4 ms·

I use adblockers (ABP and Ghostery on desktop, Crystal on iOS) mostly to minimize annoyances: videos that play automatically, malicious redirects to the App Sto

by basseq 11y ago

I use adblockers (ABP and Ghostery on desktop, Crystal on iOS) mostly to minimize annoyances: videos that play automatically, malicious redirects to the App Store, multiple trackers that slow down browsing or suck down data. I'm not worried so much about safety (e.g., ads as a malware vector), but I know that happens. I don't have too much of an issue with data collection in of itself, unless a) the act of data collection impacts me (e.g., 1MB of tracking JS) or b) if your follow-on processes are sketchy and annoying (e.g., spam emails). I have explicitly unblocked pure analytics platforms (e.g., Google Analytics), trustworthy ad platforms (e.g., The Deck), and a few "site optimization" libraries because some sites don't work without them (shame on them). I totally get that ads are a revenue source. The problem is that you (as the publisher) need to convince me that your ad platform is trustworthy—not annoying or malicious. You have failed that test in the past and taken advantage of me as a consumer. So you now need to earn that trust back. It's not that I don't value your content, it's that I don't trust your infrastructure. (And yes, from my perspective, a third-party ad network is still your infrastructure because you've chosen to use it.)

basseq 11y ago
Wired is an example of publishers not "getting it". I get a big pop-up that reads "Here's The Thing With Ad Blockers". It goes on to say, "We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on. So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it." As a reader: I get it! I want to support you! Of course I'm not here for ads, but I don't care. I care about your malicious ad network—do you? You haven't proven that I can trust you to whitelist you, nor are you even showing that you know what my problem is. So no, you don't get the trust in a whitelist. I might pay for your content explicitly, but I'm not paying $52/yr when I can get a year-long physical subscription for $10. And, back to trust, I don't trust you with my CC number either. And finally: I have another channel! I can go get all the Wired content I want through Apple News, which is a) trustworthy, b) ad-free, and c) easy to use.
- sillywired 11y ago
  ... and can trivially bypass WIRED's pop-up by just disabling JavaScript in your browser (just 2 clicks Safari if you have Develop menu visible) after the page loads but before you scroll.

by basseq 11y ago

basseq 11y ago

Wired is an example of publishers not "getting it". I get a big pop-up that reads "Here's The Thing With Ad Blockers". It goes on to say, "We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on. So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it." As a reader: I get it! I want to support you! Of course I'm not here for ads, but I don't care. I care about your malicious ad network—do you? You haven't proven that I can trust you to whitelist you, nor are you even showing that you know what my problem is. So no, you don't get the trust in a whitelist. I might pay for your content explicitly, but I'm not paying $52/yr when I can get a year-long physical subscription for $10. And, back to trust, I don't trust you with my CC number either. And finally: I have another channel! I can go get all the Wired content I want through Apple News, which is a) trustworthy, b) ad-free, and c) easy to use.

sillywired 11y ago
... and can trivially bypass WIRED's pop-up by just disabling JavaScript in your browser (just 2 clicks Safari if you have Develop menu visible) after the page loads but before you scroll.