3 ms·
jacques, I'm unsure what you mean exactly by the term "adwall"? --If it's something new, then I can't see it due to using an unusually restrictive browser. If y
by jcr 11y ago
jacques, I'm unsure what you mean exactly by the term "adwall"? --If it's something new, then I can't see it due to using an unusually restrictive browser. If you mean "paywalls" then, yes, they're annoying.
The paywall on Fortune.com is supposedly porous (i.e. there's a work-around somewhere or you wouldn't see their links on HN), but I completely ran out of shits to give and just never bother trying to visit their site.
I get tired of enabling/disabling cookies to read things on the New York Times, but I still do it occasionally to work around their porous paywall.
- dsr_ 11y agoAn adwall detects an adblocker and refuses to serve you the page you asked for until you turn it off or subscribe. There isn't a term for "detects adblocker and inserts a plea for subscription", but I don't think anyone is particularly upset by that, as long as the page is served.
- jcr 11y agoThank you. Wow. I haven't seen an "adwall" yet. Do you know of any example sites?
- dsr_ 11y agoSites seem to experiment with them and then turn them off after their traffic drops sufficiently. E.g. washingtonpost.com had one, but stopped. Forbes had one, then stopped. Ars Technica tried one for 12 hours, and stopped. The CW (www.cwtv.com) has one that pops up a few seconds after you start watching a television show that they offer you. The detect-and-plea approach sticks around longer: The Atlantic, The Guardian and Mother Jones all have those.
- jcr 11y agoThanks. I've seen "pleas" on a couple sites but it wasn't a matter of detection; it was just part the default page served which they'd overwrite when/if their advert scripts ran. Without javascript, cookies, or third-party stuff loading, all you get is the default html.