Quick thought about ads

[afuna]

I don't mind seeing ads, and I don't mind ads that blend into my current context, but I do mind all the tracking that ad networks think is necessary in order to serve up ads to me.

This is why, for example, I don't mind the ads on Ravelry, but I do mind a lot of the third-party ad networks, and I do feel uncomfortable whenever I am on a webpage with a Facebook "like" button.

In that respect, adblock is actually the other way around, because it blocks the ads that you see, but it may not block the tracking mechanisms explicitly. Chrome adblock, especially, just hides the ads using CSS; it doesn't prevent the image from loading, so whatever web bugs get pinged anyway. Meh.

(Entry spurred by someone random's comment about how adblock is depriving websites of their livelihood, and my realizing that I use adblock mostly for blocking garish images and annoying site sections, but don't depend on it to protect me in any way)

Comments

[jumpuphigh]

That's why I use Ghostery and 2 different cookie cleaning add-ons.

[afuna]

Oooooh, thank you for that rec. I will check out Ghostery.

(I am currently using the Vanilla extension in Chrome, which cleans most of my cookies after about half an hour, leaving only those on a couple of sites I've whitelisted. I love it, peace of mind \o/)

[jumpuphigh]

Both of my cookie add-ons only delete when I close FF. I'd love an add-on that worked every 30 minutes or so.

[marahmarie]

I used Ghostery for a while (and it's great) but now that I'm using NoScript, I'm thinking Ghostery is not so necessary anymore? Or should I still use it to block unwanted tracking cookies? I'm trying not to use redundant add-ons since my laptop needs all the extra firepower it can get...I guess I need to compare features on the two to see how much they overlap or not.

[jumpuphigh]

I am actively running both partially because I started using Ghostery then added NoScript later and couldn't be bothered to check out the differences and partially because anything worth doing is worth overdoing. :D Thus two different Cookie deleting add-ons.

[marahmarie]

You know (forgot to say this last night), you can use the Web Dev add-on to disable all cookies, too, but as far as I know, it's not a persistent setting, so every time you restart Firefox, you have to check off "disable cookies" again. Which is why I almost never bother with that feature.

Right now I have Firefox set to block all third-party cookies, and NoScript is preventing (I think) any cookies from being set when I use it to block scripts globally, but sometimes, on certain wireless networks, I have to disable NoScript or the networks are unusable (because the IT who runs them tracks you through certain tracking websites, which ugh, I hate). So I'm thinking, since I have to disable NoScript so often, I might as well re-install Ghostery. :)

[jumpuphigh]

Since this conversation, I have been watching how Ghostery and NoScript behave on different websites. I like the combination of the two. Ghostery gives me more information about what they are blocking which I like. Plus, it is way easier to permanently block things with Ghostery. However, NoScript blocks more items than Ghostery because Ghostery just blocks trackers.

Since all my cookies except the few I've white-listed (like from Dreamwidth) get erased every time I shut down my browser and Ghostery blocks trackers, I don't worry about cookies as much. Plus, I just redownloaded Tor and it is soooo much better than the last time I tried to use it.

[marahmarie]

Is it quicker now? I would use it if it were just quicker, but the slowness has always killed it for me (especially on wireless, which around here, is not just slow but incredibly wonky - it's not unusual to have to switch through three networks repeatedly in a half hour just to stay online at all).

[jumpuphigh]

I am not noticing any speed reduction and I've been running it continuously for a few days now. Before, it was so super slow which was made me stop using it.

[marahmarie]

Thanks for the heads-up. :)

[ex_pippin880]

I was SO HAPPY when I realised I could adblock 404 Frank on LJ. SO. HAPPY.

[afuna]

It stares right into your eyes :( Not cool, not cool.

[marahmarie]

Honestly, I can't believe the amount of bandwidth they're wasting on 404s and deleted/purged journals these days. Makes me long for the plain white pages with one or two lines of text of Olde.

[pne]

Yeah, Chrome adblock isn't really adblock.

And not only do web bugs get pinged, but if you're adblocking because you care about page loading times or bandwidth use, you're not that much better off, either.

[afuna]

Yeah, agreed. Luckily I don't block ads for any of those things (I do turn off Flash to ease loading times sometimes though *G*)

[syntheid]

Hm... I don't really mind much about the usual web bugs getting pinged, but I do use ABP + NoScript on Firefox ... mostly to stop ads from actively bothering me (like blocking those really obnoxious LJ "popups"), though part of it is that I hope it keeps out most/some of the malicious attacks people have been spreading through advertisement code these days.

I'd probably bother less if ads were only text-based, though it is really kind of disturbing when it's targeted to who they think I am as a person instead of, like you said, matching the site content.

[afuna]

Oooh popups and overlays. I forgot about those! (The LJ overlays never affected me though; as far as I can tell it was only triggered on US user).

And ugh yeah, malicious attacks :/ They're pretty much inherent risks in ad networks, because anyone who serves ads on their webpages have to rely on unknown third parties to be honest, and it just takes one dishonest person who only cares about profit...

I think you nailed how I feel with that last paragraph. I don't care if the ad server knows what I'm reading at this very moment. Anything more than that is pretty creepy.

[syntheid]

Yessss, NoScript is kind of my answer to those, because the adblock usually just blocks the message inside it and not the actual script that calls it. The most annoying thing is that the overlays will show on my phone, though, and trying to get them to close is sometimes impossible, so I just have to refresh the page to get it to go away. :| I want something like NoScript for my phone browser.

And yeah, which is unfortunate. It's too bad there isn't a better way to secure that format, really.

Yeah and it's not like it really... helps when it's a product unrelated to the page I was looking at, anyway. Occasionally I just get irritated because they're targeting me for perfume or something just because they somehow figured out I was female and that just makes me facepalm. Figuring I would probably be interested in study aids because I'm on an educational site? Reasonable. Figuring I would probably be interested in lacy lingerie because I have XX chromosomes, even though I'm reading up on tea or something? Not so much.

[kerravonsen]

Oooh, NoScript looks interesting (goes and looks)... (installs)... (configures)

Thanks!

[james]

I don't mind ads that are stationary and fixed. The ads which wait for you to start loading the webpage, then they appear at the rop and shove everything down, then shrink again and pull the webpage back up so you have to scroll up and down just to freaking read the webpage.

Also, popunders. Hate them. I don't mind ads, but I hate having ads that try to "trick" me into viewing them. Make your ad interesting, and I'll look! Or I won't! But I've stopped going to CNN.com and latimes.com primarily because of the movable ads at the top.