#ublock origin (implied)

[starboundsingularities]

just found out enhancer for youtube came with adblock today

[microwave-kid]

As you may or may not have encountered, over the past 6 months YouTube has been attempting to implement an adblock detector on the platform. Initially it was a popup that would appear irregularly before a video, which you could close and it wouldn't appear again for a day. Afterwards they added a timer so you couldn't close the popup instantly and made it so it appears before every video. Now, they've added a playback limit of 3 video before the video player is disabled. In addition, they've gradually changed the wording of the popups to further and further imply that adblock violates YouTube's TOS, most likely to instill paranoia that continuing to circumvent the screen will result in a ban.

Here's a very well informed video about why this is stupid and borderline criminal. I would probably be better off not trying to summarize the moral, ethical, or financial reasons not to support this, so instead here's all the legal reasons:

Here is a statement by the FBI on a .gov website about the necessity of using adblock on the internet.

Here are three legal cases (1) (2) (3) taken from the previously linked video setting legal precedent that denying service to users with adblock is not enforceable. (Unfortunately, a Lexis+ account is needed to read them in their entirety.)

Here is an article from 2014 about officially vetted YouTube ads serving malware, including drive-by downloads.

Services like uBlock Origin are being updated to circumvent the detectors. If you have uBlock installed and are still getting this screen, disable any additional adblockers you have on YouTube (including the one built into Firefox), go to uBlock's settings, click "Purge all caches" and then click the blue "Update now" button. You may also need to remove any element picker scripts you have on YouTube and restart your browser.

Under no circumstances should you purchase YouTube Premium in response to this, as on a commercial level Google doesn't have the right to enforce this, and increasing their revenue will just make them double down on this practice. Find other ways to support your creators.

[alyanas-little-hideout]

okay but like. The thing is.

The paper referenced Honestly has reminded me why I dislike soft sciences so much. Figure 2 comparing three variables on a 2d graph using point size for one of the variables? heinous. Also they seem to frame divorce as a result of individualism, which implies that a low divorce rate cannot simply be because there is a massive amount of social pressure on women to stay with abusive husbands.

The commentary article linked is very informative as well, and does more than just offer a few criticisms- it points out a flaw in their categorization of data sets which would require a pretty substantial change in their conclusion.

also holy shit you can just turn off the fucking paywall!? fuck it im downloading ublock origins now holy shit. Thank you so much for sharing that info!

i googled this on a whim and the first thing i get is nyt race science

[evnoweb]

Leaving, wanting more

I’ve been fascinated with web analytics.  For me, it started when I wanted to do a bit of analytics on a website that I had created.  Well, at the time, it really wasn’t analytics.  I just wanted a counter to count the number of visitors.

I turned to Google to provide the tool through their Google Analytics.  What fascinated me at the time was that, yes I had a counter, but also the huge collection of everything else that the tool provided me.  I had no idea.

As we now know (hopefully) this whole concept has been enhanced and tracking and privacy is a huge concern.  Your phone knows exactly where you are because it has to so that it can connect to its network.  That knowledge can be used by other services for various things.  Your computer knows where you are if you’ve ever used any location service i.e. maps or you check in with any social media accounts.

We all know, again hopefully, that services follow your computer around as you interact with things.  Facebook is one of the current concerns.

So, it was with great interest in this field that I went to Michael Geist’s keynote address at the recently concluded Bring IT Together Conference. “From Opportunity to Responsibility:  Law and Privacy at the Intersection of Technology and Education”.  I was looking forward to answers, insights and recommendations.

Geist addressed the concepts of Access, Copyright, and Privacy.  And, he addressed the topics/sub-topics nicely.  If you were new to some of the concepts and were paying attention, you certainly would have left with a much better knowledge.

For me, because of my ongoing interest and with working with awesome teacher-librarians over the years on issues dealing with copyright and privacy, I think I probably was aware of most of the issues.  I’m hesitant to use the word knowledgeable because that certainly implies a different level.

Yet, I still left the keynote wanting more.

I’m aware of the issues.  I wanted answers.  I wanted advice for both personal and classroom use.

Is there a secure browser that could be recommended to address privacy and security issues?  I’ve always been a fan of Firefox but even Firefox supports addons for more security.  I supplement with Privacy Badger, uBlock Origin, Disconnect, and HTTPS Everywhere.  Is that enough?

Firefox 57 (at least the Quantum pre-release) is fast and Mozilla claims to be your friend in privacy/security.  The short tutorial about the Private Window is impressive.

http://ift.tt/2yVJ08y

Is Google really the bad guy because its relies on gathering information and everyone else wearing white hats because they don’t?  Or do they?  How do we really know?

With schools buying Chromebooks that use the Chrome browser, what are the issues for use in the classroom?

How do we stop all these web sites that follow us around the web?  Or is it not necessary to stop them?

With school districts moving so many resources to the cloud, what are the issues and concerns?

Is there a search engine that we should use that respects our privacy?  Does Duckduckgo really not track you?

Or, may there just aren’t any answers…

Leaving, wanting more published first on http://ift.tt/2gZRS4X

[leviathan-supersystem]

@ublock-origin ehhhhh honestly i'm not a huge fan of this kind of argument. like yeah, as an economic science, marxism is first and foremost concerned with making descriptive claims about the world, rather than normative ones, but normative analysis- and hence, morality- does still play a role in marxism. and i feel like the whole "marxism doesn't care about morality" argument is used as an evasive answer when someone criticizes a normative claim made in marxism.

and like, obviously calling someone a parasite is not just a descriptive statement, but also a normative one. like it seems pretty disingenuous to say "oh, i was just saying they're parasites, i wasn't saying they're morally bad". i think calling someone a parasite has some pretty strong implied moral undertones there.

that said, @bobwoco ultimately the concept of "morally wrong" is just a shorthand for "should be socially disincentivized". in order to create a functioning society it's generally pretty beneficially to socially disincentivize laziness, so therefore, laziness is morally wrong, badabingbadaboom.

Re: Your post about calling landlords parasites. The reason I personally associated that as being ableist is because people with say things like "landlords just sit at home all day, doing no real work and collecting money!" As if that's the reason they're harmful. Which is similar to how people will characterize people who receive disability payments / social security ("parasites, lazy people who don't work and just get money").

I think it's bad because it implies that receiving free or easy money without doing work is morally wrong. When really the reason that being a landlord is wrong is because it's built on exploiting people.

It's like... ya know how a right-winger will call someone a "degenerate" or "pervert"? And someone points out how that's queerphobic? It's not because queer people are actually degenerates or perverts. It's because those words are heavily associated with discrimination against queer people, and often used a dogwhistles against them. Similar to how calling someone a parasite or burden is heavily associated with ableism. Not because I personally associate disabled people with parasites, but because I'm aware of the rhetoric used against disabled people.

I think it's bad because it implies that receiving free or easy money without doing work is morally wrong.

if you have the capability and opportunity to work and you receive the fruits of other people's labor without working yourself that is in fact morally wrong, hope that helps.