[merry60]

One more time: we are not going to ban free filehosts. We are not going to put it to a vote, we don't need to. We have hundreds of pms with opinions and years of experience, as does a professional programmer whose opinion I'd like to share, with his permission:

A large percentage of computer users don't update their software because it's annoying and takes long and interrupts their Solitaire sessions. They click on things without checking what they are and where they're from. They don't read instructions and just jump to actions.

While I'm sure there are exploits capable of running malicious code on someone's computer without their approval, no one is going to waste those on a file host site. Such exploits are rare and expensive, and if you're going to use them, you'll use them where you can gain something (steal money and so on).

If you keep your browser up to date, and you're careful about clicking on shiny things, you'll be fine and nothing will happen.

The worst these sites do is leave a tracking cookie on your computer, and if you have an overzealous anti-virus, it'll raise hell like you're under invasion, when in fact, your browser is most likely already protecting you from its effects.

The really malicious stuff is hiding behind fake download buttons on file hosts, but then again, if you follow instructions, you'll avoid those. Besides, if it has a .exe or .dmg (on Mac) extension, then you know it's probably the wrong file.

Again, the user has to initiate both the download and the execution of those files.

Pop-ups are annoying. But that's all they are. And with a properly configured browser, you can't even see them most of the time.

[HenryBemis]

One more time: we are not going to ban free filehosts. We are not going to put it to a vote, we don't need to. We have hundreds of pms with opinions and years of experience, as does a professional programmer whose opinion I'd like to share, with his permission:

A large percentage of computer users don't update their software because it's annoying and takes long and interrupts their Solitaire sessions. They click on things without checking what they are and where they're from. They don't read instructions and just jump to actions.

While I'm sure there are exploits capable of running malicious code on someone's computer without their approval, no one is going to waste those on a file host site. Such exploits are rare and expensive, and if you're going to use them, you'll use them where you can gain something (steal money and so on).

If you keep your browser up to date, and you're careful about clicking on shiny things, you'll be fine and nothing will happen.

The worst these sites do is leave a tracking cookie on your computer, and if you have an overzealous anti-virus, it'll raise hell like you're under invasion, when in fact, your browser is most likely already protecting you from its effects.

The really malicious stuff is hiding behind fake download buttons on file hosts, but then again, if you follow instructions, you'll avoid those. Besides, if it has a .exe or .dmg (on Mac) extension, then you know it's probably the wrong file.

Again, the user has to initiate both the download and the execution of those files.

Pop-ups are annoying. But that's all they are. And with a properly configured browser, you can't even see them most of the time.

Again I dispute this claim. I have had sites like UL flood me with so many ads that the only recourse I have left is to restart my computer as the browser is locked from closing by these sites. n0tall0wed your opening putdown of us is unbecoming to say the least. I have a thirty year track record with computers going back to the Commodore64 in the 80's and know my way around computers. I personally find Ul to be a completely unacceptable risk and will NOT use it. This site is utterly unsafe and just because you come at us with this nonsense does not stop it from being true. As Merry60 has made abundantly clear that she will not do anything about this I am now done arguing this issue. I am not going to download from UL and anytime I see a sharer using it as a link I am going to note that and never Thank them for there stuff no matter the links they use in the future. I recommend other downloaders do the same.

[lohtse]

One more time: we are not going to ban free filehosts. We are not going to put it to a vote, we don't need to. We have hundreds of pms with opinions and years of experience, as does a professional programmer whose opinion I'd like to share, with his permission:

A large percentage of computer users don't update their software because it's annoying and takes long and interrupts their Solitaire sessions. They click on things without checking what they are and where they're from. They don't read instructions and just jump to actions.

While I'm sure there are exploits capable of running malicious code on someone's computer without their approval, no one is going to waste those on a file host site. Such exploits are rare and expensive, and if you're going to use them, you'll use them where you can gain something (steal money and so on).

If you keep your browser up to date, and you're careful about clicking on shiny things, you'll be fine and nothing will happen.

The worst these sites do is leave a tracking cookie on your computer, and if you have an overzealous anti-virus, it'll raise hell like you're under invasion, when in fact, your browser is most likely already protecting you from its effects.

The really malicious stuff is hiding behind fake download buttons on file hosts, but then again, if you follow instructions, you'll avoid those. Besides, if it has a .exe or .dmg (on Mac) extension, then you know it's probably the wrong file.

Again, the user has to initiate both the download and the execution of those files.

Pop-ups are annoying. But that's all they are. And with a properly configured browser, you can't even see them most of the time.

Again I dispute this claim. I have had sites like UL flood me with so many ads that the only recourse I have left is to restart my computer as the browser is locked from closing by these sites. n0tall0wed your opening putdown of us is unbecoming to say the least. I have a thirty year track record with computers going back to the Commodore64 in the 80's and know my way around computers. I personally find Ul to be a completely unacceptable risk and will NOT use it. This site is utterly unsafe and just because you come at us with this nonsense does not stop it from being true. As Merry60 has made abundantly clear that she will not do anything about this I am now done arguing this issue. I am not going to download from UL and anytime I see a sharer using it as a link I am going to note that and never Thank them for there stuff no matter the links they use in the future. I recommend other downloaders do the same.

Completely agree with Henry..

I have been using computers and PDA's since they came into general use.. PC's(first was a speccy 48k) for over 30years and my first PDA was a Psion 2.. And I certainly know may way around them and HOW TO UPDATE ETC.

The issue with the Host already mentioned are severe... Even the issues Henry has mentioned...

Just seems that The MODS have an oppinion and no matter what we say we are WRONG... I have been with Mobilism since the very early days before it was called mobilism and am shock at the stance and frankly abrupt treatment we now receive... Such a shame as this only attracts the WRONG type of uploaders and users.

I love Zippyshare and hate Hulkload. To be honest I don't upload - wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to / where to start, but I love browsing and have discovered some amazing authors I'd never have considered before.

[Anonyma'am]

The only host I have a problem with is uplod.to (?)

Get FreeRapid Downloader. Set your preferences. Use it. You will still have to enter typed captchas, but it bypasses the pop-ups, handles countdowns, and will usually restart your d/l should the connection be dropped. You just copy the link without going to the site.

Most posters provide 2 links and 99% of the time one of them will work with FRD.

Like HenryBemis (I miss him - why was he banned?), I skip any site that requires me to turn off my adblocker. Usually there's an alternative or I just let it go.

[merry60]

Like HenryBemis (I miss him - why was he banned?),

Depends on who you ask, I'm sure he'd say that we are just mean and biased and had it out for him, as he always did. Of course he was a model member and poster who never cheated and never broke the section rules or the site rules, and never insulted moderators and admins, and never attacked other members in private and in public, and never made mistakes deliberately, and never posted disgusting images or flaming posts, and never threatened the staff in varied and vitriolic ways. It's not like we didn't have to bear his shenanigans for years, not like he had several moderators on the brink of quitting, it's just that we enjoy banning exemplary members.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

[Anonyma'am]

Oh.
I'm so sorry, Merry. I didn't realize.

I miss his books though, you know? {shrug}

I've been watching and dealing with this for a while.

The problem is the business model for file hosts. Who pays for their services? Servers, bandwidth, and admin cost money that must come from somewhere. What the hosting sites really want is to get the money from user subscriptions, and make a thing about not seeing ads or waiting for downloads, and not getting throttled speeds if you purchase a subscription. If everything I wanted only ever got shared to one site, I might get a sub, but there are too many to make that practical.

The alternative source of funding is ads, so we get flooded with them.

My own preference is sites like Zippyshare, Tusfiles, and Solidfiles, largely because they are the least annoying to deal with.

The drawback, particularly for Zippyshare, is poor retention. Uploaded files get purged fairly quickly. Go to older Mobilism listings where Zippyshare is a file host, and likely, the file is already gone and you hope the mirror works.

UploadsTo and Hulkload are annoying to deal with, but files tend to still be there far longer.

I've given up on trying to block most ads on file sharing sites. I use Firefox with the uBlock Origin generalized blocker, (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/?src=ss) and used to run the NoScript addon that blocked scripting if the site wasn't in a white list. I finally dropped NoScript, because maintenance was an increasing pain. Popular commercial sites (and not just file sharing hosts) tend to source content from multiple external sites, and figuring out which to white list and which could be blocked so the site would work as desired was time consuming.

These days, I use uBlock and accept a certain amount of annoyance as the price of getting the files. Since levels of block can be specified by site, there's no need to unblock everything.

Pro Tip: If you use uBlock, look at what it is blocking on sites where downloads don't seem to work. Anti-adblock measures are normally provided by Cloudfront, and you'll see an assortment of Cloudfront links in uBlock. Allow those, and you may be able to get the files without unblocking the obvious ad servers.