Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] suppression of graphics in Netscape

["Igor Izyumin Jr." <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Friday 09 February 2001 11:17, Michael wrote:
> I like the fact that Mozilla lets you click an ad and tell it to block
> images from that site. 
Adzapper is better and more flexible, IMO.  I just added a link to the 
personal toolbar that lets me just view the ad image, then click on the thing 
to create a filtering rule.  It also filters popups.  Besides, only about 1% 
of the ads slip through, even with the default filtering rules.

> They said they shouldn't do that cus it'd hurt ad
> banner revenue which would make web sites start charging but I think ad
> banners don't work well anyway so it'd just make the web prettier. :)

I'd say: screw them.  If a website lives on banners, they might just as well 
die and I wouldn't care.  Good sites are usually non-profit, anyway.  I never 
click on banners except by accident, and I don't like advertising.  That's 
why I almost never watch TV except for stuff that I REALLY like, and I 
usually tape it anyway.  The real reason is that mozilla is almost 100% 
developed by AOL, and AOL sells LOTS of advertising.  I don't really care if 
that gets incorporated into the browser, though.  Adzapper works fine as it 
is.
-- 
-- Igor
--
To manage your subscription, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/