4 ms·

Bloomberg adds adblock nag screen

16 points by the-dude 10y ago

daturkel 10y ago
Here's the note, if you didn't see it: [0] The "continue" button starts grayed out and becomes clickable after a five second countdown (with the number of seconds left shown next to the word "continue"). FWIW: I clicked OP's link with uBlock Origin active and still saw the message. I also noticed it yesterday when reading a Bloomberg story. [0]: http://i.imgur.com/A14cTsy.png http://i.imgur.com/A14cTsy.png
just_observing 10y ago
Was I meant to be blocked? Just clicked your link with uBlock Origin and uMatrix active and I went right to the site.
- executesorder66 10y ago
  uBlock Origin practically always blocks adblock-blockers. And keeps up to date with new ones almost as soon as they are released. In my experience every other adblocker lags behind by months, or does not even have this feature at all. I don't know why anyone would use another adblocker.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  I do get the block message with uBlock Origin. I don't have uMatrix installed though, perhaps that is blocking it?
rffn 10y ago
It says on the page that I should disable my adblocker because it might adversely affect the performance on Bloomberg.com and that I would have the best experience with Bloomberg.com without it. It is highly doubtful that any webpage gets better when I allow a flood of unwanted junk to be added. Usually it gets bloated, slower, insecure and hard to look at because of added animations. Apparently Bloomberg and I have quite a difference in understanding what the "best experience" with a web page could be...
- coldpie 10y ago
  Yeah. I'd be more sympathetic to this approach if they were honest instead of blatantly lying.
- tombrossman 10y ago
  I can confirm that the 'best experience' for browsing the site is with NoScript. The page loads lightning fast and I can read the stories and see the images just fine. If I need progressive enhancement I know how to selectively enable it. I see these stories about adblock detectors and so far they all seem to rely on JavaScript. JavaScript is great if it is adding a function or some content I want, but unfortunately that's not what usually happens. I think we've reached a tipping point recently where the relative annoyance of disabling Javascript is now less than the benefit of allowing it everywhere.
jasongill 10y ago
Is this really newsworthy? Sites do this sort of thing all the time - and Bloomberg.com is just barely in the Alexa global top 400 so it's probably not even the most popular site to do so.
- asdfologist 10y ago
  I'd bet among HN readers it ranks pretty high.
kecks 10y ago
I don't see it? I'm probably using the most aggressive blocking setup possible, though: I have a bunch of filter lists, I don't ever make exceptions to them, and instead deny all scripts and 3rd party resources, then graylist by hand (using the matrix).
Overtonwindow 10y ago
This is why I use Brave, all the website with none of the ads.

16 points by the-dude 10y ago

Here's the note, if you didn't see it: [0] The "continue" button starts grayed out and becomes clickable after a five second countdown (with the number of seconds left shown next to the word "continue"). FWIW: I clicked OP's link with uBlock Origin active and still saw the message. I also noticed it yesterday when reading a Bloomberg story. [0]: http://i.imgur.com/A14cTsy.png http://i.imgur.com/A14cTsy.png

just_observing 10y ago

Was I meant to be blocked? Just clicked your link with uBlock Origin and uMatrix active and I went right to the site.

executesorder66 10y ago
uBlock Origin practically always blocks adblock-blockers. And keeps up to date with new ones almost as soon as they are released. In my experience every other adblocker lags behind by months, or does not even have this feature at all. I don't know why anyone would use another adblocker.
Freak_NL 10y ago
I do get the block message with uBlock Origin. I don't have uMatrix installed though, perhaps that is blocking it?

rffn 10y ago

It says on the page that I should disable my adblocker because it might adversely affect the performance on Bloomberg.com and that I would have the best experience with Bloomberg.com without it. It is highly doubtful that any webpage gets better when I allow a flood of unwanted junk to be added. Usually it gets bloated, slower, insecure and hard to look at because of added animations. Apparently Bloomberg and I have quite a difference in understanding what the "best experience" with a web page could be...

coldpie 10y ago
Yeah. I'd be more sympathetic to this approach if they were honest instead of blatantly lying.
tombrossman 10y ago
I can confirm that the 'best experience' for browsing the site is with NoScript. The page loads lightning fast and I can read the stories and see the images just fine. If I need progressive enhancement I know how to selectively enable it. I see these stories about adblock detectors and so far they all seem to rely on JavaScript. JavaScript is great if it is adding a function or some content I want, but unfortunately that's not what usually happens. I think we've reached a tipping point recently where the relative annoyance of disabling Javascript is now less than the benefit of allowing it everywhere.

jasongill 10y ago

Is this really newsworthy? Sites do this sort of thing all the time - and Bloomberg.com is just barely in the Alexa global top 400 so it's probably not even the most popular site to do so.

asdfologist 10y ago
I'd bet among HN readers it ranks pretty high.

kecks 10y ago

I don't see it? I'm probably using the most aggressive blocking setup possible, though: I have a bunch of filter lists, I don't ever make exceptions to them, and instead deny all scripts and 3rd party resources, then graylist by hand (using the matrix).

Overtonwindow 10y ago

This is why I use Brave, all the website with none of the ads.