3 ms·
> The thing is, if you're using an ad blocker on all the time, how can you argue that your blocking something for a reason, if you haven't seen any ads yet ? A
by mcbits 10y ago
> The thing is, if you're using an ad blocker on all the time, how can you argue that your blocking something for a reason, if you haven't seen any ads yet ?
A few weeks ago, I was reading a long-form Guardian article (pretty sure it was linked from here) and it struck me that the page layout was super clean and readable. I wondered what it would look in its full ad-laden glory, so I disabled uBlock and refreshed the page. I was immediately redirected to a "Firefox needs an urgent security update!!" page that would have installed malware if I had run the script it was pushing. I hope they got paid handsomely for that first impression, because it was also the last.
If a site wants to advertise to me, they can embed a static image, hosted on their own server, and I may or may not click the link. "Ad networks" can go sit on a sharp stick. Maybe it can be leveraged to pry their head out.
- calferreira 10y agoFor me, that's the right way to do things.
- Doctor_Fegg 10y agoUnfortunately ad-blockers also block static images hosted on your own server. I run the community website for our small town. We have a (free) 'For sale' page where people can sell on/give away their unwanted goods, and upload pictures of them. It's enormously popular. Every month or two I get an email from someone saying they can't see the pictures that accompany the ads. "I can't see the ads." "Are you using an ad-blocker?" "Yes." "What do you think an ad-blocker does..."
- mcbits 10y agoYes, it wasn't clear, but I don't think ad blockers should be so agressive against harmless static ads. Being able to create custom rules should be enough. That was just an example of why I don't thinking browsing "shields down" by default is a valid option. Even the most reputable sites (and regardless of one's politics, the Guardian is reputable) are a minefield.