Actually, this provision, if the commonly-held interpretation that pleonastic refers to is correct (and I don't think it is; see my comment below), is pretty unique to LJ. So it would merely be "a huge majority of users are in violation of the LJ TOS". Most sites out there don't have such a provision.
it's not "pretty unique" to LJ. it's in more and more common use. myspace uses it, several newspaper sites do. i'll bet more and more sites will use it, as adblocking will slice more and more into revenues of sites that use ad sponsorship as their business model. in fact i pretty much see lawsuits on the horizon; won't be long now. remember what happened when people developed hardware so you could skip commercials on TV?
i don't think it'll GET very far, but they're setting it up so they can theoretically hammer you.
and according to anil dash it's not a "huge majority", it's a small minority, which is why he stated they weren't gonna go after them. now, that was 6A, not SUP. who knows with SUP.
Ok, point taken on the "pretty unique". It's the first place I had seen it, but I apparently needed the reminder that not only is the plural of anecdote not data, the singular most definitely is not.
*snicker*. heck, i only know about this because of kooky danny carlton who actually blocked firefox users from his site, which then hit the NYT and CNET, and i was reminded how badly some prior attempts at TV ad blocking had fared.
I've taken to a simple solution to ads that doesn't require a blocker: add a declaration in my nameserver's named.conf file that makes me an authoritative server for that domain, with the zonefile making anything in that domain resolve to the IP of my blackhole server (runs a webserver on 80 and 443 that returns nothing but 404 Not Found). Ad networks that use IP addresses get their own custom firewall entry doing the same redirection at the IP-packet level. Only works for ads that use their own domain or IP netblock, but that's a large fraction of them. No browser mods needed.
I consider IP-level blocking a form of adblocking; it's one of the levels I was referring to here (http://nolly.livejournal.com/201893.html?thread=1126309#t1126309). I use both AdBlock in my browser and PeerGuardian externally (which blocks adserver IPs as well as Big Brother and other malware).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 09:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 11:56 pm (UTC)i don't think it'll GET very far, but they're setting it up so they can theoretically hammer you.
and according to anil dash it's not a "huge majority", it's a small minority, which is why he stated they weren't gonna go after them. now, that was 6A, not SUP. who knows with SUP.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 12:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 04:48 am (UTC)myspace seems quite strident about it.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 07:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 03:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 07:37 pm (UTC)