5 ms·

Another good reason to use ad-blockers. If I can't use your site with an ad-blocker then bye bye ... looking at you Forbes.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
I wonder why The Guardian isn't (at the time of writing) allowing comments on that article. Could it be because their business model has an over-reliance on people not using ad-blockers?
- philk10 11y ago
  maybe because it's an article and they usually only have comments on Opinion pieces?
  - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
    It's nowhere near that simple, unfortunately. They have comments enabled on many news stories. They moderate very heavily, and as a result use a complicated system whereby comments may or may not be enabled on a given article at a given point in time, depending on a) how 'controversial' the subject is b) moderator availability.
    - emodendroket 11y ago
      Well, considering the trash that tends to get posted on news sites you can't really blame them.
- CM30 11y ago
  Probably because the comments would make them look bad. That seems the general reason for a Guardian article having/not having comments. If they think the userbase are likely to agree with the writer they'll be on, and if they think the userbase is likely to eviscorate them (or in cases like this, talk about adblockers and stuff), then they'll turn them off.
  - Hoasi 11y ago
    Really? Selective commenting seems a terrible way to handle the matter if that's the case.
tallanvor 11y ago
Yes. It's funny how more and more sites act like it's morally wrong to block ads, but obviously aren't willing to do the work to protect their visitors from this sort of thing.
- JorgeGT 11y ago
  They could deal with advertisers themselves and manually approve and display text/image ads from their own domain (as it was done in printed newspapers), but isn't it easier to just leave a div+javascript and have the right of arbitrary code execution in a chunk of your page get auctioned off to the highest bidder by several shady ad network? Just go to www.bbc.com and look at what domains your ad-blocker denies: edigitalsurvey.com, chartbeat.com, googletagservices.com, scorecardresearch.com, effectivemeasure.net, iperceptions.com, krxd.net, optimizely.com... now imagine if your printed newspaper shot at you a GPS receiver with a mic, a cam, etc. Surely it wouldn't be morally wrong to duck and avoid that bug?
  - ballsohardy 11y ago
    Wouldn't this...(gasp) cost them more money? Going through html/css/js to make sure it isn't hiding anything sketchy in it is why these things make it into ad networks in the first place, and automated review is never perfect, as we see with Google Play and iOS stores. Content providers need to 1) Shut the fuck up 2) Write less clickbait and more high quality shit actually worth subscribing to
  - stevesearer 11y ago
    You're still susceptible to ad-blocking if you serve an plain image ad from your own domain though, which sucks for those of us who do it. If there is a way to alert users that you vet, self-serve, and don't use animated ads, I'd love to know about it :)
    - CaptSpify 11y ago
      Many sites have a "please don't block ads" notice. Could you notify users via that method? Obviously it wouldn't work 100% of the time, but it might yield interesting results.
e40 11y ago
If I can't use your site with an ad-blocker then bye bye ... looking at you Forbes. I can use it with uBlock Origin and the 3rd-party filter "Anti-Adblock Killer | Reek‎" turned on.
- parennoob 11y ago
  I know I can do this, but a) I like to limit the number of random extension I install on my browser. b) The fact that Forbes turned on an adblock-blocker shows me that they are seeing a significant revenue hit on account of adblocking, which will force them to do paywalled content sooner or later. I don't value Forbes content that much (in fact, it's often click-baity), so I'd like to wean myself off it sooner rather than later.
  - karlshea 11y ago
    For point a, it's not another extension, it's a list of filter rules you load in uBlock Origin like all of the others on its 3rd-party filters tab.
thinkcontext 11y ago
NYT just today pushed me to whitelist them on detecting adblocking.
sxcurry 11y ago
Fortunately, missing the Forbes site isn't a loss - might even be a positive in terms of information content!
teaneedz 11y ago
Yep. I haven't even attempted to click on a Forbes link (shared, or recommended) in ages. Any site that still serves interstitials also gets promptly sent to the pits of despair or dev/null.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago

I wonder why The Guardian isn't (at the time of writing) allowing comments on that article. Could it be because their business model has an over-reliance on people not using ad-blockers?

philk10 11y ago
maybe because it's an article and they usually only have comments on Opinion pieces?
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  It's nowhere near that simple, unfortunately. They have comments enabled on many news stories. They moderate very heavily, and as a result use a complicated system whereby comments may or may not be enabled on a given article at a given point in time, depending on a) how 'controversial' the subject is b) moderator availability.
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    Well, considering the trash that tends to get posted on news sites you can't really blame them.
CM30 11y ago
Probably because the comments would make them look bad. That seems the general reason for a Guardian article having/not having comments. If they think the userbase are likely to agree with the writer they'll be on, and if they think the userbase is likely to eviscorate them (or in cases like this, talk about adblockers and stuff), then they'll turn them off.
- Hoasi 11y ago
  Really? Selective commenting seems a terrible way to handle the matter if that's the case.

tallanvor 11y ago

Yes. It's funny how more and more sites act like it's morally wrong to block ads, but obviously aren't willing to do the work to protect their visitors from this sort of thing.

JorgeGT 11y ago
They could deal with advertisers themselves and manually approve and display text/image ads from their own domain (as it was done in printed newspapers), but isn't it easier to just leave a div+javascript and have the right of arbitrary code execution in a chunk of your page get auctioned off to the highest bidder by several shady ad network? Just go to www.bbc.com and look at what domains your ad-blocker denies: edigitalsurvey.com, chartbeat.com, googletagservices.com, scorecardresearch.com, effectivemeasure.net, iperceptions.com, krxd.net, optimizely.com... now imagine if your printed newspaper shot at you a GPS receiver with a mic, a cam, etc. Surely it wouldn't be morally wrong to duck and avoid that bug?
- ballsohardy 11y ago
  Wouldn't this...(gasp) cost them more money? Going through html/css/js to make sure it isn't hiding anything sketchy in it is why these things make it into ad networks in the first place, and automated review is never perfect, as we see with Google Play and iOS stores. Content providers need to 1) Shut the fuck up 2) Write less clickbait and more high quality shit actually worth subscribing to
- stevesearer 11y ago
  You're still susceptible to ad-blocking if you serve an plain image ad from your own domain though, which sucks for those of us who do it. If there is a way to alert users that you vet, self-serve, and don't use animated ads, I'd love to know about it :)
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    Many sites have a "please don't block ads" notice. Could you notify users via that method? Obviously it wouldn't work 100% of the time, but it might yield interesting results.

e40 11y ago

If I can't use your site with an ad-blocker then bye bye ... looking at you Forbes. I can use it with uBlock Origin and the 3rd-party filter "Anti-Adblock Killer | Reek‎" turned on.

parennoob 11y ago
I know I can do this, but a) I like to limit the number of random extension I install on my browser. b) The fact that Forbes turned on an adblock-blocker shows me that they are seeing a significant revenue hit on account of adblocking, which will force them to do paywalled content sooner or later. I don't value Forbes content that much (in fact, it's often click-baity), so I'd like to wean myself off it sooner rather than later.
- karlshea 11y ago
  For point a, it's not another extension, it's a list of filter rules you load in uBlock Origin like all of the others on its 3rd-party filters tab.

thinkcontext 11y ago

NYT just today pushed me to whitelist them on detecting adblocking.

sxcurry 11y ago

Fortunately, missing the Forbes site isn't a loss - might even be a positive in terms of information content!

teaneedz 11y ago

Yep. I haven't even attempted to click on a Forbes link (shared, or recommended) in ages. Any site that still serves interstitials also gets promptly sent to the pits of despair or dev/null.