Wirehead Studios

Why Firefox is blocked... I lol'ed.


http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com/

I hope nobody starts falling for that load of bollocks, or I'll have to install a request transformer. Which I can do, using FF.

The one thing that gets me chuckling is the repeated, jubilant statement that IE renders 99.99% of pages as intended. 1) get monopoly, 2) ignore standards, 3) dominate market shares. It's true, but that doesn't make it something that should be endorsed.

Then there's the anti-"myth" theme going on, as if IE is the beacon of scientific rigor whereas its alternatives are the homeopathy and the parapsychism of the browser-market. At least they master their dirty tricks.

Yes well if you think you're gonna cram your advertisements down my throat you're wrong and you can suck my balls... It's MY computer and I decide what goes on it, I block ads because not only are they annoying as spork but some automatically install malware and  there's no way I'm gonna grab my ankles just to see whatever stupid shit you've got on your pathetic site. Don't like it? Go sodomize yourself with a rusty meat hook.


Man I probably shouldn't rant when I haven't had a lot of sleep.

This desire to block ads might also have something to do with the BLINKING EPILEPTIC-ATTACK INDUCING FLICKERING HELLISHLY ANNOYING CLICK-ME NOW WITH SOUND DISTRACTING EVERYONE FROM ACTUAL CONTENT quality of a lot of advertising on sites. Then there's "intellitxt", which underlines every word and adds annyoing flash popups, destroying the legibility of important content. Why no, I'm not interested in sex with non-existent women from a random place in the Netherlands. Why no, I'm not interested in 'enhancing my manhood'. Why no, I have no need for extra 'quickie college degrees'. Any site being paid for by promoting that crap shouldn't be in anyone's bookmarks anyway.

Haha  I'd love to see that site's bandwidth get killed via a Slashdot/Digg article.  I'd love it even more if when the site administrators go to view the offending article on Slashdot/Digg, they're redirected to a warning page stating why IE is blocked.

Seriously though, a browser is a browser.  I find IE is good for some things and Firefox is better for others.  However, I'll be damned if I'm going to let web content be downloaded to my machine without my consent.  Most websites I visit do not have a EULA so why the hell should I subject myself to something that's invasive?  That's like trying to convince me to agree to a contract attached to a brick after it's been thrown through my window.

I couldn't view the site.  I guess they don't want me to see their content.  I guess I don't have any problem with that.  :smirk:

Me neither. Stuff 'em.

I've visited the site with both IE and Firefox and saw no difference.  Go figure. 

Oddly enough, the site's bandwidth has been exceeded now.  Looks like somebody took my suggestion to heart. :P  I had nothing to do with it however.

Well, judging by the responses posted, I'm assuming the site in question is ranting about Adblock, saying it's "destroying the internet", and how it's somehow "borderline illegal if not outright illegal" because it's not presenting content "as it was intended".  Am I right on this one?

Now I have the same attitude as Kajet.  First, I have no obligation to view someone's website.  Second, I did not sign any license agreement to view any website - typically those kinds of rules agreements are restricted to forums and other places of active discussion or else commerce-related sites.  Third, there's content-filtering and site-blocking software like, oh, Cyberpatrol and Netnannie that have been blocking content and site access pretty much since the internet has been around.  Fourth, ISP's can (and sometimes do) blacklist sites or content.

Content filtering is a known practice and it's entirely legal.  What you have is some pro-marketing ass that's whining about "lost revenues" caused by the stripping of ad content.  Well boohoo.  What surprises me is how this person thinks their site is going to be any more useful by blocking people who are using a specific browser because of its adblocking potential.  So it's OK for you to filter people from using your site, but not for people to filter content from the net?  Sorry pal, it works both ways.  Block what you want, and I'll block what I want.

I think the problem in attitude stems from the attitude of businesses in general.  They have it in their heads that they have a "right" to your time and money, and that if you don't do things their way you're "stealing" from them somehow.  You hear them talk about "lost" revenues.  Back in the old days you didn't "lose" revenue, you "didn't make as much this month".  Nobody's going into their vaults and carting away their booty.  What's happening is their marketing practices are failing, so in a pathetic effort to continue their business model they think "well, we'll just cram more advertising down their throats, that'll increase our revenues!" when in fact it drives people away.  It's like taxes.  Governments like to raise taxes because they think it'll get them more money, when in reality it squeezes everyone - people have less money to spend, businesses make less money because people aren't buying as much, businesses stop giving people raises and bonuses, stockholders don't make as much - every aspect of the flow of money is subjected to tax at every level, so if your taxes are too high it works like adding friction to all parts of an engine at once - everything slows down.  Reduce the taxes to a sane level and the process reverses and you actually get more revenue  provided you don't reduce too far.  It's really a fairly simple concept - go out of your way to make things hard for people and they'll go elsewhere.  That's the nature of a free society and the capitalist market system.  It's the same reason record companies are failing and the RIAA has taken to suing people.  "Oh, you won't buy our products?  Fine!  We'll extort the money from you peasants with our lawyers!  Bwaahahahha!"

Fascists all of them.  Now as for "content as it was intended"... I wonder when they'll start locking up blind people for not being able to see their damned ads "as they were intended to be seen".