ATS Demands to Be White-Listed

[Irene]

I'm a member over at ATS. I use Firefox with their add-on adblocker app there because of the ad load with other browsers. With every page load, not using FF, I get little autoplay ads and there is an ad that blocks the bottom third of every page.

Tonight I logged in and there was a notice at the top of the page that said they know I'm using an adblocker and that no links will work until I white-list ATS.

Excuse me, but ***k that. The greed is stunning. They don't need my clicks.

Goodbye and good riddance, ATS.

Very sincerely,

Irene   

[ArMaP]

I don't know if you noticed it, but when you joined you agreed not using ad blockers on ATS, so, if you were using one, you were the one breaking the agreement.

[robomont]

since its an american company that lies about its contract,the contract is null and void.
so is their claim to material supplied by members becoming ats property.
usa federal gov says owner is person who produced it.
and since ats doesnt acknowledge in their contract that you are forfieting said material but just outright claims it.contract is n and v.

[Irene]

I don't know if you noticed it, but when you joined you agreed not using ad blockers on ATS, so, if you were using one, you were the one breaking the agreement.

Please note that I said I use the adblocker because of how many ads come up. I spend all my time closing pop-up autoplays, etc.

ATS is taking advantage of its membership, plain and simple. Personally, I think the white-list us or else is a very poor attitude to take. It shows a fundamental lack of consideration of the membership's problems with the ad load on their site.

They are clearly motivated by profit. Very ugly, in my eyes.

Irene   

[ArMaP]

since its an american company that lies about its contract,the contract is null and void.

What are the lies in the contract?

so is their claim to material supplied by members becoming ats property.

Where do they claim that?

[ArMaP]

Please note that I said I use the adblocker because of how many ads come up. I spend all my time closing pop-up autoplays, etc.

I suppose that's obvious, but it's still against what you accepted when you joined.

[easynow]

Yeah I noticed the adblock message yesterday.

They're no doubt gonna lose alot of clicks because of it.

The only reason I would even consider disabling the blocker for them is because I like Springer and his take on Ufology.

If it wasn't for that my answer would be --> No

Just saying

[Irene]

I suppose that's obvious, but it's still against what you accepted when you joined.

The point is that I can't enjoy the site. I'm too busy closing stupid ad windows and stopping autoplay videos.

Don't you see anything wrong with that?

I'm not going to patronize a site that constantly assaults me with advertising on every page that obstructs the site contents. I don't care what the Terms are. It's wrong to harass the membership to that extent.

Everyone thinks the site owner, who shall remain nameless, is some kind of god and suck up to him like the sycophants they are. It's pathetic really.

I don't mind advertising if it is unobtrusive, but ATS goes way too far.

Irene   

[robomont]

when ats pays for my gigs then i will watch adds but to run adds that severely eat bandwidth like auto play video adds.i too will avoid the place.
theres some big sites doing it these days and its just not right.
one method i think may work is to go to mobile version as mobiles cant handle bandwidth so it mostly just words.

[Irene]

My God, they're positively performing fellatio on the overlord:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1107215/pg1

Irene   

[ArMaP]

I don't care what the Terms are.

I suppose that's the biggest difference between you and me, I accepted the conditions so I stick to my word.

Everyone thinks the site owner, who shall remain nameless, is some kind of god and suck up to him like the sycophants they are. It's pathetic really.

There is more than one site owner, not naming one affects the others.

I don't mind advertising if it is unobtrusive, but ATS goes way too far.

Well, I never got many adverts, and I never got those that most people complain about, probably because I'm in Portugal and the targeted advertising "thinks" those adverts are not for me, so I cannot really comment about that.

When not logged in I have seen many adverts, but nothing special.

[Irene]

I suppose that's the biggest difference between you and me, I accepted the conditions so I stick to my word.

There is more than one site owner, not naming one affects the others.
Well, I never got many adverts, and I never got those that most people complain about, probably because I'm in Portugal and the targeted advertising "thinks" those adverts are not for me, so I cannot really comment about that.

When not logged in I have seen many adverts, but nothing special.

You've admitted that your experience with the site is different than mine. You really aren't in a position to judge my attitude about my experience.

If they would disable autoplay ads and reduce the size of the ads that take up the bottom third of my smartphone screen I might have a more generous attitude.

Instead, they've declared war on people who don't want to be assaulted by aggressive marketing. I'm a very old-fashioned, private person. I have the right to control my input. There is certainly nothing unreasonable about that.

Current society seems to feel it's okay to put a camera down my pants. The level of invasion of privacy is stunning.

I won't stand for it.

Respectfully,

Irene   

[robomont]

i agree irene.these websites want all up in our business and offer very little in return considering websites are almost free to start these days.
then add on that if you start your own,it gets very few hits.
now some would say the site is not popular but i suspect algerithems are stopping it from being popular.
then most sites wont allow you to link to a blog or accuse you of spamming when your evidence may be at that blog.
so whos allowed to link to who?links are what bring visitors ie money.
i think a news site should be set up by cool members so blogs can be turned into news then these tards would have to accept the link or look like obvious shills that they are.

[Sinny]

Rules are made to be broken.
frig ATS, welcome to PRC.

ArMap is our resident SJ.
Thats psychology talk for 'rule enforcer'.

Z, we're all adults here.. do all the swear words need to be censored? Lol

[ArMaP]

You've admitted that your experience with the site is different than mine. You really aren't in a position to judge my attitude about my experience.

I'm not, but I'm in a position to judge people that accept something to latter act as if they didn't.

If they would disable autoplay ads and reduce the size of the ads that take up the bottom third of my smartphone screen I might have a more generous attitude.

There's a thread specifically for people to complain about bad ads, but people ignore it and prefer to complain as if ATS creates the ads. They have no direct control of what ads are displayed.

I'm a very old-fashioned, private person.

If you're using the Internet you're not that private any more...

I have the right to control my input. There is certainly nothing unreasonable about that.

And they have the right to say what they allow on their site.

Current society seems to feel it's okay to put a camera down my pants. The level of invasion of privacy is stunning.

This is not invasion of privacy, the ads you see are the result of possible previous invasions of privacy by search engines, browsers, etc. ATS (or any other site displaying ads) is not violating your privacy, as they do not have any idea of what ads you are seeing.