4 ms·

I find that article hilarious with this context: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/google-now-blocking-websites-that-show-fake-download-but

by jug 9y ago

I find that article hilarious with this context: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/google-now-blocking-websites-that-show-fake-download-buttons/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/googl...

oceanswave 9y ago
Yeah, everyone got so riled up they forgot to see that this article is from 2013
- anon1385 9y ago
  Nothing has changed though. You still get these kinds of ads pretty much every time you visit the site. It doesn't matter that the article is from 2013 when the problem it describes still exists. That it has existed this long, despite people pointing it out, just makes it even worse.
- jug 9y ago
  That's my point though. Four years ought to be time enough for them to sort this out after implementing that new view on ads. What's worse, that initiative was about blocking sites altogether if they had this crap on them, despite still allowing their own partners to use these practices.
kuschku 9y ago
Yet, nothing of that sort has happened. Screenshot taken 2 minutes ago: http://i.imgur.com/FOcB46m.png http://i.imgur.com/FOcB46m.png
- pasbesoin 9y ago
  And yet, yesterday, people were downvoting me because of my skepticism regarding the latest "we're going to keep Android installations updated -- no, really!" initiative. Technically, this latest initiative actually makes sense. But, manufacturers still want to sell new devices, and carriers want to move them, with mark-up. And there's no dis-incentive to this "abandon and re-sell" incentive. And mostly, Google doesn't stick with things, any more. Color me skeptical. Time to go and "Download" me a new phone... ---- P.S. I don't begrudge the Paint.NET developers recompense for their work. Although, as I recall, it originally came out of the University of Washington, presumably with some funding behind it (many years ago, and perhaps no more). I've used it, upon occasion, and it's a very good substitute for everyday "photo-shopping", as it were. But the ads, as described/demonstrated, sure seem to be at odds with the old "do no evil" or whatever it was. Loading grandma up ('Download! HERE!') with 5 "toolbars" and nag-ware? Bad Google.
- ascom 9y ago
  Here is a small sample of ads I have blocked from my sites: https://imgur.com/a/5SD9b https://imgur.com/a/5SD9b
wernsey 9y ago
Thanks for the link. I wondered what happened to that policy

by jug 9y ago

oceanswave 9y ago

Yeah, everyone got so riled up they forgot to see that this article is from 2013

anon1385 9y ago
Nothing has changed though. You still get these kinds of ads pretty much every time you visit the site. It doesn't matter that the article is from 2013 when the problem it describes still exists. That it has existed this long, despite people pointing it out, just makes it even worse.
jug 9y ago
That's my point though. Four years ought to be time enough for them to sort this out after implementing that new view on ads. What's worse, that initiative was about blocking sites altogether if they had this crap on them, despite still allowing their own partners to use these practices.

kuschku 9y ago

Yet, nothing of that sort has happened. Screenshot taken 2 minutes ago: http://i.imgur.com/FOcB46m.png http://i.imgur.com/FOcB46m.png

pasbesoin 9y ago
And yet, yesterday, people were downvoting me because of my skepticism regarding the latest "we're going to keep Android installations updated -- no, really!" initiative. Technically, this latest initiative actually makes sense. But, manufacturers still want to sell new devices, and carriers want to move them, with mark-up. And there's no dis-incentive to this "abandon and re-sell" incentive. And mostly, Google doesn't stick with things, any more. Color me skeptical. Time to go and "Download" me a new phone... ---- P.S. I don't begrudge the Paint.NET developers recompense for their work. Although, as I recall, it originally came out of the University of Washington, presumably with some funding behind it (many years ago, and perhaps no more). I've used it, upon occasion, and it's a very good substitute for everyday "photo-shopping", as it were. But the ads, as described/demonstrated, sure seem to be at odds with the old "do no evil" or whatever it was. Loading grandma up ('Download! HERE!') with 5 "toolbars" and nag-ware? Bad Google.
ascom 9y ago
Here is a small sample of ads I have blocked from my sites: https://imgur.com/a/5SD9b https://imgur.com/a/5SD9b

wernsey 9y ago

Thanks for the link. I wondered what happened to that policy