Users of Firefox with banner blockers are immoral!

General Topics
1

Hi users of the FF browser with ABP (and NoScript)

Firefox users that refuse to watch ads on websites are immoral, but it is not illegal to do this, according to Chris Soghoian. He started a web campaign recently where certain websites try to block Firefox users completely. A reason for this is that Firefox supports the Adblock Plus plug in that blocks banners and ads (on demand, you can also unblock the, - note poster). These websites cannot see what extensions and plug ins are run (but their is malicious script that can do this anyways).

The man behind banning Firefox-boycott is Danny Carlton. The code he spreads looks for a certain kind of JS function to determine what kind of browser the user has. Firefox users that use NoScript or block all JavaScript by default are not hindered by Carlton’s code. The “Firefox-hater” has various other ways to block the browser, like CSS and even using a hole in the Mozilla browser by which websites can know what plug ins are installed.

“Users of banner blockers are people that steal. Webmasters have not made websites using a contract and the use of banner blockers maybe immoral to use, the use thereof is in no way illegit. Webmasters are free to use all sorts of means to blacklist banner blockers. The creative user are free to circumvent these kind of technologies”, according to Soghoian in his article. See:
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-9770502-46.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547

polonus

2

over-hyped is right.

Danny Carlton can go and take a flying **** at a rolling doughnut.

3

Imoral? He must be joking or he does even know what is moral.

Hope people discover a way to circumvent this or why should I visit a site like that?

4

Interesting… Personally, I don’t mind it if sites offering free services pay for those services by displaying ads on their pages. As for pop-ups, I just find them plain annoying and close them all without a second look, so if I use a pop-up blocker, they don’t lose out on the advertising cos I take no notice of it anyway! If a site thrusts a load of pop-ups in my face, I’m more likely to immediately navigate away from that site (as soon as I get control of my browser back, that it) than read the ads.

I wonder if these tricks block other varieties of Mozilla browsers such as SeaMonkey, which is derived from the old Mozilla Suite rather than Firefox. IE has a built-in pop-up blocker as well now. How long before these sites start only “supporting” of IE below a certain version…?

Perhaps rather than trying to block users of certain browsers these people should try looking at unobtrusive ways of displaying advertising. Then people wouldn’t have such a strong desire to block the ads anyway!

Incidentally, the Messenger Plus! plugin to MSN Messenger used to have a feature to block the ads displayed within Messenger, but that was removed in the version for Live Messenger.

5

Viewing whyfirefoxisblocked.com in Opera, I notice it displays an intrusive advert for a rogue anti-spyware application.

http://donaldbroatch.users.btopenworld.com/whyfirefox.png

This guy doesn’t care if he makes money selling advertising rogue products which are going to effectively steal from people, but calls people who block his crappy ads “thieves”.

Who is really being immoral here?

What an asshat!!

6

Who is really being immoral here…?
This guy must be fired!

7

Viewing it in Mozilla SeaMonkey, I see the page fine, but with no advert at all, not even an unobtrusive one. I don’t even use an ad blocker, only the built-in popup blocker which was not triggered by viewing the site. So nothing is blocked, but I see no ad… seems like whatever script is used to do that fancy turned-corner effect is broken on SeaMonkey! (Unless they’ve removed the ad since FreewheelinFrank took that screenshot, that is?) Now who’s doing them out of advertising revenue… if they just used a simple, unobtrusive ad without relying on fancy effects, it might actually be compatible with more browsers ;D

8

The guy is an absolute a**hole. (sorry for my french)

9

If you have to apologise for the language then you shouldn’t use it or the strategic use of asterisks, etc. no matter how much of an as*!ole he might be

10

Done!

11

lol guess they need to start block Flock, Opera, Maxthon 1&2 , MyIE 1&2, IEPro, IE7, Safari, Kmeleon and who knows what else too :slight_smile:

they all are able block ads :slight_smile: lol

12

Good Lord, that’s beyond ridiculous. >:(

How much you want to bet he writes some of the crapware that’s hidden in those banner and popup ads? If he doesn’t he needs to stop whining.

Sheesh. ::slight_smile: :-\

13

Here’s a comment I’ve just posted on Danny’s blog. I wonder if it will actually stay there for long.

Hi Danny,

As you’ve been talking about ad blocking and morals- using words like ‘stealing’ and ‘intent to defraud’, I really feel I have to take you up on the nature of the ad you host at the site I’m directed to when trying to view this blog in Firefox.

SpywareBot is a scam product. It demands money to remove ‘spyware’ which it will conveniently find even on a clean computer, it will not remove real spyware, it is itself difficult to remove, it is itself removed by legitimate spyware scanners, it exploits the name of a legitimate anti-spyware product, the company behind it is entirely untraceable. In short, it’s a complete rip off.

Here are the opnions of a couple of people who have actually tried the product.

"Spywawrebot is in fact a malicious creation designed to leech cold hard cash from the grips of the ignorent. First you download it, then install. Next thing you know your getting spyware reports every time you boot saying that you have all this spyware on your computer. Only Spywarebot won’t do anything about it until you agree to but the product.

And yes, i downloaded and intsled that trash the other day thinking it would get rid of any harmful files i recieved from Trustyhound. That’s what i was under the impression it was suppose to do according to the site i downloaded it from. The reports i got back didn’t even mention my Trustyhoud.

Don’t do it!"

"This all started with a browser hijack by some site called WinAntiVirus, or perhaps WinAntiVirus2007? To make a long story short, I tried to get rid of it using AdAware2007. Having no such luck with that, I decided to use SpyBot Search and Destroy. However, when I did a search for it, I found a program called, “SpywareBot” The names sounded similar enough to fool my spouse into downloading it for free, but having to spend $60.00 to clean the mess. Before deciding to blame her, I realized I’d have made the same mistake, and found web site using a Google search for “SpywareBot” and found that and others have been fooled by the similarity in names.

I liken it to purchasing a brand new Panasonic HDTV at a great price, only to find out that what you brought home was a cheesy 1080i Panisoanic. Try a Google search for that term, and you’ll find a number of legit sites.

I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I have reason to believe that the company behind SpywareBot and other products are covering their tracks so that no one can claim that the product doesn’t do what it says it does."

I put it to you that nobody who buys this product after clicking on the page is going to thank you for hosting that ad, in fact, they are most likely going to feel defrauded themselves.

This is an act of fraud you are complicit in. If you want to take the moral high ground here, please make sure your own actions are beyond reproach.

http://jacklewis.net/weblog/

14

There is really not a single reason why should he remove that post. Everything you said is OK and if he still think he must remove it, then I would say, he is not worth of your or for that matter, anyone’s time posting in there.

15

Well, to his (marginal) credit, he didn’t delete it. I just got a poor answer and an insult. And he spammed SpywareBot in the answer. ::slight_smile:

16

Poor answer is still fine… but an insult tells a lot about him and the business he runs :wink:

17

Perhaps someone should consider adding his site to is it the stopbadware.org site ;D

18

Someone should add him to stopbadmouth.org. >:(

‘Morons’, ‘idiots’: Danny’s words for AdBlock users.

My reply to Danny:

Well, I notice you're sticking to your guns- linking to SpywareBot in your answer (I assume the link contains your referer code so you get a few cents if anybody clicks it, or am I just being cynical?), but I'm afraid you didn't do your research very well. The place to look for information is Spyware Warrior's rogue spyware list.

The information there states that SpywareBot ‘exploits name “Spybot Search & Destroy”’ The company behind SpywareBot was listed as a rogue in the past: ‘AdwareAlert was listed on this page because of concerns with false positives and the lack of information about the company and its privacy practices.’

Spyware Warrior says of products no longer listed as rogue: ‘That an application has been de-listed should not be understood as an endorsement or recommendation of any kind. We still recommend that users consult the short list of “trustworthy” anti-spyware applications.’

SpywareBot does not appear in the list of trustworthy applications.

The advertising practices of SpywareBot have also been criticised elsewhere. Bill Pytlovany is the author of the well respected program WinPatrol:

'I’m pretty confident, both Spywarebot ads are from the same company who have a couple dozen AntiSpyware products available under different names and domains. Neither are related to the popular “Spybot, Search and Destroy” program. I also found an advertisement for another fake “spyware remover review” site on a nice page CNet created called “How to use WinPatrol”.

Thank god for reviews from real people and from editors because it’s the only way quality, legitimate products will survive.’

http://billpstudios.blogspot.com/2007/04/antispyware-advertising-gets-nasty.html

The implication is clear: SpywareBot is stealing customers from legitimate products.

I’m afraid your suggestion as to why it is impossible to find a contact address for SpywareBot does not stand up to investigation. I was able to find a contact address for all the legitimate anti-spyware companies I looked up.

I would suggest that the people behind SpywareBot do not want to be contacted because their customers will have had a poor experience of the product, as did the two I quoted previously.

Ads for scams and porn served up by companies like PeelAwayAds (you knew they also make money from porn, didn’t you?) are part of the reason why people block ads. I once had a friend of mine IM me all excited about a banner ad telling him he’d won a TV: I had to warn him that it was just a scam to get his e-mail address (or worse) and told him to try Firefox and Adblock.

If webs sites were a bit less venal in the ads they were willing to accept, then maybe fewer people would block ads.

The reason why I suspect these posts might be deleted is Danny’s charming message at the bottom of the comments page:

NOTE: I am under no obligation to preserve the incoherent mutterings of illiterate morons. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but make sure you actually know what you're talking about, or your comment will be removed.

::slight_smile:

19

AMEN.

If he can’t legitimately defend his ahem ‘product’ with a logical response to its merits, it tells me a great deal about him.

When I updated my mother’s computer I almost got sucked into that trap. Thank God for bad website warnings! And now she has the legit version of Spybot S+D instead of that crap…

20

Why didn’t he simply point out the part where he thinks comments he deleted is by “the incoherent mutterings of illiterate morons”…if his site were not for open discussions but for a kind of propaganda. I think I have wasted enough time on reading his rant. Really, what a waste of time. :frowning: