rossman has lost the plot, hasn't he?

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

VPN and Indian premium subscription. It's ~$1.55 month

I dont use a VPN because I have a data cap and VPN = greater data usage.

[QuantumSingularity]

3 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I dont use a VPN because I have a data cap and VPN = greater data usage.

Data cap ?!?!?1?

[Donut417]

7 minutes ago, QuantumSingularity said:

Data cap ?!?!?1?

Comcast America's largest cable company has a data cap. So do most of the other cable providers with exception Charter.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Comcast America's largest cable company has a data cap. So do most of the other cable providers with exception Charter.

well... move to Europe!  

 

 

24 buckos, unlimited 40 down 10 up  just for example ...!

 

 

ps: no idea why this is business,  i didn't click on business,  the site is kinda shit xD (but it shouldn't  matter, im also not in UK ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 

[Biohazard777]

7 hours ago, Vilacom said:

So the argument only exists in exactly this context, if I said I hated how this grocery chain was doing their checkout or required me to make a profile for their customer database so I just walked out of the store with a cart full of food no one would bat an eye if I ended up in legal trouble or would tell me too bad then you'll have to go to another store.  

That analogy... eh it needs some work.

For it to be a bit closer to reality, the grocery store needs to:
1) Already create a profile about you, with or without your consent.
So you aren't waking out of there (paying for the food or not) without them having a detailed profile about you and everyone you know.
2) Have a way to monetize that data.
3) The grocery store needs to be pretty much a monopoly. Good luck shopping elsewhere, most of the items you seek are only sold there.
- Do you still believe absolutely no one would care if you got into legal trouble if you stole from a store like that?

And here is another question for you:
- Do you honestly believe Google is incapable of not serving content to people with ad-blockers enabled?

 

5 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

What i don't get from all of this is why is no one using the path of least resistance - VPN and Indian premium subscription. It's ~$1.55 month and i have been using it for well over 3 years now. I think Argentina even in some months dips below $1, but the price deviations there are wild. Why are people trying to swim against the current, instead of calmly turning on their back and steadily move left or right towards the shore? It's braindead easy, it takes less than 2 minutes and i still don't have a clue why is no one using it. I get it when we are talking about non-tech-savy people, but in PC enthusiasts forums ??!?!? C'mon guys... It's basically like pressing "I am 18 or over" when you are actually 17 and on a site that requires basic age confirmation. 

IMO

Tech-savviness has little to do with it.
Rarely anyone uses regional pricing loopholes because people are either:
- all in on ad blocking, which works fine
- paying full price, because they see it as "the right thing to do"
It is also the reason why threads like these get so many replies, it becomes a matter of principles / core beliefs for some of the members.

[Sauron]

On 11/17/2023 at 12:34 PM, taekononomiya said:

i feel that im being gaslighted.

• your ublock has blocked all ads.
• mine has never blocked pre-roll ads.
• others are claiming that youtube is blocking their ublock extension.
  • this claim includes that it's being rolled out to different regions and that's why i haven't (yet) gotten the youtube "turn off your adblocker" notice. 

Could be a regional thing, not sure. As far as I know ublock's objective is to continue blocking everything, it's possible that in some regions youtube is partially blocking its preroll ads filters.

18 hours ago, Vilacom said:

Obviously its not your obligation to make it a profitable business venture, but the idea that just because you don't like how distribution/monetization is being handled means you can just bypass the way those platforms are making money...i mean it only works because in this particular form factor(a website) there can be ways to trivially(for now) bypass those monetization practices and still enjoy the full functionality and experience that's intended.  Basically everything else you have to actually give up the service or item you're upset about.

I may very well just give up on watching youtube if blocking ads becomes impossible; in its current state I consider it unusable without adblockers.

 

Even if youtube can't reliably run off of direct investment/donations or things like business licenses for companies that use it professionally (going back to the idea that if your business relies on youtube and you upload hundreds of gigs a month to the platform maybe you should be on the hook to pay for the hosting) and MUST provide ads to allow for free access that doesn't automatically mean that any amount of ads in any form are acceptable.

 

If the choice given is to use the platform with constant, intrusive and unbearable ads or pay them upfront that's barely even a choice... except in this case there's the third, completely legal option of locally blocking the ads. The ball is in youtube's court to give me a reason not to pick the third option, and if that reason is that the third option is blocked but the other two aren't made better then I'll just leave. Which I suspect is why youtube didn't just outright paywall the site; if they did they would lose a lot of traffic and they know it. Keep in mind that applying this reasoning to every website would mean users would need to pay dozens if not hundreds of subscription fees OR deal with a degraded and insufferable browsing experience.

 

I see watching ads the same way I see donations through something like patreon; if you want to do it that's great and it helps keep the whole thing running, but to me there's no moral (let alone legal) obligation to do it for any given platform or creator.

 

You guys also aren't addressing my observation that tracking ad views is insane and also the only reason blocking them is a problem for anyone involved.

18 hours ago, Vilacom said:

Charging for video storage is certainly something that will likely be considered at some point, but that would really hurt the real overall value of youtube, which far from being the 1-2% of videos released by major channels and mostly comes from non monetized content that probably never breaks 100k views.  Quick little repair videos, educational content, entire MIT courses available for free.  

Simply divide the cost among those who do make money from their videos. Or heck, allow people to paywall their own content if they really want to make money from me seeing it and use revenue from that to fund the free part of the site. Once again, given how youtube's popularity entirely comes from initially being a free haven for informative and free content with very few ads I don't feel in the least bit bad about expecting it to remain that way or perish. Another option is to nationalize it, maybe through a consortium of various nations since at this point it's close to a public utility. Keep the paywalled part private if they want and seize the free informational stuff to be hosted in perpetuity by an international fund.

16 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

What i don't get from all of this is why is no one using the path of least resistance - VPN and Indian premium subscription. It's ~$1.55 month and i have been using it for well over 3 years now. I think Argentina even in some months dips below $1, but the price deviations there are wild. Why are people trying to swim against the current, instead of calmly turning on their back and steadily move left or right towards the shore? It's braindead easy, it takes less than 2 minutes and i still don't have a clue why is no one using it. I get it when we are talking about non-tech-savy people, but in PC enthusiasts forums ??!?!? C'mon guys... It's basically like pressing "I am 18 or over" when you are actually 17 and on a site that requires basic age confirmation. 

Why would I pay for a VPN and the youtube subscription, albeit at a discount, when I can block ads for free? Your solution is probably illegal too.

23 hours ago, Neroon said:

The point is, if LMG controls the ads they are showing, then the ad is as safe as anything else on this site.

The best adblockers also block generic malicious content. There are ways to detect malicious activity from a website even if that activity is not coming from something that's considered an ad.

23 hours ago, Neroon said:

If sites place ads in a way that are too intrusive, then you can just stop using them.

Or I can block the ads.

23 hours ago, Neroon said:

You still don't get it. Someone is still paying for that free stuff. Just because you and I place these messages for free, doesn't mean this site is free. Free for us? Yes. Free for LMG? No. Now how do you think LMG gets the money to run this site? Do you get it now?

LMG has stated multiple times this forum isn't a for profit endeavor and while they use the (very few) ads on here to help pay for its hosting I think they'd keep it going out of pocket if they had to. While not directly profitable, the community this site services absolutely helps LMG make money overall.

 

Don't get me wrong, the ads on here being static banners and having the direct stated purpose of funding this forum are good enough reasons to convince me not to block them; that doesn't mean I feel any obligation to.

23 hours ago, Neroon said:

Btw has your mother ever told you to close the damn door because heating isn't free, or turn your lights off? Yeah you didn't have to pay for it, but she did.

I don't recall my mother asking me to watch an ad to pay for the heating when I was a kid...

[Vilacom]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

Simply divide the cost among those who do make money from their videos. Or heck, allow people to paywall their own content if they really want to make money from me seeing it and use revenue from that to fund the free part of the site. Once again, given how youtube's popularity entirely comes from initially being a free haven for informative and free content with very few ads I don't feel in the least bit bad about expecting it to remain that way or perish. Another option is to nationalize it, maybe through a consortium of various nations since at this point it's close to a public utility. Keep the paywalled part private if they want and seize the free informational stuff to be hosted in perpetuity by an international fund.

There is no world where YouTube stays funded by charging the channels that make money, once again 5 billion operating budget, if you divided it evenly over all the channels with 250,000 subscribers then each channel would be responsible for nearly $115,000 in operating costs.  A typical 250,000 sub channel seems to bring in around 70-80 thousand a year, so thats all them dead, thats how it comes out basically no matter what breakpoint you want.  All the smaller channels will cost more to exist than they bring in, which means they stop existing, which makes the pool smaller to spread the cost over, which means more channels go away, etc etc etc. 

The government run option is honestly probably the best on funding wise, but good god the number of things that then have to be worked out with regards to how moderation works.  Like if the US government is involved they basically cant do any moderation, which cant be the case.f


What I do find incredibly fascinating about your and many others argument is this idea that YouTube doesn’t have the right to change how it monetizes its site and when it tries to you just can bypass while telling them that if thats what they want to do then they should just go out of business.  It’s so wild to me that people like yourself seem to think that it’s you who gets to dictate how you interact with their platform and not them.  Truly wild, ah well, maybe if they actually figure out how to stop ad blockers for good we’ll see some actual change if people like yourself are actually serious about leaving the platform. 

 

[Sauron]

21 minutes ago, Vilacom said:

What I do find incredibly fascinating about your and many others argument is this idea that YouTube doesn’t have the right to change how it monetizes its site and when it tries to you just can bypass while telling them that if thats what they want to do then they should just go out of business.  It’s so wild to me that people like yourself seem to think that it’s you who gets to dictate how you interact with their platform and not them.

Actually it seems to me that it's you and youtube that insist on dictating what I do and don't download and view on my system in my free time. There's nothing illegal in selectively blocking content on a publicly available web page and insisting that I sit through an ad is an egregious level of intrusion in my behavior. No other form of advertisement works like this. If you sell an ad on a television program you get paid the same regardless of whether individual viewers change channel during the ad. If you buy a billboard you have to pay for it regardless of how many people actually turn their heads to stare at it. But for some reason if you buy an ad on the web you now feel entitled to proof that my eyeballs have been exposed to it...

 

You also keep acting as though people using ad blockers will inevitably lead to youtube going broke, which is evidently not true; people have been blocking ads for years and youtube regularly turns a profit nonetheless. In truth we're not arguing about whether youtube's entitled to make money to keep itself afloat and maybe make a small profit but rather about whether youtube's entitled to make even more than their already sizable profit by demanding that I stop doing something that's perfectly legal.

26 minutes ago, Vilacom said:

Truly wild, ah well, maybe if they actually figure out how to stop ad blockers for good we’ll see some actual change if people like yourself are actually serious about leaving the platform.

So far it seems like a lost cause. From a technical perspective it's almost impossible to detect all possible forms of ad blocking without installing DRM software on your computer. Maybe one day it will come to that but I doubt people would react kindly. Either way if and when the time comes I assure you there are other things I will be able to dedicate my time to without having my eyes bleed for the 6th unskippable midroll ad.

[Neroon]

5 hours ago, Sauron said:

The best adblockers also block generic malicious content. There are ways to detect malicious activity from a website even if that activity is not coming from something that's considered an ad.

Or I can block the ads.

LMG has stated multiple times this forum isn't a for profit endeavor and while they use the (very few) ads on here to help pay for its hosting I think they'd keep it going out of pocket if they had to. While not directly profitable, the community this site services absolutely helps LMG make money overall.

 

Don't get me wrong, the ads on here being static banners and having the direct stated purpose of funding this forum are good enough reasons to convince me not to block them; that doesn't mean I feel any obligation to.

I don't recall my mother asking me to watch an ad to pay for the heating when I was a kid...

We are talking about them being actively malicious. They could do a ton without any adblocker knowing.

 

Well that's new to me, like I said, I use adblockers on all my devices so I never knew this forum had ads.

 

I don't disagree that the forum has benefits that can very well end up being profitable. That said though, how does the forum make them money? Creates a community, gives them input, which they use to build their channels which gets to turn a profit by... well you guessed it by now, using ads.

Bottomline is that LMG costs a ton of money, the community is vital for their success, them investing in that community is very smart. But at the end of the day, all of it relies on getting money in, and that's mainly done through ads.

 

Yeah that was exactly my point... but to follow up on your wiseass comment. If parents spend more on the gasbill, there is less money to spend on things like Youtube Premium. So maybe kids will end up watching more ads because they are wasting their parents money by leaving the door open.

[BotDamian]

Yeah, imagine being a teen not knowing how to help someone and researching on YT, idk can be about a dog, a person having a sezure etc.

Then instead you watch 2x 20s ads that you can't skip and if they end, they sometimes have this where you MUST press continue or after like 5-10s it plays again some ads.

YT used to do like 1x 10-15s ads before a video then 1-2 extra ads in a 10min video... now a 3min video has 3 ads...

[Soukamoshirenai]

2 minutes ago, BotDamian said:

Yeah, imagine being a teen not knowing how to help someone and researching on YT, idk can be about a dog, a person having a sezure etc.

Then instead you watch 2x 20s ads that you can't skip and if they end, they sometimes have this where you MUST press continue or after like 5-10s it plays again some ads.

YT used to do like 1x 10-15s ads before a video then 1-2 extra ads in a 10min video... now a 3min video has 3 ads...

The right move is to always call 911 or take your dog to the veterinary. A person is having a seizure and you want to watch a YouTube video? What the heck am I reading, what unhinged timeline is this. 

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, Neroon said:

We are talking about them being actively malicious. They could do a ton without any adblocker knowing.

If LMG decided to use a zero day or something on this forum they'd be directly liable for it. We all know who they are. Not so with random ad rolls. The likelihood of anything threatening making its way into your computer is vastly lower if you block ads. And almost 0 if you just block javascript, which for many websites (though of course not youtube) doesn't really make the browsing experience any worse.

8 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Well that's new to me, like I said, I use adblockers on all my devices so I never knew this forum had ads.

Admittedly they barely even register

Spoiler

9 minutes ago, Neroon said:

I don't disagree that the forum has benefits that can very well end up being profitable. That said though, how does the forum make them money? Creates a community, gives them input, which they use to build their channels which gets to turn a profit by... well you guessed it by now, using ads.

Bottomline is that LMG costs a ton of money, the community is vital for their success, them investing in that community is very smart. But at the end of the day, all of it relies on getting money in, and that's mainly done through ads.

Ads that notably do not require me to sit through them to make them money. Me watching the video indirectly contributes to them being able to get those ads in the first place of course but other than that, as far as I know, the sponsor spots we see in LTT videos are entirely paid for in advance and that doesn't change if I, say, skip the segment (with or without the use of an extension that does it automatically...). There's also the merchandise.

13 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Yeah that was exactly my point... but to follow up on your wiseass comment. If parents spend more on the gasbill, there is less money to spend on things like Youtube Premium. So maybe kids will end up watching more ads because they are wasting their parents money by leaving the door open.

Not if they know about ublock origin

 

Also on a more serious note I don't think there's any equivalence between trying to save household resources and wasting your free time so some megacorp can make an extra $0.001 they don't need.

10 minutes ago, BotDamian said:

Yeah, imagine being a teen not knowing how to help someone and researching on YT, idk can be about a dog, a person having a sezure etc.

Then instead you watch 2x 20s ads that you can't skip and if they end, they sometimes have this where you MUST press continue or after like 5-10s it plays again some ads.

YT used to do like 1x 10-15s ads before a video then 1-2 extra ads in a 10min video... now a 3min video has 3 ads...

To be fair that kid should probably be calling emergency services first

8 minutes ago, taekononomiya said:

The right move is to always call 911 or take your dog to the veterinary. A person is having a seizure and you want to watch a YouTube video? What the heck am I reading, what unhinged timeline is this. 

While of course you should just call 911, in the meantime you could be wasting precious time or do something that makes the situation worse if you don't have quick access to information. There can also be situations where you might need information quickly that don't require calling 911...

[Vilacom]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

Actually it seems to me that it's you and youtube that insist on dictating what I do and don't download and view on my system in my free time. There's nothing illegal in selectively blocking content on a publicly available web page and insisting that I sit through an ad is an egregious level of intrusion in my behavior. No other form of advertisement works like this. If you sell an ad on a television program you get paid the same regardless of whether individual viewers change channel during the ad. If you buy a billboard you have to pay for it regardless of how many people actually turn their heads to stare at it. But for some reason if you buy an ad on the web you now feel entitled to proof that my eyeballs have been exposed to it...

 

You also keep acting as though people using ad blockers will inevitably lead to youtube going broke, which is evidently not true; people have been blocking ads for years and youtube regularly turns a profit nonetheless. In truth we're not arguing about whether youtube's entitled to make money to keep itself afloat and maybe make a small profit but rather about whether youtube's entitled to make even more than their already sizable profit by demanding that I stop doing something that's perfectly legal.

Go broke?  No not at all, youtube wont go broke thats silly, but it absolutely can get to where its not bringing in enough profit to justify the time and manpower to keep running.  If the profit goes below what the company spends on it(ie, that 5 billion worth of pure operating budget) which means they will make more profit by simply shutting it down and firing everyone for long enough then they will just let it go.  They're almost obligated to at that point to their shareholders.  

Your(and most people's) comparison to TV or Billboards just doesn't hold water.  For an ad to run on TV or be put up on a billboard the TV station or Billboard owner are paid in advance.  If you change the channel, get up for a bathroom run, avert your eyes and refuse to look in the general direction of the billboard.  That's all fine, the person who has sold that space already got paid.  The advertisers are looking at data for potential audience size/demographic or the number of cars the routinely drive past that area and calculating the fact that while some people will be like you and go out of your way to not look at a billboard they have a pretty good idea of the number that will look at it and how much business they could get from that.  Also sure you might not look at ALL billboards, and you might change the channel for SOME ad breaks, but the reality is with TV programming the way it is you'll probably just pull your phone out and look at something while the ads play in the background so they still get some exposure, or just sit and watch them because there's nothing else on or you just dont want to put in the effort of reaching for the controller, getting up to go eat something, etc.

YouTube is different obviously because when you block the ad no one gets paid at all, and with how ad blockers work you block them all 100% of the time with zero effort on your part.  So long as you have an ad blocker easily available and working they literally will never make anything from you ever but you get almost an identical experience as a paying customer and they still expend resources serving you video.  It's kind of the best possible scenario for them if they can drive you off the platform.  You're not willing to pay so if they can get rid of you then you're less of a drain on their resources.  Boom, win for them.  

 

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, Vilacom said:

  It's kind of the best possible scenario for them if they can drive you off the platform. 

But they aint doing that. Many people will just keep looking for solutions to block ads. Honestly YouTubes only recourse is to force people to have an account and make them pay for service like 98% of all other streaming services. Hell many streaming services no only require you to pay for service but have ads as well. YouTube is never going to get rid of ad blocker users as long as they have a free tier and access without an account.

 

If YouTube goes to a pay only site, how many would actually sign up?

[Biohazard777]

32 minutes ago, Vilacom said:

So long as you have an ad blocker easily available and working they literally will never make anything from you ever

You sure about that? 

[Vilacom]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

But they aint doing that. Many people will just keep looking for solutions to block ads. Honestly YouTubes only recourse is to force people to have an account and make them pay for service like 98% of all other streaming services. Hell many streaming services no only require you to pay for service but have ads as well. YouTube is never going to get rid of ad blocker users as long as they have a free tier and access without an account.

 

If YouTube goes to a pay only site, how many would actually sign up?

They wont go to a pay only site, clearly they make a lot from ads and that's the only way they can keep all the content that gets uploaded, going to an ad free pay model would require them to strictly limit uploads.  All the streaming services you're talking about only have exactly what they want on them, with ads, and a pay model, and they still dont seem to make money for the life of them. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Biohazard777 said:

You sure about that? 

Given they wont make any ad money, and its probably not an unreasonable assumption that a person going out of their way to use an ad blocker probably either uses one that prevents data collection/tracking yeah probably.  Maybe literally never is too strong of language but if i was making the pitch to youtube about it I would probably consider those customers a lost cause yeah

[Donut417]

7 minutes ago, Vilacom said:

All the streaming services you're talking about only have exactly what they want on them, with ads, and a pay model, and they still dont seem to make money for the life of them. 

They only started the ad + pay model. In fact I heard many earn more with the ad plans then they do with the costly ad free plans. It will likely take some time for them to start making profit, also I think Netflix does make profit.

8 minutes ago, Vilacom said:

They wont go to a pay only site, clearly they make a lot from ads and that's the only way they can keep all the content that gets uploaded, going to an ad free pay model would require them to strictly limit uploads. 

However the fact is their business model doesn't work. Its not the fault of the users on the site, its YouTubes fault for having a shitty business model. Because if they are not making profit or enough profit that just proves the model doesn't work. They think they can force users to turn off ad blocker. Did the DMCA or DRM prevent piracy? Fuck no, piracy still exists. Its pretty much the same with ad blockers, it will be an unending battle and will probably cost them more in the long term from fighting it.

[Biohazard777]

3 hours ago, Vilacom said:

Given they wont make any ad money, and its probably not an unreasonable assumption that a person going out of their way to use an ad blocker probably either uses one that prevents data collection/tracking yeah probably.  Maybe literally never is too strong of language but if i was making the pitch to youtube about it I would probably consider those customers a lost cause yeah

Never is one word, you coupled with another word: anything.

I wasn't thinking about occasional slip-ups (say when ad-block doesn't do its job on YT).

 

What I am getting at is that the transaction isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

It isn't just: ad served / premium on YT or not.

You can't detach YT from Google / Alphabet, as it is now they are at least getting:

- Big market share.

- Users with ad-blocks do share links, sending more people to their platform.

- Data. Which can and will be used/sold.

If I were to block every single ad on YT, that wouldn't make me immune to Google ads.

I'll still get them, in my news feed, or on a site I turned off ad blocking, or on Google Play, or on my smart TV, or in my Gmail app... And you can bet your ass those ads will make use of my YT watch / search history.

Even if I were to find a way to completely block every single ad by Google (on every platform)... They would still make something with my data.

 

Also, ad-blockers won't prevent data collection/tracking if I am signed in... 

Not that Google needs me to be signed in as much as say X or Instagram do, Google has far superior ways of collecting and tracking. 

 

[Vilacom]

2 hours ago, Biohazard777 said:

Never is one word, you coupled with another word: anything.

I wasn't thinking about occasional slip-ups (say when ad-block doesn't do its job on YT).

 

What I am getting at is that the transaction isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

It isn't just: ad served / premium on YT or not.

You can't detach YT from Google / Alphabet, as it is now they are at least getting:

- Big market share.

- Users with ad-blocks do share links, sending more people to their platform.

- Data. Which can and will be used/sold.

If I were to block every single ad on YT, that wouldn't make me immune to Google ads.

I'll still get them, in my news feed, or on a site I turned off ad blocking, or on Google Play, or on my smart TV, or in my Gmail app... And you can bet your ass those ads will make use of my YT watch / search history.

Even if I were to find a way to completely block every single ad by Google (on every platform)... They would still make something with my data.

 

Also, ad-blockers won't prevent data collection/tracking if I am signed in... 

Not that Google needs me to be signed in as much as say X or Instagram do, Google has far superior ways of collecting and tracking. 

 

Google might have ways of tracking and making money off of you despite your actions on YouTube, but ultimately YouTube needs to be able to justify its own existence inside google.  Even if youtube is profitable but only by a small amount and they think manpower and investment capital could be better spent elsewhere for a better return, then youtube goes away.

Like I said, it’s the pitch i would make to youtube about people who block ads, not necessarily to google. 

[Isuck Assimov]

On 11/16/2023 at 1:04 AM, taekononomiya said:

but these ad blocker people want to block every possible ad,

Based AF

[Sharkyx1]

On 11/15/2023 at 6:14 PM, Donut417 said:

I have had ads on Facebook try to give me malware. So yes in my eyes all ads are bad because these dumb fucks refuse to verify who they are selling ads to.

What do you mean exactly by this?

[Donut417]

Just now, Sharkyx1 said:

What do you mean exactly by this?

I go to Facebook.com and I get attack by malware. Its well known that ads can be loaded with a malicious package. I know it getting attacked by malware because my anti virus was bitching the whole time.

[Sharkyx1]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

I go to Facebook.com and I get attack by malware. Its well known that ads can be loaded with a malicious package. I know it getting attacked by malware because my anti virus was bitching the whole time.

I have never experienced this kind of thing on any of my systems. Never seen a notification from anti virus either, but I'll take your word for it.

[TheLuciferPhenotype]

1 hour ago, Sharkyx1 said:

I have never experienced this kind of thing on any of my systems. Never seen a notification from anti virus either, but I'll take your word for it.

Thats because hes lying.

[Donut417]

9 minutes ago, TheLuciferPhenotype said:

Thats because hes lying.

What ever dude. I had my AV bitch about Facebook ads. If you want to trust that a billion dollar corporation to do the right thing, then dont use ad block. I wont be doing that cause Im not an idiot, I know these corporations who sell ads dont give a fuck, all they care about is money, pools of money.