5 ms·
And so the cat and mouse game continues. That being said, ultimately as long as the user has control over what runs on their computer, they have control. Perio
by TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
And so the cat and mouse game continues.
That being said, ultimately as long as the user has control over what runs on their computer, they have control. Period. Things like this are doomed to failure.
- mbrownnyc 11y agoYes. I've just immediately not gone to a site that didn't load content because I was using an ad blocker. Your content has to be very worth it for me to disable my ad blocker.
- kuschku 11y agotime.com has that issue, and I just ended up writing a small userstyle to fix it.
- Animats 11y agoTime.com is so broken. They disable scroll, but their pages are longer than the screen height. It's so silly. Their pages are static.
- Zarel 11y agoIt's unclear why the website would care, since you're clearly not a revenue source for them.
- nicolewhite 11y agoI like what OkCupid does. If you have an ad blocker enabled, they explain in the space where an ad would normally be that while OkCupid is free, it runs on ad revenue, with a link to their donation page.
- gk1 11y agoThat's the purpose of this script (as I see it): Detect if an ad blocker is being used, and if so, display some custom message.
- joepie91_ 11y agoIf ads are the entirety of your revenue, then you're probably not running a healthy business to begin with.
- techer 11y agoSaid Google to the Facebook
- rdsnsca 11y agoLOL as if Google would last if they lost all their ad revenue.
- diyorgasms 11y agoI think parent's point was a play on "said the pot to the kettle". Neither business would be healthy if suddenly their ad revenue disappeared.
- monk_e_boy 11y agoEqually the user can't determine whether the site is of any value to them if they leave as soon as they see an advert. Some sites I go to are stores, who are trying to sell me stuff who also have auto playing adverts. Crazy but true.
- macns 11y agoa hit has value no matter what they choose to see.
- johnward 11y agoThat seems ok to. If a site is solely using ads for revenue and you choose not to see the ads then the site should be able to choose not to show you anything. The site will probably die eventually but it seems like that is fair. What doesn't seem fair to me is leaching add supported content.
- davidgerard 11y agoIf a site's deal is "my content is worth you risking malware", that would suggest it's pretty darn awesome content.
- oconnore 11y agoYup, http://i.imgur.com/waCmfM3.png http://i.imgur.com/waCmfM3.png
- SilasX 11y agoAnd as long as ads are syntactically indistinguishable from site content, they can't programatically block ads.
- oconnore 11y agoIf ad networks ever go out of style, ad blockers will combine sentiment analysis with a brand recognizer. Any content that promotes Tide Fabric Softener too heavily/at all will get squashed. This: http://jonathandub.in/cognizance/ http://jonathandub.in/cognizance/ will always be easier to do in the relatively constrained environment of the web.
- rblatz 11y agoWho is to say that the ad won't be jibberish to the computer? With web fonts you can make the screen say anything to humans while presenting very different text to the machine.
- TheLoneWolfling 11y agoAnd then the ad-blocker starts examining the screen itself with OCR as opposed to just fonts. Again, the cat and mouse game continues. And the ads cannot win while the user has control over their own computer.
- hollerith 11y ago-- which is one reason I disabled web fonts (by setting gfx.downloadable_fonts.enabled to false in about:config in Firefox).
- oconnore 11y agoYou didn't click on my link, did you?
- johnward 11y agoThis is why "content marketing" has grown so much in the past few years.
- jkot 11y agoYah, so now we will get DRM on webpages, dont give them ideas.