3 ms·

I think we'll see more of this if adblock usage increases... if (user.usingAdBlock()) { showMessageTellingThemWhyItsBad(); ShowDonationOptions();

by axod 17y ago

I think we'll see more of this if adblock usage increases... if (user.usingAdBlock()) { showMessageTellingThemWhyItsBad(); ShowDonationOptions(); offerDegradedExperience(); }

MartinCron 17y ago
Absolutely. I've heard talk of some sites degrading entirely for users who are using adBlock. I would expect that to be met with a pretty harsh backlash, though. Even though it's a small minority of people who use adBlock, they are a vocal and persuasive minority.
- qeorge 17y ago
  That's pretty much what this article is about. ArsTechnica experimented with blocking their content to those using AdBlock, and this post is in response to the backlash.
- rick888 17y ago
  "I would expect that to be met with a pretty harsh backlash, though. Even though it's a small minority of people who use adBlock, they are a vocal and persuasive minority." So this group decides to block ads and when the content producers decide to degrade their content (which is their right), they get pissed? It sounds like a bunch of entitled kids. It reminds me of an article I read recently about the new generation of kids...
  - _delirium 17y ago
    It seems perfectly fair to me on all sides. It's the user's right to modify their browser to load/display only portions of content on their computer if they want; it's website providers' right to display users different content if they do so; and it's the users' right to avoid visiting and linking to the website if they do that. All sides come out having some reasonable points and some entitled-kids feeling IMO. In particular, the "wahh, my ads were blocked" websites sound a lot like the RIAA at times (though Ars avoids most of the more annoying rhetoric), attempting to blame someone else for the fact that their business model no longer works, instead of finding a new business model.
    - rick888 17y ago
      "All sides come out having some reasonable points and some entitled-kids feeling IMO. In particular, the "wahh, my ads were blocked" websites sound a lot like the RIAA at times" eventually, people will be saying "wahh..why do I have to pay for my favorite site..it used to be free". My problem isn't that ads are blocked. If you want to block a site's ads, this is fine. However, these adblockers are blocking ads on pretty much every site that uses them. Many ads are getting blocked on sites that the user has never even seen. How do you know that they are intrusive if you have never even seen the ads? "(though Ars avoids most of the more annoying rhetoric), attempting to blame someone else for the fact that their business model no longer works, instead of finding a new business model." If the majority if users coming to their site are using an adblocker, and they make their money on ads, it's the adblocker that is preventing them from making money, not the model. You may say that those people wouldn't have clicked on those ads, but many people I know installed an adblocker in their friends/family members computers. Those people don't even know that there are ads on many of the sites where they are blocked. If this trend continues,advertising will no longer be profitable, not because it doesn't work, but because it's being blocked.
tensor 17y ago
The problem with this is that in reality you will be missing the "ShowDonationOptions();" and the "offerDegradedExperience();" will be "offerNoExperience();". Plus, adblockers will likely find a way around "user.usingAdBlock()". Ultimately, you can't force someone to consume your propaganda unless you physically restrain them and pin their eyes open.
ximeng 17y ago
I definitely get a degraded experience from blocking ads. Missing content (e.g. images) and broken layout, and time spent having to work out how to block ads. But it's better than flashing pictures in the corner of the screen.

by axod 17y ago

I think we'll see more of this if adblock usage increases... if (user.usingAdBlock()) { showMessageTellingThemWhyItsBad(); ShowDonationOptions(); offerDegradedExperience(); }

MartinCron 17y ago

Absolutely. I've heard talk of some sites degrading entirely for users who are using adBlock. I would expect that to be met with a pretty harsh backlash, though. Even though it's a small minority of people who use adBlock, they are a vocal and persuasive minority.

qeorge 17y ago
That's pretty much what this article is about. ArsTechnica experimented with blocking their content to those using AdBlock, and this post is in response to the backlash.
rick888 17y ago
"I would expect that to be met with a pretty harsh backlash, though. Even though it's a small minority of people who use adBlock, they are a vocal and persuasive minority." So this group decides to block ads and when the content producers decide to degrade their content (which is their right), they get pissed? It sounds like a bunch of entitled kids. It reminds me of an article I read recently about the new generation of kids...
- _delirium 17y ago
  It seems perfectly fair to me on all sides. It's the user's right to modify their browser to load/display only portions of content on their computer if they want; it's website providers' right to display users different content if they do so; and it's the users' right to avoid visiting and linking to the website if they do that. All sides come out having some reasonable points and some entitled-kids feeling IMO. In particular, the "wahh, my ads were blocked" websites sound a lot like the RIAA at times (though Ars avoids most of the more annoying rhetoric), attempting to blame someone else for the fact that their business model no longer works, instead of finding a new business model.
  - rick888 17y ago
    "All sides come out having some reasonable points and some entitled-kids feeling IMO. In particular, the "wahh, my ads were blocked" websites sound a lot like the RIAA at times" eventually, people will be saying "wahh..why do I have to pay for my favorite site..it used to be free". My problem isn't that ads are blocked. If you want to block a site's ads, this is fine. However, these adblockers are blocking ads on pretty much every site that uses them. Many ads are getting blocked on sites that the user has never even seen. How do you know that they are intrusive if you have never even seen the ads? "(though Ars avoids most of the more annoying rhetoric), attempting to blame someone else for the fact that their business model no longer works, instead of finding a new business model." If the majority if users coming to their site are using an adblocker, and they make their money on ads, it's the adblocker that is preventing them from making money, not the model. You may say that those people wouldn't have clicked on those ads, but many people I know installed an adblocker in their friends/family members computers. Those people don't even know that there are ads on many of the sites where they are blocked. If this trend continues,advertising will no longer be profitable, not because it doesn't work, but because it's being blocked.

tensor 17y ago

The problem with this is that in reality you will be missing the "ShowDonationOptions();" and the "offerDegradedExperience();" will be "offerNoExperience();". Plus, adblockers will likely find a way around "user.usingAdBlock()". Ultimately, you can't force someone to consume your propaganda unless you physically restrain them and pin their eyes open.

ximeng 17y ago

I definitely get a degraded experience from blocking ads. Missing content (e.g. images) and broken layout, and time spent having to work out how to block ads. But it's better than flashing pictures in the corner of the screen.