New Browser Needed

I am with you 200%!

While you are at it, block all "cover-up" crap (usually to left or right of window and STAYS there even while scrolling desirable stuff in feeble attempt to read it. Most especially block the "cover-up" crap that covers most or all of what you wanted to see; some even "greys out" what you wanted to see and the "cover up" is in a box in the middle of the screen.

Maybe in background, send an anonymous e-mail saying "your spam has been forcefully PURGED".

Do not have any money as am Socially Insecure, but could pitch in (say) $25 per month.

I disagree with your implication that we HAVE to let the internet become worse. I do not believe what you say about the ISP "reasons" you cite; i do not KNOW the reasons any given ISP may have to drop their support of usenet; i think your citation is far from the real reason(s).

Check; I am using it more and more; much higher percentage of RELEVANT hits are shown.

I agree; it is all about money. TerrorGnuze used to have a free port (is that the correct term?) but they stopped feeding it and claimed there was server problems or some such. If one paid,the problems "mysteriously" disappeared. And they continue to claim they supported free. They lost me. I moved to theCubeNet; they DO charge, but the amount is dinky WRT my needs.

Didn't have the "bread" to feed it?

krw prodded the keyboard with:

True, probably not many...

I'm curious. Why do you doubt that the fact that virtually none of the customers want or even know what usenet is not a factor in dumping it? I was with RCN many years ago. Even though they offered usenet, it barely worked and support would do nothing when it wasn't working right. When I complained that I wasn't getting what I paid for, customer service denied that they even offered it as part of their package. They essentially said it was a freebie rather than part of the service.

Robert Baer prodded the keyboard with:

I certainly can't see it getting any better unless the users positively reject it, and that would take mass rejection of push advertising. It would take government intervention to do that. I doubt that the government has the appetite to take on big bussiness.

Hello Robert, No we don't have to let the internet become worse! (See my comment above)

My implication was that bussiness has taken advantage of users lack of understanding about the internet in order to use it as a global advertising medium. You only have to look at the piggybacking on social media.

:)

Business is about money. Grow up and get over it.

Well AOL lost ME at FIFTY FIVE BUCKS A MONTH.

Are they still in business or just an email provider now ? not that I care...

Sure they're in business. Perhaps you've heard of Time Warner? You fifty bucks was used well.

AMen, my father has TW, he loves it!

Thanks to all that contributed to AOL over the years :)

Jamie

You get what you pay for. The content producers have to get money from somewhere and pay per click advertising is part of the Faustian pact.

You don't have much alternative. You can block the servers or use filters to modify content on the fly to cull the advertising dross. But the corporate advertising gets ever more sophisticated year by year.

The main one is that Usenet has a very resource intensive distribution process that uses a lot of external bandwidth for articles most of which no-one will ever read. Dropping Usenet or outsourcing it is just about the first money saving optimisation that any large ISP makes.

Hardly anyone even knows about Usenet these days it is all about twits Tweeting away and Facebooking trivia. Google groups access is also a minority interest hidden well off the beaten track.

Web based content is so much easier to moneytize (horrid word).

Earthlink was like that ages ago. Basically, the problem with communicating with ISPs like this, is that the usenet group was completely different and virtually isolated (sometimes even physically isolated). And the comment "it was a freebie" was VERY close to the truth.

Using the web for gathering information about parts and technology or discussing about designs etc is actually fantastic; in my opinion today problems are elsewhere. Personally I deeply hate those cloud based design software that require you to surrender personal data and keep being online to be allowed to work with them. That's the dark side of the modern IT and it's bringing us back to the era when there was a single giant machine (mainframe then, now the cloud) and people connected through stupid terminals (now dumbed down PCs with browsers) that would become door stoppers if the server was down.

I noticed that after browsing a certain seller site associated with Google, every page I visited would have several banners touting the kind of wares I had been looking at, and often enough bought, so the banners were just an annoyance. So I went back to the site and had a gander at erotic lingerie and ladie's beachwear. The banners look a lot nicer now.

- YD.

Unfortunately, there's no systematic way that a browser can do that, since there's no fundamental difference between advertising content and the content you want.

At best, there's an arms race, where ad-hoc solutions are devised to address a current problem. But if those solutions achieve sufficient penetration, advertisers look for ways to bypass them. Then developers modify the solutions to address the by-pass, and so on.

Sylvia.

Too bad you are so late to wake up and feel the roses' thorns. And M$ is enthusiastically supporting this because there will be more income for them (storage fees, software fees, support fees, availability fees, and maybe fees on the fees).