inherit
154030
0
May 13, 2010 10:11:55 GMT -8
cardare
3
May 2010
cardare
|
Post by cardare on May 2, 2010 3:10:36 GMT -8
I question the appropiateness of this term. From a security standpoint it's utterly irresponsible. Ad providers provide ads for many thousands of sites, so it doesn't matter if you say "We do not permit our advertisers to run those types of ads on our site"- you are still getting the same ads. Sure, pop-unders aren't seen, and pop-ups aren't either, that is controllable. You can only specify whether the content of the site should determine what ads are pushed to the end user. The same question was asked of MySpace in 2006: What if malware is pushed out to end users via advertising? They suggested a similar argument, that they don't permit those types of ads on their service, yet one day, millions of PCs were infected by brand new malware. It wasn't just MySpace that got it either. Source: www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/11/yahoo_serves_12million_malware_ads/Source: www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/07/hacked_myspace.htmlNo ad-broker is safe from this, even Google was caught serving malware: Source: www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/24/malware_ads_google_yahoo/Source: news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20000898-245.htmlTo add to this, Many Internet Security products also block advertising right out the box because malware payload via ad delivery has been acknowledged as a point-of-entry. To place this line in your TOS, you are asking people using Internet Security to disable a part of their security product. You are also asking companies running web filtering and security gateway solutions to allow advertising if they want to comply with the Terms of Service when it's all blocked as part of the subscription they pay thousands for just to get to a support board for a product they are using if it's hosted on ProBoards. I mean, it's easy to say that ad revenue means money for you guys and it does, but this is a two way street. Give your entire user base a written and fully cacheable guarantee that advertising ProBoards uses will not ever, under any circumstances, push out a malware payload, provide inappropiate advertising (mature content) or cause other browser problems, and users may well be quite pleased to add an exemption only for your site, if it's possible in their Internet Security product to add a "via" exemption. I fully agree with the rest of the terms of service as I have always done, but in all the TOS agreements for the multitude of sites I use that I've read and accepted, I've not once ever seen that line used, and that is rather shocking.
|
|
inherit
38680
0
Oct 3, 2012 5:03:49 GMT -8
dictionary
12
March 2005
dictionary
|
Post by dictionary on May 2, 2010 5:14:34 GMT -8
Thank you. I just wanted to ask one more thing. When I'm online at home, I only have dialup. When on dilaup, I have ALL images disabled. It generally doesn't affect the ads since most are text/flash, but occasionally I'll see the little "cannot load image" thingy at the top. Does having images disabled violate the TOS? Again most ads still load and I still see them. The rest of the time, I'm at work on a T1, and do not have images disabled. Hi, We do offer you an option in your profile to turn off images. I would suggest using that instead. Patrick so what are dialup users expected to do? keep turning images on and off now? dialup users generally have images off on ALL pages, not just proboards. also, when i view mobilly, my phone disables pictures to minimize data costs on my phone bill. i still see all the text based ads at the top, and I see alternate text for all the photo ads.
|
|
DanSmith
New Member
Oh NO they found me ,KNYUK,KNYUK,KNYUK
Posts: 90
inherit
24636
0
Aug 16, 2011 14:44:46 GMT -8
DanSmith
Oh NO they found me ,KNYUK,KNYUK,KNYUK
90
May 2004
thetoolman
|
Post by DanSmith on May 2, 2010 7:32:15 GMT -8
What about all us "AD FREE " sites? we are paying to not see that junk.
|
|
Kami
Forum Cat
Posts: 40,033
Mini-Profile Theme: Kami's Mini-Profile
#f35f71
156500
0
Offline
Jul 24, 2021 11:48:29 GMT -8
Kami
40,033
July 2010
kamiyakaoru
Kami's Mini-Profile
|
Post by Kami on May 2, 2010 9:35:26 GMT -8
What about all us "AD FREE " sites? we are paying to not see that junk. ad free is different from ad blocking. =] when it says ad blocking, that means either using an addon to your browser or a program on your computer, or some other means to hide the ads, rather than legitimately paying for them to be removed.
|
|
#e61919
1
0
1
Sept 28, 2023 13:31:20 GMT -8
VS Admin
20,147
January 2000
admin
|
Post by VS Admin on May 2, 2010 9:36:16 GMT -8
I question the appropiateness of this term. From a security standpoint it's utterly irresponsible. Ad providers provide ads for many thousands of sites, so it doesn't matter if you say "We do not permit our advertisers to run those types of ads on our site"- you are still getting the same ads. Sure, pop-unders aren't seen, and pop-ups aren't either, that is controllable. You can only specify whether the content of the site should determine what ads are pushed to the end user. The same question was asked of MySpace in 2006: What if malware is pushed out to end users via advertising? They suggested a similar argument, that they don't permit those types of ads on their service, yet one day, millions of PCs were infected by brand new malware. It wasn't just MySpace that got it either. Source: www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/11/yahoo_serves_12million_malware_ads/Source: www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/07/hacked_myspace.htmlNo ad-broker is safe from this, even Google was caught serving malware: Source: www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/24/malware_ads_google_yahoo/Source: news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20000898-245.htmlTo add to this, Many Internet Security products also block advertising right out the box because malware payload via ad delivery has been acknowledged as a point-of-entry. To place this line in your TOS, you are asking people using Internet Security to disable a part of their security product. You are also asking companies running web filtering and security gateway solutions to allow advertising if they want to comply with the Terms of Service when it's all blocked as part of the subscription they pay thousands for just to get to a support board for a product they are using if it's hosted on ProBoards. I mean, it's easy to say that ad revenue means money for you guys and it does, but this is a two way street. Give your entire user base a written and fully cacheable guarantee that advertising ProBoards uses will not ever, under any circumstances, push out a malware payload, provide inappropiate advertising (mature content) or cause other browser problems, and users may well be quite pleased to add an exemption only for your site, if it's possible in their Internet Security product to add a "via" exemption. I fully agree with the rest of the terms of service as I have always done, but in all the TOS agreements for the multitude of sites I use that I've read and accepted, I've not once ever seen that line used, and that is rather shocking. I understand your point. If you have a concern while using our forums, we offer a service that will allow you to disable the advertising ($7 per 50,000 pageviews per month for all members of forum). It is a two way street: We offer this service and are able to do so because of the advertising. If you want to use our service and don't want the ads, I think it is a reasonable to say that you should use the service we provide to remove them. Further, we definitely understand the security standpoint of things, and we will respect that if you have a legitimate concern to prevent a script from running that we would not penalize you for that. Hi, We do offer you an option in your profile to turn off images. I would suggest using that instead. Patrick so what are dialup users expected to do? keep turning images on and off now? dialup users generally have images off on ALL pages, not just proboards. also, when i view mobilly, my phone disables pictures to minimize data costs on my phone bill. i still see all the text based ads at the top, and I see alternate text for all the photo ads. While I can't comment on every single situation that could possible occur such as this, understand that ProBoards will try to be as reasonable as possible just as we have done in the past. You have had no problems with our service up to now, and should continue to have no problems. when I view proboards forums from the office, some ads dont show up. My office blocks all scripts online that they deem to be harmful. Am I going to lose my forum because some of the ads arent loading? It's not an ad blocker, it's a script blocker. Proboards is on the allow list, but again, some ads are deemed as harmful, and therefore do not load. If you have a reasonable expectation or a security software that you are running has a reasonable expectation that something may be harmful, we are not going to hold it against you for preventing it from running. What about all us "AD FREE " sites? we are paying to not see that junk. If you are ad-free then running an ad blocker has no effect what so ever.
|
|
inherit
70780
0
Dec 21, 2023 5:47:25 GMT -8
Dave L
24
February 2006
davel
|
Post by Dave L on May 2, 2010 10:42:43 GMT -8
Well as you want those of us who use the ad-blocking that comes with our legitimate security software to disable it for your site(s), I hope you will try to make it easy for us, it just isn't practical to switch ad blocking on and off manually as you surf different sites.
Entering the website domain name or sub domain names in Kaspersky ad-blocker white list for example, doesn't work. You need the ad server domain name or address(es), or so it seems.
Can you publish this information, so we can copy it into our white list? Or otherwise tell us how to "white list" your site effectively, because it isn't at all obvious how to do it.
|
|
#e61919
1
0
1
Sept 28, 2023 13:31:20 GMT -8
VS Admin
20,147
January 2000
admin
|
Post by VS Admin on May 2, 2010 10:56:40 GMT -8
Well as you want those of us who use the ad-blocking that comes with our legitimate security software to disable it for your site(s), I hope you will try to make it easy for us, it just isn't practical to switch ad blocking on and off manually as you surf different sites. Entering the website domain name or sub domain names in Kaspersky ad-blocker white list for example, doesn't work. You need the ad server domain name or address(es), or so it seems. Can you publish this information, so we can copy it into our white list? Or otherwise tell us how to "white list" your site effectively, because it isn't at all obvious how to do it. I apologize, but I don't have an exact list that you could use.
|
|
DanSmith
New Member
Oh NO they found me ,KNYUK,KNYUK,KNYUK
Posts: 90
inherit
24636
0
Aug 16, 2011 14:44:46 GMT -8
DanSmith
Oh NO they found me ,KNYUK,KNYUK,KNYUK
90
May 2004
thetoolman
|
Post by DanSmith on May 2, 2010 12:25:48 GMT -8
so, should I or should I not be afraid of being fined or jaied ? I have very little control over members & what they do when I am not around. pro boards 6 yrs on the 18th . why not make all the members sign a new tos?
|
|
#e61919
1
0
1
Sept 28, 2023 13:31:20 GMT -8
VS Admin
20,147
January 2000
admin
|
Post by VS Admin on May 2, 2010 12:26:41 GMT -8
so, should I or should I not be afraid of being fined or jaied ? I have very little control over members & what they do when I am not around. pro boards 6 yrs on the 18th . why not make all the members sign a new tos? The new TOS is displayed to every single member of your forum. You are responsible for your actions in this regard, not for your members if they are using ad blockers.
|
|
DanSmith
New Member
Oh NO they found me ,KNYUK,KNYUK,KNYUK
Posts: 90
inherit
24636
0
Aug 16, 2011 14:44:46 GMT -8
DanSmith
Oh NO they found me ,KNYUK,KNYUK,KNYUK
90
May 2004
thetoolman
|
Post by DanSmith on May 2, 2010 12:32:10 GMT -8
so, should I or should I not be afraid of being fined or jaied ? I have very little control over members & what they do when I am not around. pro boards 6 yrs on the 18th . why not make all the members sign a new tos? The new TOS is displayed to every single member of your forum. You are responsible for your actions in this regard, not for your members if they are using ad blockers. Thanks Pat, I will go away for a couple more years Dan
|
|
inherit
154030
0
May 13, 2010 10:11:55 GMT -8
cardare
3
May 2010
cardare
|
Post by cardare on May 2, 2010 12:59:39 GMT -8
I understand your point. If you have a concern while using our forums, we offer a service that will allow you to disable the advertising ($7 per 50,000 pageviews per month for all members of forum). It is a two way street: We offer this service and are able to do so because of the advertising. If you want to use our service and don't want the ads, I think it is a reasonable to say that you should use the service we provide to remove them. Further, we definitely understand the security standpoint of things, and we will respect that if you have a legitimate concern to prevent a script from running that we would not penalize you for that. I understand, and appreciate that. Isn't there any way of using a CNAME in DNS to point to the respective ad services so that it's possible to exempt only advertising pushed out on ProBoards? Something a little like this perhaps? ad1.proboards.com -> pagead2.googlesyndication.com ad2.proboards.com -> ad.doubleclick.net As far as I can see, Barracuda Networks products, M86 Security, Astaro Security Gateway and Kaspersky Internet Security have no "allow when referrer = proboards.com" rule. Adding just "ad*.proboards.com" to exemption lists would make things a lot easier for people who want to block ads elsewhere, but not ones on Proboards. This way people aren't fully disabling their gateway/PC security just to be able to use ProBoards, and in most instances as most AV vendors won't categorise ad*.proboards.com as an advertising vendor, they won't be blocked after installation of the IS software. Have DNS make sure referrer is a proboards site, otherwise don't serve the DNS request. I don't mind unblocking advertising just for all proboards sites, but without an idea of what ad partners you're using I could potentially be exposing myself to all manner of problems by just allowing everything and hoping that either I'm not using a vulnerable browser, or my security software picks it up before it does anything malicous. Thought I'd throw that idea out there.
|
|
#e61919
1
0
1
Sept 28, 2023 13:31:20 GMT -8
VS Admin
20,147
January 2000
admin
|
Post by VS Admin on May 2, 2010 13:02:05 GMT -8
I understand your point. If you have a concern while using our forums, we offer a service that will allow you to disable the advertising ($7 per 50,000 pageviews per month for all members of forum). It is a two way street: We offer this service and are able to do so because of the advertising. If you want to use our service and don't want the ads, I think it is a reasonable to say that you should use the service we provide to remove them. Further, we definitely understand the security standpoint of things, and we will respect that if you have a legitimate concern to prevent a script from running that we would not penalize you for that. I understand, and appreciate that. Isn't there any way of using a CNAME in DNS to point to the respective ad services so that it's possible to exempt only advertising pushed out on ProBoards? Something a little like this perhaps? ad1.proboards.com -> pagead2.googlesyndication.com ad2.proboards.com -> ad.doubleclick.net As far as I can see, Barracuda Networks products, M86 Security, Astaro Security Gateway and Kaspersky Internet Security have no "allow when referrer = proboards.com" rule. Adding just "ad*.proboards.com" to exemption lists would make things a lot easier for people who want to block ads elsewhere, but not ones on Proboards. This way people aren't fully disabling their gateway/PC security just to be able to use ProBoards, and in most instances as most AV vendors won't categorise ad*.proboards.com as an advertising vendor, they won't be blocked after installation of the IS software. Have DNS make sure referrer is a proboards site, otherwise don't serve the DNS request. I don't mind unblocking advertising just for all proboards sites, but without an idea of what ad partners you're using I could potentially be exposing myself to all manner of problems by just allowing everything and hoping that either I'm not using a vulnerable browser, or my security software picks it up before it does anything malicous. Thought I'd throw that idea out there. If we had a simple way of doing this I would, but our inventory is managed by a third party (under strict restrictions), and as such would not be able to provide you with the exact information - sorry.
|
|
inherit
71337
0
Sept 16, 2021 16:47:32 GMT -8
Zath
aka Salma or Ardbeg :
2,607
February 2006
sexysalma
|
Post by Zath on May 2, 2010 15:56:56 GMT -8
I record a few hours of telly to watch later. When the ad break comes up, I fast forward to the next part of the programme and avoid all the ads. Is this stealing ?
I can see your position but I can't see it standing up to any legal challenge.
|
|
#e61919
1
0
1
Sept 28, 2023 13:31:20 GMT -8
VS Admin
20,147
January 2000
admin
|
Post by VS Admin on May 2, 2010 16:01:06 GMT -8
I record a few hours of telly to watch later. When the ad break comes up, I fast forward to the next part of the programme and avoid all the ads. Is this stealing ? I can see your position but I can't see it standing up to any legal challenge. This is a false argument. Did you enter into an agreement with the TV station not to fast forward through their commercials? No. You may be interested in this article
|
|
cisleader
inherit
-3995725
0
May 3, 2024 6:01:28 GMT -8
cisleader
0
January 1970
GUEST
|
Post by cisleader on May 2, 2010 16:04:49 GMT -8
I record a few hours of telly to watch later. When the ad break comes up, I fast forward to the next part of the programme and avoid all the ads. Is this stealing ? I can see your position but I can't see it standing up to any legal challenge. I hate to butt in, but just to add..where is your evidence that the person even was blocking the ads? They could just remove the add-on, or whatever they're using. I don't mean to sound rude at all..but isn't just a waste of time to try and stop people from doing it? You could add as many blocks as you want for the ad-blockers, but someone, somehow, someway, will still figure out how to block them. I understand by all means the ads make you money, but going back to Salma's example; I'm watching TV, a commercial comes on. I go into the other room until the show is on again. Am I stealing? It's somewhat similar here. I see sites that have the "money per click" or however you say it. How many people can you tell me honestly click the ads? Or really even look at them for that matter? Again..sorry to sound like a douche..just debating this. =]
|
|