0 votes

Hey... M. Nystrom... Why is Trump's Prez Banner at the top of this page.

I mean, really... really? Other members have already remarked on this in other topics. And seriously I thought you would have dealt with this by now.

Look, even if Ron does not run, that decision is not made yet. Why are you running Donald Trump's banner at the top of this page, in all seriousness? I'm sure it pays a lot of money, but THAT much money though???

Look at Trump's comment on Ron Paul that he gave at CPAC. He came out and identified himself as an enemy to Ron. I really thought the whole Trump Banner issue would have been solved before now, but it has not.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I definitely enabled it. That's why certain email progs cannot

sign out properly, because upon signout, they want to go to a third party news site, but they cant, so i get that message. Also, I have it set to all cookies and all browser history Deleted Upon Browser Close. I never have a cookie cache, nor a browser history at least available to the browser.

I mean it's been this way for pretty much a year.

Good for you. and

Good for you.

TACO and BetterPrivacy

President Trump

http://postimage.org/image/30mudbpc4/

And it's not Michael posting these ads. We only have our friends at Google to thank for spying in on our conversations and delivering ads to us that they think are relevant.

Maybe you guys noticed the little banner that says:

Ads by Google

Plugins are your friend

When you cut out the ads from

When you cut out the ads from the DailyPaul it means that you are getting a free ride at Michael Nystrom's personal financial expense.

I think the least you should do, before recommending to people how to take ad money out of Michael's pocket (the money that is probably used to pay the bills here), is you should first suggest that people send a reasonable donation before doing so.

Ultimately, I think it's quite rude to even suggest and link to those ad blockers here.

...

On the contrary, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using

those add-ons/plug-ins with any site.

I use Adblock Plus. I install it as a matter of course when first installing FF on a system and then I forget about it. It does its job. I never fiddle with the filters for it. But it manages to block some ads on most sites.

For example, I see tons of ads in the 2nd and 3rd columns here. I just don't see the top Google banner ad is all. (I only know it is there because blocking does not work in Safari's preview mode and sometimes it will load for a split second in FF before Adblock zaps it.)

I'm not taking revenue away from DP by doing so. I never click on ads anyway, they just take up space for me.

So you're telling us we have to live with a cluttered ad web because you are on your moral high horse?

Who the hell are you to chastise anyone for setting up their browsing experience the way they want to?

My browser and how I browse is my business pal, not yours.

Deal with it.

If you don't like it, perhaps YOU should donate extra to the DP rather than making demands on the rest of us. You sound like a statist Democrat.

Asking why a Trump for Pres banner is persistent on the DAILY PAUL is a legit question and something for Michael to consider concerning his relationship with Google or his use of their banner ads for revenue. Why would someone new to DP ever consider donating to the DP if the site can't make sure there aren't opponents ads placed so prominently?

Look, I'm sure Michael will address the issue in due course. If not, then what's the point of the DP if it is comfortable with advertising for Trump?

Generally, ads are an annoyance and that is what adblockers are for. The DP obviously has some hard coded ads that are not blocked. Those are perfectly fine and are not annoying - because they are RELEVANT to the DP and they don't blink at you or move or grab your focus.

Trump's ad is a perfect example of why we SHOULD use adblockers - so he can't scam his way on to the DP. (and neither can his friends at Google)

I will try to address all the

I will try to address all the issues you mentioned in your reply.

The fact that you install ad blockers as a matter of course is irrelevant. Simply because you do it automatically, as a matter of course, does not justify doing so.

You mention that you are not taking revenue away from the DP by blocking ads, because you don't click. But do you really know that for sure? Google and other ad networks also run CPM based ads which do not require clicking for revenue to be earned. Generally, those types of ads come from brand focused advertisers. Blocking those ads does cut off that source of revenue for the DP.

You stated that I was on a moral high horse for being against blocking the DP's source of revenue. I don't know if it is a moral high ground, but at the very least it is quite interesting that you relate not blocking ads in such a way. Morals, ethics and integrity are some primary reasons why I have so much respect for Dr. Paul.

I'd like to point out, though, that my previous comments / concerns are not so much focused on the fact that there are those who do block ads but rather focused on the posting of links to tools and instructions for doing so. If you're going to block DP's source of revenues (the ads) then just do it. But to promote it directly on this site in a way so that maybe another few thousand people start doing the same is quite problematic and possibly disasterous, financially, for the DP.

It's really important to realize that the cost to keep the DailyPaul operating does not come out of nowhere. Somebody (Michael Nystrom) pays for this website to exist. Most sites are funded via advertising.

When you block the ads you block the funding. That is akin to getting a free ride on Michael Nystrom's back, or rather, pocket. He pays for you to use the DP and then you want to block the ads which covers your cost to him for use of his website...

You mention that I should donate extra to the DP rather than making demands. I don't believe I have made any demands, but I did offer a suggestion as well as an opinion. Regarding donations, I have donated and will eventually donate again to continue helping to support the DP. However, what I find a bit odd / ironic / illogical is that you suggest I should donate more to help cover your costs to the DP but then proceed to call me a Democrat.

Why should I donate more to cover the costs incurred by your use of the DP? Shouldn't individuals pay their own way instead of expecting others to pay for them? If I could afford it, though, I would love to be able to fully fund the DailyPaul enabling it to be ad-free for everyone to use.

I agree completely to your points about the Trump ads and your suggestion for Michael to reconsider his relationship with Google on those grounds. I mentioned in another reply here that Google does not offer adequate tools for publishers to effectively monitor ads displayed on their websites. It may not be the right thing to drop the Google ads, though, as the bills for the DP still need to be paid. There may be ways to replace that source of revenue, but it's not as easy as simply clicking a few times to make it happen.

You mentioned that Michael will address this issue in due course. He has posted a few replies lower down in this discussion. Following is a short quote from one of his replies:

The support I receive from donations is truly a fraction - it amounts to a couple hundred bucks per month.

People expect the site to be here, but they don't expect to pay anything for it, then they complain about the ads.

The DailyPaul is my favorite website. I consider the DP to be extremely important for our movement and our r3volution. Michael Nystrom deserves to be compensated for all the work he does for us to keep the DP going, but most importantly, the absolute last thing I would want to see is all of us losing the DP due to the financial aspects of operating a website of this magnitude not working out.

...

I respectfully disagree

John, I appreciate the work you do for the site and we all appreciate Michael for his contributions -- but with all due respect, I completely disagree with what you are saying.

I'm a malware researcher for a well known security company. I have researched various methods of exploitation and vectors for the installation of malware. Criminals who distribute such wares are quite effective with their methods and ad-injection techniques have snarled even some of the most reputable sites. NYTimes, Arstechnica and others have been hooked by these techniques. I even contributed to a blog writeup for Coding Horror several years ago about ad-injection malware distribution on GameCopyWorld.com

Advocating the use of such tools is not an attempt to steal revenue from the website operator, but rather as a security procedure meant to add another layer of protection to the users computer.

Not only this, but tracking is not always useful and more than a few tracking companies have been in trouble for the unlawful distribution of customer information. Google is notorious for spying on their customers and reading their emails. The reason we are seeing the ad in the first place is because of the Google ad-sense algorithm that is linking Trump to this political site.

I can't imagine that the majority of the liberty advocates on this site would choose to be tracked by these 3rd party tracking companies. Not only that, but the downloading of ads slows down the browser and causes clutter.

Tracking companies track users across multiple sites. Google has the ability to track users while on any page that uses adsense. A quick look at the scripts shows several ad servers running on the DP. OpenX, blogads & googlesyndication -- not to mention the location tracker clustrmaps.

Allowing such content to run behind the scenes is a security risk and users should learn to prevent such unnecessary content from running on their pc. Based off this, I totally disagree that it's disrespectful to advertise using such tools. But with that being said, I'll be more than happy to contribute to the DP Money Bomb that is being advertised on another thread. I get paid next week.

Thanks for everything you and Michael do for the DP community.

I'm just a regular member of

I'm just a regular member of the DP. :-) All due credit goes to Michael and those who assist him. I'm with you in appreciating the work that they do here.

I understand malware, ad-injection and the importance of keeping computers secure. If it's secure computers that you want, then focus on actually securing the computers and make them unexploitable.

Blocking the DailyPaul's ability to fund operations, in the name of your own computer security, is akin to knocking over a billboard on your neighbor's property simply because you're unable to figure out how to lock your own front door. Fix the lock on your door or figure out another way to secure your home (your computer), but leave your neighbor's property alone. The DP is your virtual neighbor online.

Another comparison might be the unavoidable fact that there are bad drivers on the road. They make driving risky for the rest of us. Not only that, there are actually some on the road who intentionally try to create dangerous driving situations. So what do we do? Close down the highways (the ad networks) or go after the bad drivers (the malware)? Highways are nearly as crucial to commerce offline as ad networks are to commerce online.

As a security professional you'll probably agree that the only true way to secure a networked computer is to disconnect it from the network. But nobody wants to do that anymore than they want to stop driving.

What if the security company you work for sells software (or a premium version of their software) and someone comes along wanting to give away copies for free simply because they don't agree with something in your program? I'm sure there would be serious objections to doing so all throughout the company, similar to my objection here in regards to blocking DP ads, depriving the publisher of needed revenues and ultimately giving the site away for free without permission.

Let's say that 100% of the DP's visitors followed your lead and the ad blocking software was able to block every form of ad on the site. That would be great, right? Except for the fact that the inability to generate advertising revenue would quite possibly lead to the DP shutting down, because operations would then no longer be funded.

Everyone wants something for nothing, I think that's only natural. Taking it without permission, though, is just not right. On a site like DP the trade-off of using the website is the inconvenient necessity of having to also see ads on pages (even ads that you don't agree with) so that costs associated with your use of the site can be funded by the website operator.

I believe this discussion we are having does identify a need, and potential opportunity for the DP, to provide optional paid subscriptions which would enable any subscribers wanting to turn off the ads to do so.

You mention that ads also slow down websites and clutter pages. Cutting off funding sources from the DP simply because a page might be slow or look a little cluttered is unreasonable. It very well may be that the reason the page is slow in the first place is specifically due to a lack of funding.

The DP is a huge high traffic website that requires thousands of dollars in hardware infrastructure with ongoing bandwidth and other maintenance costs. No average $5 per month hosting account would be able to come even close to handling this website and I'm sure there is technical expertise required that the average webmaster would simply have no clue how to handle. And all that is not to mention the planning & associated costs which are likely involved to make sure that the DP does not run out of hardware or other necessary resources on the day Ron Paul announces his candidacy or especially on the day when he wins the election (because every person who was ever on the DP would want to stop by here that day to celebrate).

A quick look back at the discussion shows that your reply of "Plugins are your friend" was in response not to a malware complaint but rather seeing a specific advertisement on the site. The OP's initial post had nothing whatsoever to do with malware.

And the software you are suggesting is called Adblock (& others), not MalwareBlock.

Blocking ads in order to protect people from 1 malware ad impression out of hundreds of billions of legitimate ad impressions is not an attack on malware, it's an attack on advertising.

I wouldn't object, though, to having malware protection software which, upon detecting malware on a website, notifies the individual of the threat and recommend that they do not go to the website for whatever specific malware reason. Or even malware protection software that runs in the background like a virus scanner, and upon malware being injected or detected while on a website the threat would be blocked at that point in time precisely when it is detected. That would be a very fair way of protecting computers from malware without crossing the line by interfering with funding operations of countless websites by completely blocking their ad revenue sources. But, when it comes down to it, we're really not talking about malware blocking here we're talking about straight out total ad blocking, which includes the blocking of many more legitimate ads as compared to illegitimate.

I guess I simply do not buy the malware excuse for blocking DailyPaul sources of ad revenues.

I do agree that outside ad networks running ads that may be in contradiction to the community goals here are an issue to be worked on. I also agree that, in general, faster & less cluttered is preferred. The method of achieving these goals is what I am disagreeing with. Promoting ad blockers which cut out the DP's funding sources is simply not a reasonable solution. A reasonable solution would rather be to petition Michael to develop an optional subscription model so that anyone who does not want to view ads here can pay for their own costs incurred for using the website and in return have the ability to turn off the ads. Another potential solution is the recently suggested DP moneybomb. If we all are able to pull together and donate enough money to the DP to replace all revenues which would be lost by removing the ads, then that might be a reasonable option as well.

...

the only i've opted out of ad blockers in the past at least was

that they, from to time time, block pop-ups that initiate streaming audio or video that I actually want.

I use Adblock Plus, but I

I use Adblock Plus, but I make an exception for the sites that I want to get paid for the advertising.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

So give him a donation.

So give him a donation. Don't sit around and wait until a malicious advertisement gets through to this site which subsequently infects your box.

http://mashable.com/2009/09/15/new-york-times-malware/

Well the threat here is not malicious software or tracking

per se. It's just that really annoying little slap in the face of the Trump banner.

That's just being

That's just being naive.

There is always a threat. There are countless stories of malicious ad injection campaigns that have targeted some really large organizations. To think that it couldn't happen here is just being naive to the threats of computer exploits and malware.

What happens when the legitimate ad server is hacked, and a subsequent 302 redirection is placed on the site, thus potentially infecting any Windows user that visits the site?

http://blog.unmaskparasites.com/2010/05/22/malware-on-hijack...

Educate yourself and don't put your identity at risk all so Michael can get a few pennies from your visits. Write him a check for $25 and feel good about blocking all those nasty ads from all the websites you visit.

It is not a Trump ad

It is an ad for a poll that is probably just intended to phish for email addresses.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Oh, kind in the way that a general poll ad will feature

a Palin, McCain, Romney images all in the same banner. I used to think these banners were just there to piss me off!! lol. seriously. But this was before about 3 weeks ago. Now, IT'S ALL THE TRUMP BANNER!!!!!!!!! lol, but seriously, it is.

Thing is, I never even go to Politico, TownHall, or even BS political sites. I do go to mainstream market/financial sites, maybe that sets it off.

Maybe it's a Google ad-words ad.

When you allow Google ads access to your Web site to make some money to offset costs, you have no control over which ads they place. In fact, it's not someone at Google who sits there and decides. Trump's ad is in a pool of ads that get rotated, frequency depending on what level of placement the advertisers purchased, triggered by key words or phrases on the web sites.

For more money advertisers can choose which sites to advertise on or not advertise on, but most allow Google's key-word system to select for them. Hence the Donald's ads on Daily Paul where they don't do squat for him and just piss us off :-)

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Do google ads read cookies?

Is so blocking cookies might help.

Free includes debt-free!

Light bulb above the head!!!

Click away on it.

Fundraise for DP and waste Trump's time and money.

He obviously has plenty of both to give away.

A couple of time the ad went with key words.

"triggered by key words or phrases on the web sites."

Words like sorrow and blessing triggered a religious ad. (Don't recall more.)

I wonder what triggers the Trump ad. Maybe that name?

Free includes debt-free!

Thinking back now...

I have only clicked ONCE on the Trump-birther forum topic. Once. I only visited that link once, and that was when I clicked it. I cant remember the link now because it's been too long.

That sums up all the Trump, and even the Birther open or closed searching I have ever done. At all. But maybe that one click did it. Either way this banner has high priority with the google ad mechanism.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Um, I think that's called an ad

And that is how this site is paid for, i.e. how I am compensated for the time that I spend keeping this website operation rolling on.

Like the poster below, I have never seen a trump ad on this site, and not having seen it, there is little I can do to get rid of it. It would be helpful if you can tell me where it leads.

Further, if you would like to contribute to offsetting my costs in running the site, please make a donation here:

www.dailypaul.com/donate

A monthly recurring donation would be most appreciated.

Many thanks for your contributions to the site.
Michael

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Ah... Michael mi lad.....

You're a man after my own heart!

Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Viva La Revolucion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmaTNf4YhEs

Oh okay. Hey dude, didn't mean to anger you...

I did not realize that the top banner is kind of open to whatever the user has surfed in the past. The Trump ad is constant for me.

The ONLY "Trump-surfing" I have done is in relation to topics about him being a birther or whatever, and THAT is only the topic link itself and nothing else. Now it's the only banner for my browser on this site. I have never clicked the banner either, just noticed it.

Please don't be too angry, others have remarked on the banner in other topics. I would point out that the site is also at least a fraction supported by donations.

It's just a Google ad.

It's just a Google ad. Michael has to fund this site somehow. I've seen the Trump ad somewhere - I can't miss his hair but Google's probably been tracking me.

Michael on the funding thing, did you ever check out SureHits.com? I STILL think it might work here. lol

Michael Nystrom's picture

No problem

What makes you think you angered me?

The support I receive from donations is truly a fraction - it amounts to a couple hundred bucks per month.

People expect the site to be here, but they don't expect to pay anything for it, then they complain about the ads.

Go figure.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

This may be a tracking ad.

I have not seen a Trump ad yet.

And I am here several times a day.

As of this time stamp ...

It is not there.

I guess it must be?

Because it's there ALL the time for me. I haven't visited any Trump-oriented sites either, to my knowledge.

But why not replace a banner-space for tracking activities, with a site-specific banner? I'm sure others are seeing this constant Trump top page banner as well.

i got a Trump on mine

reason ... $ nothing wrong with that. I enjoy the Birther Drama

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

Well ...

I am a complete IT idiot ...

But I would guess it comes down to $$$$$.

If the ad is ignored here, it will move on.

It is rare that I do not see a Kroger ad there up top.

This IP is used constantly to shop for deals and coupons, especially on food, since we are really not consumers in any other sense.