• Yahoo blocks mail access for adblock users
    107 replies, posted
You don't have to? Mail Clients come with most devices by default. My Samsung Impression had a mail client. Motorola Razrs had mail clients.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;49184475]You guys are using ad blockers and are seriously trying to make [I]them[/I] out to be the bad guy? I mean, ad blockers are so common nowadays that they actually put quite a dent in revenue, you really can't blame them[/QUOTE] If their service is worth money, then they should have no problem getting people to pay to use it. Ads are shitty.
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;49184613]They aim for newspapers, church sites and other normal sites instead of porn and shady filesharing as they aim for the less tech savvy. In various test porn sites were safer than other because they do more to get rid of their bad reputation.[/QUOTE] There was an instance here maybe a year or so ago where one of the largest newspapers website (shit paper with assloads of ads) were spreading malware through the ad network they used. Not exactly a shady filesharing site Anyway, personally i run Ublock Origin with a whitelist for sites i want to support. Sure, it adds a bit of risk, but i'd trade them still being up for maybe having to run Malwarebytes sometimes
[QUOTE=BFG9000;49184552]I can't help but feel like "malware!" is a convenient excuse to justify this. I mean seriously, what kind of sites are you browsing where you'd run into those ads anyways? If you're talking about ads like on PirateBay and other shady file sharing sites (to name a few) then block them all you want if it gives you a sense of security (or gets rid of those annoying lewd ads). But I can't see how you can justify blocking anything else, especially since most sites use Google AdSense or whatever and typically shouldn't have malware. These ads are what lets us browse most of the internet for free, and I would be very sad if a large part of the once-free internet switches over to subscription based payment systems just because a lot of people are blocking ads.[/QUOTE] many advertisers will say that banner ads are a failure and no one clicks on them. There is no reason not to have adblock installed.
Newspapers? I haven't noticed any particularly annoying or shady advertisements. Unless they're those dumb tabloid-esque upstart networks that you always see reposted in FB with shit like "25 of this", I've never had a problem with ads and news at all. As for church sites... my church doesn't run ads at all I think so I've never run into this. But that still doesn't justify using Adblockers on sites that run legitimate ads.
This is why you can never go wrong with an @hellokitty.com email via [URL="http://www.sanriotown.com/main/index.php?lang=us"]Sanriotown[/URL].
I get my mail on my phone, so joke's on them.
What's annoying is that my ISP had a BRILLIANT idea of contracting Yahoo to handle their webmail. I, whether I want to or not(And I don't), have no choice but to use Yahoo if I want to check my email on any machine that isn't my own, or for some reason Thunderbird is being derp and not connecting, or if I want to make sure the disabled spam filter isn't still filtering shit I need out(IT does from time to time). Fuck you Yahoo. I block ads for good reason and I sure as shit am not turning them back on for you. Funniest part about it? They will only drive the ad blocker coders to put in better anti-detection software. In a couple days ABP will inevitably have an update that fools Yahoo's servers into thinking it's turned off when it isn't. [QUOTE=BFG9000;49184475]You guys are using ad blockers and are seriously trying to make [I]them[/I] out to be the bad guy?[/quote] Yes, yes we are. Yahoo is basically saying 'No, we don't care that ads are a vector for malware and whore up bandwidth that can get cable and mobile users neck deep in overage charges with their ISP.' And that middle finger is met with two more from each ABP user. Including myself. Fuck you Yahoo. [quote] I mean, ad blockers are so common nowadays[/quote] And for good reason. [quote] that they actually put quite a dent in revenue, you really can't blame them[/QUOTE] Oh boo hoo, heaven forbid everyday people have an answer to at least one vector for the cancer that is modern advertising. We can't walk down the street or listen to the radio without it, we can barely watch TV without ads(TiVO can't put in an auto-skip button because of whining and bitching and moaning by the TV networks), we can't drive to work without being advertised to. The least we can do is enjoy the internet ad-free.
I wouldn't mind. I only use adblock to block ads that interrupt me.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;49184475]You guys are using ad blockers and are seriously trying to make [I]them[/I] out to be the bad guy? I mean, ad blockers are so common nowadays that they actually put quite a dent in revenue, you really can't blame them[/QUOTE] If so many people feel inconvenienced by ads to the point of using adblock there's obviously a problem somewhere
[QUOTE=unrezt;49184621]If their service is worth money, then they should have no problem getting people to pay to use it. Ads are shitty.[/QUOTE] Ok seriously, I think it's time we took this viewpoint to court because this is a TERRIBLE outlook to have. One of the biggest problems I had as a kid was content being locked behind a stupid-ass paywall subscription bullshit when all I wanted was to read a fucking article. Even NOW it's a problem for me because I'd much rather not have another subscription to keep track of, especially for content that I only view semi-regularly. Who can pay for services like this? Certainly you can, and I suppose I could too. But who CAN'T pay for content on the web? Low-income individuals and kids. Right now if you're in an economic rut, it doesn't mean much because you still have access to most of the internet thanks to ads. You could go to the public library right now and watch all the youtube you damn well please. You can look up things on any public computer to get information for your book report. But with the coming age of paywalls this will no longer be an option. As a kid, one thing I loved was learning more about the world by surfing the web. I've learned so much about how things work just by watching youtube videos and going to random websites that have information on whatever subject, and I've read so many tech articles that have given me insight on some of the cool shit we can do. Web exploration is probably the biggest factor for me taking the career path I've chosen, but in the future if you start dropping paywalls all over the vast continent of the internet, eventually it's going to get pretty hard to get around, especially for a kid, who now has to justify every click, download, or video buffer to their parents just so their parents might consider buying access for them. At that point for me, I would have just thought "why bother" and abandoned the thought of exploring the internet. And in a society where information on the internet is more important than ever, you're screwing over the net mobility of a lot of low income individuals. Basically, when people say "if websites have quality content they can get people to pay for it without ads" I instead hear "I think underage kids and poor people should go fuck themselves because this premium content is for US"
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49184502]Ublock usually is immune to adblock blockers, likely because it has a lower userbase so they don't target it.[/QUOTE] Ok, good to know.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;49184475]You guys are using ad blockers and are seriously trying to make [I]them[/I] out to be the bad guy? I mean, ad blockers are so common nowadays that they actually put quite a dent in revenue, you really can't blame them[/QUOTE] When ads are no longer a safety concern I'll stop using blockers.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;49184717]Ok seriously, I think it's time we took this viewpoint to court because this is a TERRIBLE outlook to have. - snip- [/QUOTE] Most people don't have an issue with ads. We have an issue with obnoxious ads which pop up covering our screen or start playing music. We have an issue with malicious ads which alert our antivirus programs. We have an issue with adverts tracking what we visit. The Ad block I use has an opt out system where it allows adverts which don't fall into the categories above. I'm fine with adverts, I'm semi ok to the tracking but I'd rather they didn't do it.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49184779]Most people don't have an issue with ads. We have an issue with obnoxious ads which pop up covering our screen or start playing music. We have an issue with malicious ads which alert our antivirus programs. We have an issue with adverts tracking what we visit. The Ad block I use has an opt out system where it allows adverts which don't fall into the categories above. I'm fine with adverts, I'm semi ok to the tracking but I'd rather they didn't do it.[/QUOTE] That's all fine and dandy but unfortunately most people don't give a shit about "proper" ads, they just block everything willy nilly.
[QUOTE=The golden;49184864]Can't really blame them. The process of filtering through the bad ads and weeding out the harmful ones shouldn't fall to the end-user. That's a job the content-provider should be handling. You want me to view ads so you can get income? Great. Just make sure the ads I see are damn safe and I won't block them.[/QUOTE] But content creators already do that, it's the onus of the end user to turn off adblocker when they go to sites that use good ad providers.
Amazon tracks your data without even using ads, then it inserts itself in ads later on when you visit other web pages. Even Chrome has access to quite a bit of our data, data tracking is almost unavoidable these days and when only a few good advertisers like Google Adsense exist then you're really putting too much pressure on the content creators to "come up with good ads" even if they use AdSense which is something they're not even supposed to have to worry about.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49184294]Scolding? Where's the scold? [editline]25th November 2015[/editline] I don't know. They gotta get money somehow for giving you free services, and if not for advertising to you it's gotta be something else. [editline]25th November 2015[/editline] Translation: I've been using Yahoo for over a decade while not giving them any money at all, paid myself or through ads, and now that they asked for something in return it's unfair that I don't get to use their free service while they continue to make 0 money from me for the next ten years. I recognize that ads are a serious security risk but they run a business and if this is unreasonable somehow that you can't continue using free services while this company gets nothing you have a skewed view of what business is. Unless you're somehow a paid user then yeah they shouldn't advertise to you.[/QUOTE] Yahoo was already allowing users to connect through IMAP rather than a web browser though afaik, which means not seeing any ads. I agree though that users aren't entitled to an ad-free service.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;49184717]Ok seriously, I think it's time we took this viewpoint to court because this is a TERRIBLE outlook to have. One of the biggest problems I had as a kid was content being locked behind a stupid-ass paywall subscription bullshit when all I wanted was to read a fucking article. Even NOW it's a problem for me because I'd much rather not have another subscription to keep track of, especially for content that I only view semi-regularly. Who can pay for services like this? Certainly you can, and I suppose I could too. But who CAN'T pay for content on the web? Low-income individuals and kids. Right now if you're in an economic rut, it doesn't mean much because you still have access to most of the internet thanks to ads. You could go to the public library right now and watch all the youtube you damn well please. You can look up things on any public computer to get information for your book report. But with the coming age of paywalls this will no longer be an option. As a kid, one thing I loved was learning more about the world by surfing the web. I've learned so much about how things work just by watching youtube videos and going to random websites that have information on whatever subject, and I've read so many tech articles that have given me insight on some of the cool shit we can do. Web exploration is probably the biggest factor for me taking the career path I've chosen, but in the future if you start dropping paywalls all over the vast continent of the internet, eventually it's going to get pretty hard to get around, especially for a kid, who now has to justify every click, download, or video buffer to their parents just so their parents might consider buying access for them. At that point for me, I would have just thought "why bother" and abandoned the thought of exploring the internet. And in a society where information on the internet is more important than ever, you're screwing over the net mobility of a lot of low income individuals. Basically, when people say "if websites have quality content they can get people to pay for it without ads" I instead hear "I think underage kids and poor people should go fuck themselves because this premium content is for US"[/QUOTE] The company should be the one "thinking of the poor people", not the userbase. AdBlock isn't going anywhere, yahoo is though.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49184294]I recognize that ads are a serious security risk but they run a business and if this is unreasonable somehow that you can't continue using free services while this company gets nothing you have a skewed view of what business is. [/QUOTE] So from a business perspective it's acceptable to leave their users at risk from malicious ads?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49184591]Counterpoint: why should I install another app to do what my web browser can do? It's like having to install an app on a phone for every website ever when I can just use the default web browser.[/QUOTE] I moved to an email client (Thunderbird) because GMail would use a fuckton of memory in Firefox. And I can have email from all my accounts put in one place rather than having a tab open on separate websites.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;49185068]So from a business perspective it's acceptable to leave their users at risk from malicious ads?[/QUOTE] No, but when you use a service for ten years without paying a dime and get mad at how unfair life is that you don't get things for free forever you're being ridiculous and they are well within their rights to do this. People are making this out to be a great injustice which is frankly hilarious.
aw dang i was too late to beat the always inevitable sympathy train for a shitty, dying company. "guys you gottsa feel bad for them! ads are their only source of income! bwoo hoooo" haha if you have a shitty method of income that nobody likes, dont expect to make money. its really that simple. if ads are your main source of revenue, guess what buddy, you made some poor decisions. adapt or die. consumers dont want ads, so why do you keep pushing them?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;49184475]You guys are using ad blockers and are seriously trying to make [I]them[/I] out to be the bad guy? I mean, ad blockers are so common nowadays that they actually put quite a dent in revenue, you really can't blame them[/QUOTE] Theres always one. Yahoo makes so much more money from all the other shit they bought that the revenue for a text ad in Email isnt going to hurt their revenue.
I wouldn't mind for Yahoo to die at this point.
[QUOTE=unrezt;49185060]The company should be the one "thinking of the poor people", not the userbase. AdBlock isn't going anywhere, yahoo is though.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. Ads are the simplest way to ensure that everyone can have access to content. How do you suggest a webmaster goes about deciding how to "think of the poor people" when nearly all his or her users maintain a certain level of anonymity? The amount of bureaucracy needed to implement any kind of solution is such that no company would think of offering such a solution. [editline]25th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=The golden;49184993] Really the best answer is to just make it as easy and painless as possible for people to support the content creators they like. Ideas for this are already being worked on with things like Patreon.[/QUOTE] Patreon and donations may work for now but in the long run I don't think it's a viable option for most companies. It's more geared towards independent content creators and hobbyists who aren't neccessarily trying to make a profit, but for people who are trying to run a business it might prove to be inadequate. And the easiest and most painless way for somebody to support a content creator is by passively viewing an advertisement.
[QUOTE=The golden;49185511] I agree with the one condition being that the advertisement does not impact the user in a negative way. This includes malware, tracking software, wasting their data caps with huge sizes, and just simply wasting their time. (Getting multiple forced 30-second youtube ads back-to-back is a great way to convince someone to blacklist youtube on their adblocker).[/QUOTE] Yeah have you used Wikia lately? Ugh.....
[QUOTE=Wormy;49184492]People use ad blockers for good reasons. People doesn't use it just because "ads are annoying", but because ads these days are cluttering up websites a ridiculously high amount, and let's not forget all of the malware a bunch of ads contain these days.[/QUOTE] IF websites could guarantee safe, unintrusive adds I would turn off Adblock. Until they figure that out, they don't deserve my money.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;49184552]I can't help but feel like "malware!" is a convenient excuse to justify this. I mean seriously, what kind of sites are you browsing where you'd run into those ads anyways? If you're talking about ads like on PirateBay and other shady file sharing sites (to name a few) then block them all you want if it gives you a sense of security (or gets rid of those annoying lewd ads). But I can't see how you can justify blocking anything else, especially since most sites use Google AdSense or whatever and typically shouldn't have malware. These ads are what lets us browse most of the internet for free, and I would be very sad if a large part of the once-free internet switches over to subscription based payment systems just because a lot of people are blocking ads.[/QUOTE] I had to go without adblock for a while on my PC because it wasn't working after an update. My antivirus went fucking ballistic on common websites like youtube or news websites, porn websites on the other hand had no problems with viruses or malware. Hell I used to whitelist sites I liked or used a lot to support them, until I got 3 virus alerts from different websites on the same day. I've done almost 2 years of study in IT and it has been drilled into me that security is the absolute number 1 concern. If you want to advertise to me I don't mind, just do it through a sponsorship so I don't have to worry about my system getting infected because ad servers can not be trusted.
Considering how yahoo has terrible website security I left them LONG ago any site with no 2 step verification (they only recently added it I've noticed) and a terrible 'recent activity page' with a very awful limit to what you can have your passwords as is a joke
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.