Block gmail ads?

kieranmullen · Post by **kieranmullen** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:12 pm

Love adblock. I have been using it for awhile.
Is there a way to block the gmail.com ads?

Suggestion: Reduce forum spam by requiring registration with email confirmation.

Put ads on the main website to possibly generate some revenue, but not from your users.

We wouldnt notice it.

helping ghost · Post by **helping ghost** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:31 pm

kieranmullen wrote:Love adblock. I have been using it for awhile.
Is there a way to block the gmail.com ads?

It should be possible to achieve with element hiding rules. But as I do not use gmail, I cannot tell you which; but others will tell you some. You can also use the extension "CustomizeGoogle", which can hide all ads on Google plus a lot of other things.

kieranmullen wrote:Suggestion: Reduce forum spam by requiring registration with email confirmation.

Which spam?

kieranmullen wrote:Put ads on the main website to possibly generate some revenue, but not from your users. We wouldnt notice it.

Would be a bit counterproductive to show ads on the one hand and to develop and host Adblock Plus on the other hand...
Not to mention the security and privacy issues. This wouldn't be trustworthy.

kieranmullen · Post by **kieranmullen** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:43 pm

Sorry I just thought that the displaying of ads to people who dont use your extension would be funny. Lighten up.

I agree with you on the trust issue.

However I dont the security and privacy issues.

Its a moot point since I dont see ads, but usually most companies display and ad and perhaps when, where, how you viewed it. No personal informaiton is sent. I think we call that spyware.

IceDogg · Post by **IceDogg** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:34 am

you are joking right? I just read an article here that 80 percent of malware is served through ads which then can also cover privacy issues as well.

kieranmullen · Post by **kieranmullen** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:58 am

I strictly meant normal banner ads and such that you see when visiting popular sites.

I agree with you and your stats. Malware can present privacy issues and can be presented through ads.

Yes people can be duped into downloading malware etc. Usually the average person will not get that material when 1)They have decent email filters (I have blocked about 100+ Cidr blocks) 2) Dont visit the types of sites that might encourage malware porn, warez, serial sites 3)Dont click on strange links in email.

I have yet to hear of anyone getting a virus from going to news.google.com washtingtonpost ebay.com (unless someone has loaded it into their listing) etc..

However clicking on an ad link might bring someone to a malware site.

Normally I go someone do my thing and leave. I know many people browsing the internet, go from one link to an ad link and are easily distracted from what they have to do.

Also you have to admit is less of an issue with firefox (which makes up most the users here if not all) than compared to ie. Which is horrible.

KM

kieranmullen · Post by **kieranmullen** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:05 am

By have you seen this tidbit?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows- ... 0761.shtml

Someone could download a snippet of code in vista (using either browser) and poof..

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:34 am

Ads in Gmail? What ads? Oh, you probably haven't seen Rick's EasyElement subscription...

Malware being served through advertising networks and people getting infected by visiting serious sites did happen. Here is one example I remember: http://www.internet-security.ca/interne ... ruses.html

Embedding content from third-party servers is a huge privacy a security concern. But there is also another reason why you will never see ads here: http://adblockplus.org/blog/spare-time- ... w-syndrome

PS: The article on the ANI vulnerability you are citing is incorrect. This vulnerability is not restricted to Vista - all Windows versions are affected. And it is not about "taking down Windows", it is a remote code execution vulnerability (yes, I see that it is clarified further down in the text but they made a very wrong impression in the beginning). Finally, while Internet Explorer is certainly vulnerable, the state of affairs isn't yet clear for Firefox. The original report claims that Firefox "will use the same Windows code under certain circumstances" - as far as I could see the cursor handling code doesn't use any Windows functions however so I am waiting for a confirmation and a clarification about what these circumstances are.

rick752 · Post by **rick752** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:38 am

kieranmullen wrote:I strictly meant normal banner ads and such that you see when visiting popular sites.

Spyware can be deposited on your computer in the form of cookies that are served simply by viewing a banner (or ANY) image. The banners can also be served in a 3rd-party iframe which can also allow scripting to run from another site. Because sites usually have no control what content is served through their setups with advertisers, this can be more dangerous than it appears.

Standard banner ads are not as 'innocent' as they seem (especially if they are served from a 3rd-party source).

kieranmullen · Post by **kieranmullen** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:47 am

What is what no script and cookie blockers are for. Some sites do need cookies though and cookies are useful for storing temporary information for websites (I used them for websites too)

KieranMullen

rick752 · Post by **rick752** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:08 am

Cookies are fine if you manage them correctly. I think I have a total of 12 cookies that I allow to stay on my machine. NoScript is also fine if you know how to use it correctly.

The problem with most AVERAGE users is that they soon forget why they are using these add-ons to begin with. In the case of NoScript, EVERYTHING is blacklisted by default. Users such as ourselves would understand where to draw the whitelist line ... but when an average user has to keep whitelisting one thing after another, they will just start allowing everything as to keep from being inconvenienced.

And in the end, neither cookie controls nor NoScript will save the average user from being suckered in by a deceptive malicious ad.

kieranmullen · Post by **kieranmullen** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:21 am

Dont want to be deceived? Click on no ads.

Sick of ads I really got used to them. Doesnt mean I liked them, it was something you get used to like rush hour traffic. Now with ads blocked its like being in the express lane.

http://web.archive.org/web/200401230219 ... mu498.html

The average American is exposed to 500 to 1,000 commercial messages a day (Arens 1999). That's anywhere from 182,500 to 365,000 commercial messages that a person will view this year alone.

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:22 pm

Cookies only help tracing you, same can be done (a little less reliably) by using the combination of IP address and user agent.

htgfhgv · Post by **htgfhgv** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:17 pm

cookies have other uses besides tracking

they are quite useful for storing temp info

i dev some websites the use them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_cookie

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:08 pm

I didn't mean that the only use of cookies is to track you, I meant that you can still track users even if they have cookies disabled.

Block gmail ads?

Block gmail ads?

Re: Block gmail ads?