solidyote’s Techdirt Profile


About solidyote

solidyote’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 29th, 2015 @ 1:03pm

    Blocking ads unethical?

    I find it really funny how these advertisement people can be so full of themselves. (aka full of shit)

    Its so infuriating that they fail to see they're clearly being the true assholes in this whole thing.. Its easy to blame that one guy, or that anonymous mass of people, because of that commonly agreed notion that people can be evil or stupid. But that's kind of a strawman.. It distracts people from the actual issue, and kind of act as a deterrent to actually bother considering both sides of the argument..

    I've had history with the "advertisement" world. I've had to deal with some serious BS like:
    - Advertisement phone calls at 3am during the week everyday.(I don't receive calls on my cell phone anymore now! And yes, I'm on the "do not call list". But I don't have the means or time to sue those assholes..)
    - Subtly hidden crapware/"toolbars" into installers packaged with legit software, everything hidden behind a webpage made ambiguous on purpose to get you to install it.. Forcing me to wipe my entire OS several times.
    - Crappy advertised search results..
    - "inappropriate" ads keeping me off several legit websites for a long time( gross, suggestive, dating sites ads when I'm actually trying to not think about that kind of things, government-made "shock" sensitization PSAs(gruesome car crash/workplace accidents), etc.. )
    - Flash player literally bluescreening windows through its dodgy hardware acceleration and etc, losing hours of work in the process! (guess what uses flash player the most commonly when browsing? Also, yes I save every five seconds now. I have developed a tick in my left hand that makes me press ctrl + s compulsively..)
    - Flash Player crashing the browser, or leaking a lot of memory in a short time span, thanks to the astronomical amount of flash player content instances in a single webpage..
    - Webpages that take ages to load, solely because of ads..
    - Flash player crashing on youtube and having to reload and watch the fucking ad for the 5th time on the very same video..
    - Giant unfolding ad moving right under your mouse pointer as you're clicking on something else...

    And I've got more, but its getting pretty long already.. I've considered running my daily "insecure" browser inside a VM.. Less risks that way..

    If there's one side that's lacking ethics its clearly mostly them. I can't see users trying to scam the advertiser into compromising their personal details or computers.
    I can't see the users collecting usage stats and reselling them, or sharing browsing habits info.
    I can't see the users spamming obsolete and dangerous flash player ads..
    I can't see users not respecting the advertisement company by spamming them non-stop with the same bullshit they've seen 1,000 times already today, even though they really gain nothing by doing so, besides some kind of personal benefits perhaps?

    Respect goes both way. If they want people to see their stupid ads, they could start by making it convenient to actually see them. Not slapping them in your face when you're searching for something that may or may not even be behind the forced ad wall they put there. 90% of the time those are completely irrelevant to me, and as soon as I spot one, I immediately try to ignore it anyways..
    I use the internet in large part for work, and I want to get access to the information as fast as possible, and ads are really, really a huge problem to me in that respect.

    Not to mention, these bastards have made browsing for me really hard for years until I found out I could block their ad server in my host file or using an adblocker.
    See, I got ADD, and I probably will have to deal with it for the rest of my life seeing as I'm in my late 20s, and I can't take any of the available drugs as they give me serious side effects..
    Seeing stupid flashing ads or having some forced 2 minutes video ad just disrupt me completely and makes me lose a lot of time in the end trying to focus.. They truly don't care though. Nobody else will either because I'm not losing "actual" money, or something tangible. (And some said that "Time is money"..)

    Since the ads provider got no sense of ethics, they'll just keep showing the same ad (more like ad nauseam) over and over again to you even though it won't change anything. I never bought anything because of a web ad, and I most likely won't ever, no matter how many times they spam me.
    The worst part is that they count unique views, to avoid getting scammed you see.. But they don't put a sane daily/weekly/monthly quota on how often they spam the same person. On TV that was acceptable, and understandable, considering you can't track views accurately on TV, and not everyone watch the TV at the same time. But on the internet, they got no excuses.

    I really hope for them they'll realize that trying to "get back" at users, and escalate things will only lead to a metaphorical war. As history has shown times and times over..

    The internet really needs a new money making model that doesn't depends on a bunch of bandits, scammers, etc.. After all, you do need money to run a website. I'd just like to have a better way to compensate people than having to deal with those shady people and practices every times.. There has to be some other way. If only people relying on ads for revenues would ask some form of ethics and content quality from their ad providers...

    Also, sorry for the strong language, but its an issue that seriously frustrates me.. In particular, this holier than thou attitude some people develop against people blocking ads.. In the process, those people are giving some of those bandits a medium/vector to disinform and push their version of the story and their ordeal.. I mean, fine, you're not blocking ads that's perfectly ok.. But don't you dare fucking call me a thief, please.
    I actually donate to people I want to support, more than me viewing ads for a year on their website would give them... Hell, I even pay for those "pay us a small sum once, and never ever see ads on our site" if its reasonable, even though I was blocking ads in the first place!

  • Dec 14th, 2013 @ 12:27pm

    (untitled comment)

    I just wanted to mention that the CC licenses do not cancel copyrights. They work within the confines of copyright laws, but its impossible to nullify them since they're obligatory..

    They mention on their websites that some countries are making things harder for CC licenses, given their copyright laws don't support things like CC0...

  • Oct 7th, 2013 @ 1:42pm

    (untitled comment)

    You know, I really don't get bitcoins..

    The whole things about "mining" them just leave me skeptical..

    Basically, doesn't it means that people with the biggest mining power will dominate the economy with the only reason being that they waste a lot of energy and in turn create more pollution, to compute equations and maybe find bitcoins ? I know its supposed to get increasingly harder to find bitcoins, and that it has a hard limit..
    But wouldn't that give some people a huge headstart ?

    To me, it kinda look like taking money from a bunch of irresponsible pricks and giving it to another bunch of irresponsible pricks !

    Plus, I'm afraid of floating point numbers precision.. :/

  • Sep 19th, 2013 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Hollywood causes people to steal, eh?

    Well, actually I like the fact that people report it, since it gets hidden, with an over 100% success ratio, like it never existed in the first place. Just like it was meant to be ! Its just like having a browser addon that filters out advertising, except that it would filter even more bs if it could hide ootb's ad hominems, tu quoques, etc..

    I can keep scrolling down without having some guy coming out of the blue and telling me I suck because I read techdirt, or have an interest about making the world a better place.. All while using every single fallacies that exists as arguments.

    Or complain about some weird fictional pirate character, I never heard of, named pirate mike.. Someone's been reading too many pirate of the Caribbean coloring books, while inhaling his sharpies I think..

  • Sep 14th, 2013 @ 2:32pm


    That might be hard to do for some.. Given that Lily has monopoly on some drugs that were allowed in Canada for treating some illnesses.

    If there aren't alternatives, or if alternative drugs don't work for some, it could hurt a lot of people.

    That's a really nasty business..

    We allowed them patents and enforced them on our people for their own benefits. And then they use it to create something we need, and begin bossing us around with legal threats..

  • Aug 31st, 2013 @ 12:03pm


    There's quite a huge difference between both sir.

    Companies are responsible for the behavior of their employees, up to a certain extent. Mostly because they're the ones actually doing what the company wants to.

    If some people on the tech support team would just say fuckoff to the clients (which some actually do), its the company that's responsible for hiring people like that, and letting them do bad customer service.

    Its not from a "false" responsibility created through laws that it works that way, its completely "natural". If X company gives you shit support, you'll go with Y company instead, and that's why X company really don't want that happening.

    Holding cyberlockers responsible for the content in their servers that their clients put there makes as much sense as holding the USPS responsible for the anthrax letters, or the airlines for shipping in terrorists or war criminals.

    Moreover, I'll have to hold you responsible for the use of a few logical fallacies.

    Notably, making up a strawman with what they actually meant: organizations that preach and enforce a certain ideal on others while not applying to their own people is not cool ( ).

    Trying to discredit these guys rather than countering their arguments ( ).

    Then, you clearly didn't understand the issue with privacy and enormous resources it would require to track every file transaction by everyone for a digital storage provider, then proceeded to use that incredulity as basis for your argument ( ).

    There you go. Any other arguments sir, preferably not based on fallacies ?