Comments on: Webmasters, Could Firefox Be Bad For Your Health?

By: SpitOnMoney MadeMeLaugh

SpitOnMoney MadeMeLaugh — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:45:50 +0000

LOL. Epic post number 20. Even if I am over a year late.

By: spiton money

spiton money — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:31:48 +0000

Thanks for listing all these useful extensions.

Sorry to see that reality makes you cry.

By: Phil Lewis

Phil Lewis — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:12:05 +0000

YOUR site only has “value” if you have visitors. And with your expressed attitudes, I wouldn’t want what you have to offer anyway. I only ended up here because of a Google search that /looked/ like something useful to me.

Sorry, control freak, the web is not yours and luckily it’s a big place with lots of other places to go. You needn’t deny me access, I’ll deny you future visits.

By: Antimoron

Antimoron — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:40:04 +0000

What a bone-headed article. Stop stealing my bandwidth!!!!

By: scancode

scancode — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:05:43 +0000

Hi. You said it. It appears on MY computer, and I pick WHAT goes inside it. I think that advertising is ok, but depends on HOW it’s implemented.

By: Hilarious

Hilarious — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:09:11 +0000

Your contention that “free” content will disappear if banner ads do is just ridiculous. Perhaps *your* content will, but there will be hundreds of thousands of others which will take your place. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the web does not earn any appreciable income from banner ads. Most of the web is informational or personal and wil happily continue with zero ad revenue. The content that does rely on ad revenue is almost entirely made up of old media dinosaurs that are on the verge of dying anyway, or (generally) have not much of interest to say. I personally can’t think of any ad-supported sites that I find worth reading, with the possible exception of The Onion.

By: ad_hater

ad_hater — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:30:24 +0000

Your assertions of blocking ads being equal to theft is laughable. In fact it’s hilarious. So you do own your website. No one forced you to make it available to the web (which you do not own). That was YOUR choice. If you don’t like the fact that people block the heinous ad blitz, TAKE YOUR SITE DOWN AND SHUT UP!

By: Kim

Kim — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:44:23 +0000

I disagree with your viewpoint that the site is yours and that you decide the payment of viewing your site is to have adverts on the site. Firstly, the purpose of web sites should be to provide content and the person browsing the site should expect to be provided that content. The value should be in the content.

In some countries, bandwidth is extremely expensive and by placing adverts on sites where content is expected and adverts dominate, the author of the site is incurring unnecessary expenses for the viewer and in my view the website is stealing from the viewer. The slow down of the internet due the delivery of ads is the greatest theft of all – time.

The viewer has the right to view or not view all or any part of your site. By making it available to a medium such as the internet, you accept that the viewer voluntarily receives your pages and that the web site owner has no rights to the viewer’s equipment and how that equipment is configured.

Taking your attitude, all televison sets should be configured so that you cannot change channels during adverts, video Machines should be altered so that you could not fast forward past adverts. God forbid that you actually turn the Machine off during adverts.

If I am not in the market for anything, why should I be subjected to content in which I have no interest.

In fact, are you sure you wouldn’t like to place sticks in my eyes and strap my head so that I cannot look away from adverts?

I think that you are taking a marketing view where the public are seen as dumb animals who shouldn’t dare disapprove of your attempts to push products at them. Most people get tired of advert overload and they are doing something about it.

Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and have a landing page saying that if you do not wish to see adverts, please do not visit this site?

My bet is that you wouldn’t dare because your site would lose a huge amount of traffic.

By the way, I got to this page via a google search looking for ways to disable intellitxt.

By: John Ya Ya

John Ya Ya — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:53:35 +0000

Ahhh no most advertizing websites are there to make additional revenues. If you don’t like the blocking of your adds then take down the website. See how long companies like Fox, CNN, put them back up. They have to put them up just to compete. Consumers are usualy smarter then to click on adds and are tired of the bombardment of the crap. FYI most ad clicks now days are mistakes. LOL

By: Vlajbert

Vlajbert — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:35:13 +0000

Heh, I have 8 scripts on the list. Cool.

Your taking the same position that the RIAA is. Don’t try and grow with the technology, try to stop it. How about stop wasting your time trying to block the technology and try to come up with a better revenue model. Trying to stop the techonology is futile and you will loose in the long run.

Look, I work a very large internet media company, http://www.ibsys.com. We do 650,000,000 page views and 12,000,000 unique users, per Neilson, a month. We’re generally rank 4th just under CNN/Yahoo/MSN for news. We’re a totally ad based revenue model. We don’t sit around bitching about ad blockers, we come up with new revenue models.

Anyway, there is NOTHING you can do to stop GM scripting. There is nothing in the request headers to tell you I run GM. So to test you would have to drop a JS script and once you do, your mine. I’ll just embargo it.

Welcome to the Inet.

vlajbert@Gmail.com