9 ms·
Couldn't even read the article due to Wired's anti-adblock banner.
by aranw 11y ago
Couldn't even read the article due to Wired's anti-adblock banner.
- mordocai 11y agoublock origin appears to block/not trigger their banner
- Rumudiez 11y agoDitto for me
- anonbanker 11y agodoes that mean that it allows their ads/tracking? how is that better?
- skybrian 11y agoThey are teaching us to use incognito mode more often :-) (No cookies get saved, so it's a win as far as privacy goes.)
- aranw 11y agoI just tried disabling javascript for wired.com and actually found the experience of wired.com much nicer!
- roywiggins 11y agoNoScript and Self Destructing Cookies (firefox extension) makes the internet much better overall. The first handles all but the most aggressive paywalls (the really nasty ones use <meta refresh> inside noscript blocks). The second handles the sites that you've turned scripts on for, clearing their cookies as soon as you navigate away. Just whitelist the sites you want to stay logged in to. It's eye-opening how much of the internet relies on Javascript that you don't notice- and how much works totally fine.
- SAI_Peregrinus 11y agouMatrix is even better than NoScript in many ways. It blocks all cross-site requests aside from CSS and images by default, and can integrate with uBlock Origin to provide a visual indication of which requests are to known ad sites.
- abakker 11y agoIn my experience, most of these you can right click >view source and find the text there.
- tobltobs 11y agoWe know already that some people use a adblocker. We also know that some pages try to motivate people to disable those blockers. What, at least me, don't know is why some people still think they have to tell us that they use an adblocker. Or in other words what does your blurb has to do with the content of this article.
- philovivero 11y agoThe point of the blurb is that the contents of the article are invisible, which makes discussion about the content of the article difficult.
- tobltobs 11y agoYes, sure. Invisible like an ostrich who sticks his head into the ground.
- oh_sigh 11y agoThe contents of the article is invisible to anyone who blocks outgoing connections to domains ending in "d.com" as well. That doesn't mean that people discussing the article need to hear about how you can't read it.
- bithive123 11y agoIndeed. The appropriate response when someone renders their own site unusable is to close the tab and go on about your day. Hopefully their analytics tools will help them refine their design.
- JohnTHaller 11y agoIf they use 3rd party analytics tools, you're already invisible to them and don't matter.
- paulryanrogers 11y agoResources consumed by non-subscriber blockers do increase their costs.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- titzer 11y agoPersonally I use an adblocker and got the door slammed in my face as well. I found it frustrating but closed the tab and went about my business. Trouble is, this is allowing this very non-webby behavior to normalize itself. There should be a backlash against this idiotic adblocking-blocking, I'm just not sure what form it should take.
- ack 11y agoGoogle translate -> choose random language -> show original.
- philovivero 11y agoInteresting. I get the same banner, but I'm running an anti-malware installer script. Maybe I should upgrade to one that downloads their malware then just /dev/nulls it.
- tghw 11y agoWhile I also use an ad blocker, it seems odd to be upset that they block you from viewing their site. You've (we've) decided that you (we) don't want their ads. They've decided they don't want readers who don't take their ads. Seems fair.
- cgriswald 11y agoI've reread the GP post several times and I am only seeing a stated fact, not evidence of any specific emotion. The GP might be upset, but his post is sparse enough that his point isn't really clear. While the post doesn't add much to the discussion, neither does a non sequitur about fairness or using pronouns in weird, parenthetical ways. But I find some value in the GP post. It tells us that Wired is taking an active stance against ad blockers. This information can be used when considering sources for submission or deciding whether to click a link. Many of the responses to the GP provide value as well by shedding light on which ad blockers are more effective and/or are triggering the issue.
- charonn0 11y agoWhat is "GP"?
- predakanga 11y agoGrandparent - the comment two posts up
- tobltobs 11y agoProblem is: There a thousands of comments like this on HN. They do not have any entropy anymore. It is just an expression of being upset for this "discrimination".
- simoncion 11y agoThing is, Wired's ad-blocking door slam appears to be triggered by Firefox's anti-tracking protections built into its Privacy Browsing mode. So, this is a really shitty false positive for Wired's system.
- mmastrac 11y agoLuckily the "Reader" icon in Firefox fixes that.
- newman314 11y agoReader in Safari works too.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- oniMaker 11y agoYou can defeat their ad-blocker blocker by disabling javascript. In Chrome, go to DevTools (CMD+Option+I). Press F1 for settings then check "Disable JavaScript" and reload the page. There are similar ways to do it in other browsers too.
- webreac 11y agoThe banner asks politely to disactivate the ad blocker. You just need to deactivate it on the page and you can read the article. You have a message of thank you. I think wired is very polite in its anti-adblocker policy.
- rlidwka 11y agoThe way to ask politely is to provide "close this popup" button at an easily accessible place. Saying "you can't view this content unless you register/disable adblock" is NEVER polite, no matter how many times you say "please".
- tobltobs 11y agoYou should never read a Terms of service. You would be shocked about the shortage of the word "please". And most upsetting is that there is no "Just let me ignore this!" button next to the "Accept" button.
- Dylan16807 11y ago>You would be shocked That's a very strange and unwarranted assumption.
- rlidwka 11y agoI've read a few. Admittedly, I've read ToS less times than I've clicked on "Accept" button. Nonetheless, there is an external "Just let me ignore this!" button here: http://bugmenot.com/ http://bugmenot.com/ It lets you bypass registration with the most extremely annoying websites, so you don't have to register. Or just keep your privacy, browse using TOR/VPN, and you can ignore ToS completely with no real-life consequences. Thankfully, the battle between users and lawyers usually favor former.
- CalRobert 11y agoI do believe they give you the option of paying to read their content even with an adblocker enabled.
- anonbanker 11y agoMore and more, I find myself using "Inspect Element" in Firefox to bypass ad blockers in order to read a page (or less!) of text. Today was no different.
- lioeters 11y agoI do this too, manually edit CSS on some sites to improve my reading experience. I do the same for removing fixed header menus that reduce the height of readable content. And sometimes fonts. Today I found an extension (on Chrome) that lets me keep my CSS changes per site - probably there's something similar for Firefox.
- GunboatDiplomat 11y agoSeems like my adblocker has anti-anti-adblocker functionality.
- Pxtl 11y agoI don't even run adblock and it triggered for me. If anything that convinced me to run adblock if they're going to punish me anyways.
- wallawe 11y agoIn chrome you can just open up dev tools, select an iphone emulator (6+ if you want the biggest screen), and refresh.
- tremon 11y agoNot a problem if you block all javascript.
- twobuy 11y agoWow this spawned lots of debate. For my part, I am far happier to temporarily disable an ad block, than to get the "5 articles per month" nonsense from the Economist or NYT.