7 ms·
if ((!!window.opr && !!opr.addons) || !!window.opera || navigator.userAgent.indexOf(' OPR/') >= 0) { throw alert('your browser is not supported'); }
by yev 11y ago
if ((!!window.opr && !!opr.addons) || !!window.opera || navigator.userAgent.indexOf(' OPR/') >= 0) {
throw alert('your browser is not supported');
}
- akerro 11y agoI stopped using at least 4 websites which I followed for years just because they tried to enforce on me turning off PrivacyBadger and uBlock. It will hurt only you in long term. It's more important for me to use my browser then you website that doesn't respect my choices.
- reasonality 11y agoHow does it hurt them? You stopped leeching their bandwidth without any opportunity for them to earn any ad revenue from them! Allowing leeches on your website doesn't seem that beneficial.
- akerro 11y ago>You stopped leeching their bandwidth without any opportunity for them to earn any ad revenue from them! I stopped adding comments, starting discussions, I allow some non-intrusive ads when I enable them, I have quite extensive whitelist in ublock.
- jinst8gmi 11y agoA site which eventually has no visitors will become irrelevant. Those with ad blockers will also often share links to said site which others without ad blockers will click on. If you block me on your website there are many others who will no longer be clicking through via the links I would otherwise have shared.
- moonchrome 11y agoLet's say two sites, A and B host similar content. The end user cannot see some content on site A because of adblock detection but he can see it on site B, he down votes the link of site A on sharing networks, he asks for a policy banning or advocates against linking to site A because content can be found on B. I've seen this play out many times, and at that point you're not just losing traffic from ad block clients you're losing traffic overall, have people actively promote your competitors and earn a bad rep (and that rep might not even be objective - in general if people remember anything it will be "don't use A" not the "why" of it)
- jinst8gmi 11y agoPerhaps we should add [adwall] to links similar to the way we include [paywall]?
- eva1984 11y agoThis won't work once more and more sites join the adwall band.
- moonchrome 11y agoCartel members always have incentives to cheat - if one site can become popular by not ad-walling like 90% of them do and regurgitate the content of 90% they will do it and disregard "the big picture" especially considering the low barriers to entry. They have no enforcement mechanism to keep everyone honest - the only way this sort of thing works is if you "outlaw" non-ad-walled sites - something like google not listing those sites - otherwise not happening.
- eva1984 11y agoA restaurant cannot beat other restaurants by making its meal free to all.
- _Understated_ 11y agoNo, but it can by offering better service, better food, better decor etc.
- eva1984 11y agoBut customer needs to pay
- JulianMorrison 11y agoSomeone needs to pay in a society where a restaurant owner needs money to eat. But that someone doesn't have to be the customer, doesn't have to be every customer - and the economy might not be structured to require anyone to pay for things, in which case both the restaurant and the customers get everything without money. (Why would people work there? Maybe vocation or hospitality, maybe they wouldn't and robots would instead.)
- aw3c2 11y agoIs bandwidth anything remotely worth "protecting" in this day and age?
- aikah 11y agoWell as a user I might share a link to a site that will be seen by 100 or 1000's of others, on Facebook, Reddit or whatever social network. If that website blocks me from visiting them at first place, they will also loose all the potential revenue from the viral effect. Is it what you call a leech ?
- reasonality 11y agoYou're assuming the set of people who dislike ads and actively block them, intersects with the set of people who don't mind ads. I'm not convinced that's the case. They're usually quite different demographics.
- eva1984 11y agoBut your friends have larger chance also being ad blocker users, right? In the end, the website just get more requests and a bigger bill from ISP without getting a cent from those.
- Kiro 11y ago> It's more important for me to use my browser then you website that doesn't respect my choices. Likewise I have the right to reject you if you can't comply with my terms.
- nobodyshere 11y agoThing is, who loses in such a case?
- mhaehnel 11y agoWell played.
- akerro 11y agoMy father doesn't even know what web browser is he using. He doesn't know how to install different one. He doesn't have permission do it anyway. You will ban him, he will stop coming there and start going to competitors. Who is lost is such situation?
- threatofrain 11y agoOf course, and I believe that the sum of actors exercising fair play in a generally free space will result in interesting market and social configurations. In this case, I see internet content divided in half -- content for those who can pay for it, and content for those who can't. Not all websites should survive. Not all users should be able to experience everything on the internet. "You get what you pay for" is not wrong. Exclusivity can lead to quality.
- nobodyshere 11y agoSomething new will appear, like pirated news aggregators. Maybe hosted in tor.
- threatofrain 11y agoSure, and I say let the games go on. I am eager to see what emerges.
- reasonality 11y agoOr just hide and obfuscate the ads better. Getting past ad-blockers isn't exactly rocket science. This is an arms race which will not end well.
- threatofrain 11y agoWhatever end is reached, there's no intuitive or trending reason why it won't be any better or worse than not using ad + tracking blockers. The end result of any side winning is simply that they get what they want; it's not going to lead to some tragedy of the commons. Either advertisers get to track people or they don't. Either people get to block things or they don't. Once upon a time there was little attention to these things, and advertisers got to slurp up data en masse. That is still the case, just an inch less so today. Perhaps this is a bit cruel, but I believe in a divided web experience, one which is ad-supported and the masses browse and are tracked, the other which is curated, high signal, and directly paid for. Like with most things in life, you get what you have the leverage to get, and in general that means what you pay for. Scientific literature is run through this way, and I don't think they're hurting for ad revenue. I think exclusivity can protect quality. It's okay to have a paid-for news channel, and a free news channel for the masses, a paid-for Reddit, and a free Reddit. You get what you pay for.
- reasonality 11y agoWell clearly the experience for people not using ad blockers is substantially worse than it was 10 years ago. If the usage of ad blockers increases, you can bet that those not using ad blockers will be squeezed and exploited and have a thousand popups and intrusive ads thrown at them in order for the sites to recoup the lost money. So those using ad blockers are making the web worse for everyone.
- distances 11y agoI have no reason whatsoever to believe that the ads and popups would be less intrusive if there was a larger audience accepting them.
- 11y ago
- hathym 11y agoforbes did it, look what happened.
- distances 11y agoWell, what happened? I stopped visiting myself, but I have no idea what was the general reaction.
- digi_owl 11y agoSoon after they started, it was found that their ads were delivering malware...
- jacquesm 11y ago> I stopped visiting myself That's one data point that can give you an idea of what the general reaction was. Let's find some more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11258424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11258424
- jinst8gmi 11y agoNothing an in-place edit of the page source can't remove or a fake user-agent string can't work around.
- sergiotapia 11y agoPeople just stop using those sites, easy peasy. I've stopped browsing a few, and just close out sites that block me because I use ublock origin. No real loss to the consumer when almost every news story is syndicated and found elsewhere just as easily.
- dave2000 11y agoSpoof user agent for whitelisted sites. Your move.
- wimagguc 11y agoWebsites can try to block users with certain browsers or ad-blockers, but that's not going to work. With a very few exceptions, content is a commodity and portals are easily replaceable. Actually it feels like there are more people creating content than reading it these days. There is plenty of interesting content out there, so if people can't access something, they just move on to the next one and never return.
- JulianMorrison 11y agoOops, your script got eaten by the anti-adblock killer. Try again!
- jalfresi 11y agoPlenty more websites in the sea
- plorkyeran 11y agoA flashback to the 90s, when some websites blocked Opera because it had a built-in popup blocker.