4 ms·

> Deliberately modifying sites like mine which are making a conscious effort to get us away from the very things about ads that led to ad blockers in the first

> Deliberately modifying sites like mine which are making a conscious effort to get us away from the very things about ads that led to ad blockers in the first place makes them part of the problem This is entirely disingenuous. Add-blockers aren't modifying sites like yours, they are allowing users to control what content their machines access and display. While it's silly for your single-line sponsored banner to be blocked, your complaint should be about easy-list, furthermore users are free to modify their lists to block the content that they want to block. If you will, uMatrix without configuration breaks plenty of reasonable sites and it takes some work to get everything working. And I'm definitely not going to stop using it while bloggers like you feel the need to serve me third-party Javascript assets which send my IP / usage information to a tracker. Edit: Would one of the at least three people that down-voted care to offer a comment?

FussyZeus 10y ago
I'm normally a very pro-blocker person but this story is shedding bad light on what is an important movement among Internet users in terms of protecting our investments and our safety. > This is entirely disingenuous. Add-blockers aren't modifying sites like yours, they are allowing users to control what content their machines access and display. When this blocker trend started it was because the ads in use were obstructive to the user experience, damaging to our machines and later on, using up our data plans for things we didn't intend to download. Trey's solution here is to provide a sponsor message that is tailored visually to the content it surrounds, is not intrusive to the UX, and is extremely lightweight (just a few bytes of text). If the blocking community insists this is fair game to block, then the publishers have no reason to even attempt working with us. There are a lot of scummy advertisers out there and very good reason to be paranoid, but we cannot use that as justification to throw someone else under the bus who is clearly trying to meet us in the middle.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > There are a lot of scummy advertisers out there and very good reason to be paranoid, but we cannot use that as justification to throw someone else under the bus who is clearly trying to meet us in the middle. I'm not throwing Troy under the bus, as a matter of fact uBlock has 'toggle cosmetic filtering for the site' and I've turned it off to allow this sponsor message to be shown. But I will note that Troy is still serving tracking code from his site and I have no intention to stop using an Add-blocker for his livelihood or anyone else's. Could the curated lists be improved? Yes, I conceded that position in my above post as well. But the whole-scale attack on 'Add-Blockers' by someone serving tracking code is, as I have said totally disingenuous. It's not about 'the level of intrusiveness' it's about 'my right to control what code/content is executed/displayed on my machine'.

FussyZeus 10y ago

I'm normally a very pro-blocker person but this story is shedding bad light on what is an important movement among Internet users in terms of protecting our investments and our safety. > This is entirely disingenuous. Add-blockers aren't modifying sites like yours, they are allowing users to control what content their machines access and display. When this blocker trend started it was because the ads in use were obstructive to the user experience, damaging to our machines and later on, using up our data plans for things we didn't intend to download. Trey's solution here is to provide a sponsor message that is tailored visually to the content it surrounds, is not intrusive to the UX, and is extremely lightweight (just a few bytes of text). If the blocking community insists this is fair game to block, then the publishers have no reason to even attempt working with us. There are a lot of scummy advertisers out there and very good reason to be paranoid, but we cannot use that as justification to throw someone else under the bus who is clearly trying to meet us in the middle.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> There are a lot of scummy advertisers out there and very good reason to be paranoid, but we cannot use that as justification to throw someone else under the bus who is clearly trying to meet us in the middle. I'm not throwing Troy under the bus, as a matter of fact uBlock has 'toggle cosmetic filtering for the site' and I've turned it off to allow this sponsor message to be shown. But I will note that Troy is still serving tracking code from his site and I have no intention to stop using an Add-blocker for his livelihood or anyone else's. Could the curated lists be improved? Yes, I conceded that position in my above post as well. But the whole-scale attack on 'Add-Blockers' by someone serving tracking code is, as I have said totally disingenuous. It's not about 'the level of intrusiveness' it's about 'my right to control what code/content is executed/displayed on my machine'.