feel less cheap and more trustworthy to me.
Hetzner: One of the bigger provider for hosting in Germany. They have their own datacenters in Bavaria.
Manitu: Smaller, they also have their own datacenter.
schokokeks.org: Small service run by a few techies. I'm sure there are a few of this type, I just happen to know somebody who is very happy with them.
Speaking of small services run by a few techies: For what it's worth, I like bytecamp.net. I'm not affiliated with them, other than being a super happy customer for nearly 10 years :)
I'm using EUMX.net with large mailboxes and no problems so far. They seem to be quite a small company although very helpful when responding to email which they do with 24 hours.
I live in Austria now and it is amazing the amount of people who use GMX.
I've been on a crusade to try to make people switch to, well, whatever but not that.
I think it was one of the first ones around here and people got used to it and the status quo, most don't even know or care about how bad they've got it.
True, GMX is popular in Austria. Especially the kids and youth now use GMX instead of GMail or Outlook.com. For some reasons they trust European companies. (privacy, dislike NSA spying, etc.)
Though, GMX has done some shady business over the years and their servers are in Germany. They would be better off with some other email provider...
True, GMX is popular in Austria. Especially the kids and youth now use GMX instead of GMail or Outlook.com. For some reasons they trust European companies.
Even many older people. When I was doing my PhD, many of my German colleagues were using GMX addresses privately.
Can confirm. GMX was the first email provider I used, since it was cool because it was not hotmail and still had a lot of names available. I still use my 3 letter gmx account as a spambox nowadays.
mail.com recently had their outbound servers listed on Spamhaus for the best part of a week.
I noticed as a mail.com user was trying to email me and the message was being rejected, saw the spamhaus listing in my logs. Asked the sender, and they said that their messages to gmail were going into spam too.
I emailed postmaster@, support@, sysadmin@ etc. to try and inform them, as well as trying two contact forms; never heard anything back and it took several more days for the listing to disappear.
Well, 1&1/United Internet has a reputation for such bad behavior [1,2].
Actually it's quite easy to just enter some address and order some useless premium services "in behalf" of other people - this actually happened to a member of my family. According to consumer protection organizations this seems to be their business model [3,4].
As someone that has been involved in online publishing for over 10 years I have a strong opinion about ad blockers.
In my opinion using ad blockers is borderline piracy. Refusing the content creator his revenue by blocking his ads is little different than downloading music, books... without rewarding the creator. On top of that most of the quality content this days is on websites that have decent ads.
I am not trying to start a dispute if piracy is good or bad just wanted to express an opinion on ad blockers that many seem to miss.
> In my opinion using ad blockers is borderline piracy.
Once upon a time I agreed with you... now I view all online ads as threats.
Unfortunately, marketing companies have gotten greedy and the degree to which they fingerprint and track us as we surf the web has gotten completely out of hand. This is an industry that cannot even follow their own watered-down initiatives like DoNotTrack.
And because ad networks use layers of affiliates, sites typically have no visibility nor control over what their visitors are being served. That's why you end up with a marketing company like Evidon buying Ghostery - just so they can help companies monitor the garbage on their own pages![3]
And to top it off, ads are now a common attack vector for viruses and malware that not even the big companies can control:
1. Just last week, Youtube was serving banking malware via its online ads. [1]
2. Last month Yahoo got a lot of attention serving Bitcoin malware via online ads on their site. [2]
I know that online publishing is important, and we need a strong press. But publishing desperately needs to find a new business model because online ads are a failed experiment and it's time to stick a fork in them.
Also people shouldn't be allowed to change the channel on tv when the ad breaks begin or even leave to use the toilet! They should be forced to sit and watch everything or else the ratings of the ads will not match the ones for the show.
My point it: people mostly hated ads since they were invented. Be it by not looking at them on the street, changing channels on tv or installing AdBlock on your computer, they do their best to avoid them.
The TV ad example is a false analogy. If the page has ads that you don't want to see you can close it(no one forces you to watch it) or go for the toilet break.
I agree that people hate ads and people also hate paying for things that can get for free(piracy).
You guys are missing my point of ad blockers being borderline piracy and mainly try to justify your reason for using them.
It's not a false analogy at all. Muting the TV, changing the channel, or leaving the room when ads are on all deprive the advertiser their desired eyeballs to target. I believe that if TVs had been invented nowadays the mute functionality wouldn't be allowed during commercials because it would be seen as interfering with a profit model.
In many ways, Web ads are worse than TV ads because they often aren't switching between ads and content -- they are experienced at the same time. Most Webpages with ads aren't a commercial and then the content, it's the content with the commercials at the periphery of your vision. This means that without adblocking, the user cannot make the choice to read the content undistracted by commercials as they can with TV.
A closer analogy would be if TV shows came with commercials playing (sometimes with sound or popups) along all the borders of a TV show, and it was considered piracy to put a piece of cardboard over that ad-filled border. Muting is no different.
To split hairs, I'd say that's not piracy. To me, piracy would be sharing that software (or receiving that software) to others who haven't paid for it. The security circumvention may be a necessary part of the piracy process, but I don't see that as the issue. Consider the scores of games in the past that have had draconian DRM schemes, which unnecessarily require always-on Internet connections or regular dialing home to some server -- maybe a server that no longer exists as the developers do not support the game. In these cases, modifying these impediments to the functionality without sharing the software wouldn't be piracy in my eyes.
Actually the correct analogy to ad blockers would be downloading a free trial/demo and cracking it for own use without paying for it - would you consider that piracy?
If you, a site owner, wants to try and stop me from viewing your page when I block ads, don't run javascript, don't have flash, whatever it may be, you are free to do so.
Then you will be getting into the DRM war that many others are fighting and are losing.
As someone who has used an ad blocker for over 10 years, I have a strong opinion about the ad industry.
Die out, go away, and let us get back to the point where the motivation to publish something on the 'net stems from the desire to share knowledge. To hell with the cacophonous status quo of doing the bare minimum to trick people into giving you their attention in order to fill their head with garbage for a fraction of a penny. And if hosting honest content using central servers costs too much to be sustainable, then let that dead-end approach leave us and make room for decentralized software to deliver information.
I dont get your comment. Not content delivery is expensive, but content creation Do you want a net without professional journalism?! Or do you prefer paywalls? Or donations?
I am in favor of a great coordinated blackout campaign by the large content providers. Dont want to see ads? Fine, pay a dollar via Paypal to see the site - or go away.
The sheer majority of 'professional journalism' consists of:
1. Rewording press releases from industry/government. The actual writers of this content are being paid by industry/government, and the content itself is essentially an ad.
2. Soap opera designed to provoke fear or controversy, both "political" and not (see #1)
3. Emotional tourism fluff pieces to steal attention (see my original comment)
4. Pumping the latest startup fad (see #1)
5. Self-important circle jerks about the 'knowledge economy' and other superiority-assured deck chair distractions on the USSG (see #1)
6. Rewording of actual information that was not created by a journalist to be "more accessible", with the end result being a distorted oversimplification. This is essentially a subcase of #3 where the emotion is superficial "understanding".
7. Direct copying ("excerpts") of other 'professional journalism' with a link back, ad infinitum.
So no, I'm not terribly worried about losing something we don't actually have.
The occasional story that has genuine public interest (eg the hard facts about NSA) would be reported by concerned parties anyway. I doubt many of those ad views are paying the actual reporter, Snowden, who acted out of moral imperative. And while I'm happy the journalist middlemen are working to keep public attention on this subject, this is only necessary from being in a zero sum game with the above. These middlemen are actually delaying, redacting, and muddling specific technical facts on the current state of NSA's malevolence that would be quite nice for us to know.
Personally, I find that people who directly depend on ad revenue contribute very little to my life. In the software industry, content creators who are paid to participate in the field tend to produce much better content than those who are paid to produce content.
The problem is that without adblockers the web is basically useless due to too many publishers becoming too greedy and torturing their users with sometimes dozens of layer,banner,popup,popunder and scareware ads on one(!) page.
Do you see how that is in perfect connection with the reason people pirate stuff?
Anti-piracy main reasoning is that if it's too expensive(too many ads in your case) just don't buy it. The 2nd main reason is lack of availability(in ad blocker case - lack of sites with less ads that give you same content).
> Whitelisting is free for all small- and medium websites and blogs. However, managing this list requires significant effort on our side and this task cannot be completely taken over by volunteers as it happens with common filter lists. That's why we are being paid by some larger properties that serve non-intrusive advertisements that want to participate in the Acceptable Ads initiative.
I'm more than happy to see your ads. I'll even click on it, and buy things from the target if I like what I see. I've done that several times in the past. In fact, when they are relevant, and in moderated amounts, I do like ads.
Now, I'm sure that you took care to guarantee that your ads won't track me, or try to invade my computer, right? Because if you didn't, it's blocked and you can whine and call me bad names the entire day, it won't change a thing.
By the way, I never saw adblockers blocking properly applied, safe to load ads. Maybe they do, I don't use them for quite a long time (I use other tech).
I agree there are some parallels between ad-blocking and piracy (though they do tend to be in the realm of the "piracy = theft" idea rather than copyright-related parallels).
However, I think it's also important to recognize that by similarly-strong analogy, advertisements in general are inherently a sort of mental manipulation or brainwashing.
Now, I'm not saying that mental manipulation is inherently a bad or evil thing. When I'm writing this post, I hope that those reading it will become in some way more mentally accepting of my point of view. But I think we don't look enough at how susceptible we are to advertising, and how much advertising depends on exploiting cognitive biases or implying untruths that are not explicitly stated.
We (humans) are really bad at not being affected by advertising, even if we know we're being advertised to, and even if we know the ad is deceptive. When sites depend on ad revenue, they're saying "We're offering this content for free, but in exchange we want to be able to bias/prime your brain so that when you see Product X, even far in the future, you are more likely to desire it." That's a very powerful thing, and while it's certainly necessary for many business models today, I think we should think of this as a "necessary evil."
There are sites where I disable ad-blocking, often in response to a genuine plea on the part of the website. If it's a site I particularly care about and feel that I trust, then I allow ads as a way of helping them out. But if ad-blocking is piracy, then ads themselves are brainwashing -- exploiting failings in human cognition to unconsciously guide people into actions or purchases that may or may not be optimal for them -- and with the subject having limited defenses against it once infected.
Completely agree with you on the points about the risk of brainwashing and impulse buying and people not realising how powerful and dangerous ads can be.
I would not go that far and claim all ads are brainwashing and manipulative. Going this route it means all communication is manipulative as there is an intention behind every word.
I agree with you there about the difficulty of finding the line between manipulative ads and non-manipulative (or less manipulative) communication in general. It's not like we're all pure spherically-modeled creatures of pure thought and reason who can derive the optimal things to do and buy from first principles.
I think one issue with many ads is the matter of power disparity. Those who are more trained in marketing and advertising skills know how to present material in a way that is pleasing to an audience. The average person doesn't have this knowledge or a good sense of all the techniques that are being used on them -- or even if they do they are still susceptible. This means that it's far easier for "attackers" to "attack" than for "defenders" to "defend" (using the words here with an acknowledgment that not all "attacks" are a bad thing; a lot is simply communication). With further advances in data mining and with large amounts of funds being put into advertising, those who are advertising are becoming more adept at knowing what mental buttons to press to get the desired response, while the general populace is not getting better at withstanding it.
It's also a question of scale, and being paid to advertise. For example, I enjoy traditional wet shaving, and there are a few blogs I follow that have reviews of shaving creams, DE razors, etc. I have learned to trust these reviews and while they act as ads for these products (they do manipulate me into being more likely to buy those products) I trust that these reviews are more "genuine" and reliable. When there are more sponsored reviews or payments from third-party ad companies, then the appearance of endorsement (and trusted recommendation) is there but without the same fine control by the content provider. Maybe it's a utopian naive vision, but "I recommend this product because I've used it and like it" seems different in substance from "I recommend this product because the makers of the product have paid me to say that I recommend it."
I also want the ad funding model to be viable. I'm happy to consider ads on my screen as a form of payment and I would not block them out of convenience alone.
But if the advertising industry starts to act like one huge criminal enterprise without any limits to the kind of deceptive practices they use I'm forced to defend myself.
I see no reason to be fair to those who deceive me whenever they can.
As someone who has paid for advertising on websites, I'm happy that some of the users who are definitely not going to click on the ad aren't served them.
But beyond that, this is pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand. However you feel about ad blockers, tricking people into turning them off is still completely unacceptable.
I am one hundred percent sure I have not ever intentionally clicked on or even looked at an ad, nor do I ever intend to, regardless of how relevant it is. I will never click on it.
That's why I use Adblock. It doesn't matter what you're showing me. I don't want it. Ever. This goes for offline, too. I don't watch TV except Netflix, partially because of ads. I don't listen to the radio, just my mp3 player.
"...I have not ever intentionally clicked on or even looked at an ad..."
"I don't watch TV except Netflix..."
It may be a coincidence, or it may not... but I've done research on ads distribution, and Netflix, by itself, represented over 10% of all "ad impressions". All of them. For every ten eyeballs ogling an ad, at least one of them was that insufferable red rectangle (I'm sick of it by now).
So it may be, or it may be not, but you are a Netflix customer. Maybe you were dragged in by the onslaught of banners. Maybe someone you know was, and convinced you to buy. Hard to say.
Possibly. But I'm okay with recommendations by friends - sure they may have been influenced by advertising, but it was good enough for them to recommend it to me. I'm okay with them filtering all the noise out for me.
My argument is not that advertising is all around bad and nobody likes it - in fact I know plenty of people enjoy clever advertising, and probably many people are fine with using advertising as a deciding factor when making purchases.
But I don't. I'd rather no advertising influence me consciously or especially unconsciously. I regard most ads as an attempt by a marketing agent to subvert my rationality when I'm buying a product or service. Of course there's no way to get away from it altogether, and nobody is an entirely rational actor to start with. But I'd like to keep things as best as I can.
Additionally, I find even unobtrusive ads distracting. I've found that even seemingly small changes in day-to-day tasks can have an impact on my ability to sustain concentration, think clearly, and keep going to the end of the day. As another example of this, try going one week without listening to the radio on the way to work. That made a large noticeable difference in my workday. I've also found that watching TV, any TV, tends to disrupt my focus a little even hours after watching. So based on my personal experience, I've come to the conclusion that ads also have an effect on my concentration throughout the day, albeit a relatively smaller one.
Of course YMMV and they really might not influence you at all.
You say you never clicked an ad. If you are visiting sites relevant to your industry you should actually check out the advertisers to keep an eye with what is happening in your industry(new tools, new conferences, new competition...).
Most of the big sites have CPM deals so they get paid for every visitor no matter of clicks or not.
And yes I hate intrusive ads as well and I don't watch TV channels with ads(I mostly watch football and HBO about 1-3 times a week).
If I see an ad for a tool relevant to me, the chance that it's just a repackaged version of an open-source tool I'm already familiar with is almost 100%
> new conferences
I would never go to a conference, especially one that needs to run ads.
> new competition
If they're a threat, I'll hear about them through news or word-of-mouth. Otherwise, just another waste of time.
Your industry only exists for purposes of brainwashing. All other purported uses are better and more honestly served through other means.
I completely agree. You're not losing me because I would've never clicked. If I want something, I go look for it myself. I don't understand why people try to make this a morality issue. You shove ads in my face, I block them, simple as that.
Yes, and therefore, as a Wikipedia contributor I've paid for other's "lunch". I feel they owe me nothing, so from their perspective that "lunch" was free.
I haven't found that exact claim on the site. It does list these blockers as "Liste von bekannten seitenmanipulierenden Add-ons" (known site-manipulating add-ons) [2] and on the main page "Diese seitenmanipulierenden Add-ons stellen ein erhebliches Sicherheitsrisiko für Sie dar!" (these site-manipulating add-ons put you in a situation of increased security risk) [1]. Together, these two assertions might be libellous, but because they are not together, I guess it is not as straightforward as the words of Michael Büker's post suggests.
Ad-blockers protect against attacks coming from compromised ad servers, but also increase your total attack surface. The message is misleading about the relative risks, and it's dishonest in singling out ad-blockers among thousands of extensions, but I wouldn't say it's blatantly false.
Is it libelous against browser makers, though? They spoof the browser's info bar and I believe they style the landing page to look like an internal browser page.
What I don't get is why something like AdBlock should even be detectable...
Incidentally, I remember reading before that Germany had the largest percentage of users using AdBlock, so it makes sense that the pushback is starting here.
Someone has said that they do not view advertising. They have modified their browser to avoid ads.
A marketer choses to ignore that person's choice and choses to use tricky technical means to ignore that person's wishes in order to show an ad.
How is that in any way beneficial to the product being advertised?
I am ad tolerant (don't run ad blockers etc) but behaviour like that fills me with rage. It is exactly the same kind of attitude that said it is fine to spew email to anyone whether they want it or not.
Marketers need a code of conduct to say that this behaviour is unacceptable.
I'm highly intolerant of ads. I have limited focus. Most of all, ads scare me. I'm afraid they may have a potentially compounding effect on the way I think.
but the default position of most people is to disregard someone's position. There is a stunningly vast portion of the population that actively assumes that everyone believes the same as they do, even if they know otherwise.
"I can't focus with the tv on" "Yes you can." turns tv louder
marketers ignoring stated positions for money is a symptom of the greater disease of people ignoring others positions.
Personally, I don't see a reason why ads HAVE to be manipulative or misleading. What if it was in my own interest to see them?
Consider that I'm blocking them because I perceive them as a threat, and the fact that they can't stop me creates an incentive to reform in a positive way.
There's no reason ads can't be mutually beneficial. A company around town is looking for a programmer? Here's my resume guys! Future shop is having a clearance sale on HDD's? Let me get my coat!
You should install adblock! Increase that incentive! Why suffer ads? join me and push them towards being useful!
> How is that in any way beneficial to the product being advertised?
it isn't. But the clients of the advertisers cannot really have a say in this - the measurements of ad effectiveness tend to be done with impressions. They are optimizing for a metric that doesn't completely align with the goals of advertising
Why wouldn't it be detectable? Ad blockers do their job by removing elements from the page, blocking requests to URLs that match those used to serve advertisements, or a combination both, and either one of those are easily detectable by client-side JavaScript.
Then perhaps a different method should be used - although removing all the stuff that makes up adverts is one way to do it (and often does make for faster page loads and lower bandwidth consumption), if the end goal is the user just doesn't want to see them, maybe that's what we should do: everything except render certain elements.
(There's also the alternative of targeting the scripts that do this; an anti-anti-adblock! Reminds me of the arms race between malware attempting to prevent itself from reverse-engineering via detecting debuggers and such, and the opponents coming up with anti-anti-debugging, leading to anti-anti-anti, and so forth...)
How would you do that in a way that wouldn't be detectable to the original page? The only way I can see would be at the browser level, not the extension level.
Yes, the current extension model is rather limited in that respect, but what if extensions could also interact with the renderer instead of just the page (DOM) contents? Could make for some more... extensive capabilities.
I drove myself insane for a morning recently when I couldn't work out why a site of mine that had happily been working for years suddenly stopped displaying some images in the carousel. They were there in the HTML but Chrome reckoned they were zero size. Eventually, it hit me that I should try turning off adblock. Turns out, I had called the imgs containg divs "#ad1", "#ad2". "#ad3", etc were all fine for some reason.
Anyway, the point is that you could probably easily check for adblock by checking the image size of something within a div named "advert".
And you described the main reason why people who say ad blockers "protect users" are wrong. They just hide the ads, they don't block them.
Better to just send to localhost all known ad network domains. There are some noce precompiled lists around the web for that exact purpose.
I once had to use a method like this to detect adblock to specificially deny a somewhat intrusive ad from being displayed, as adblock screwed it up enough that it wouldn't close.
They add a little javascript function that they call advertisment.js or something similar which just adds a div to the page (e.g.: document.write('<div id="test"></div>');
). They then check if the div exists when the document is ready and notify the server. Adblock has a filter feature where you can enable specific javascript functions on a site, which allows you to circumvent this trick.
It would be better to update browsers, to display a different warning, in a place where a page can't change at all. (And while we are there, Firefox, please, do the same with the master password dialog.)
But I doubt any of them will do that because, security be damed, it messes with the minimalist fashion.
It would still be helpful even if they just modified the warnings to bleed into the non-page portion of the window somehow. It doesn't have to compromise minimalism. They just need to be creative about it.
But I think the best place for it would be between the tab bar and the location bar.
Really a shame for them to resort to such unscrupulous tactics. I quite like 1&1 too. Their mail.com mobile interface ( https://m.mail.com/int/ ) works with NoScript and is perfect as far as my needs are concerned. Quite nice looking too. Very flat and minimal while being completely functional.
There's only one appropriate response to this from browser vendors: add those sites with to the malicious site list so that they show the big "danger ahead" warning when you visit them.
This kind of social engineering approach to removing an extension is not significantly different from a browser exploit that achieves the same result.
I doubt even many users will be stupid enough to not only click some random fake error ad, but follow the advice of a dodgy site. Almost everyone who has adblock installed it knowingly, wanting the effect and knowing what it does.
Some but not all. I've been mildly surprised to see family members running chrome (yes, I know, privacy issues with chrome, but better than IE...) or firefox with an ad blocker before.
some years ago i worked for 1 & 1, and when I think back to their customers, i can imagine that it would work. And I see the reason also because they were one of the first to have offered in Germany emails that were in vain financed by massive advertising, and AdBlock is certainly no fun for them.
Just to compare, this looks my Landing Page with, and without AdBlock.. http://i.imgur.com/bgTCRJN.png
Because a) one is already known as being scammy and b) doing the latter might get the site listed as a ad/malware provider, which may run into browser and protection suites labeling the site.
