5 ms·
I'm really disappointed in rockpapershotgun.com's adblocker strategy. They make you click on "I'm a bad person" in order to continue without disabling adblocker
by dbelchamber 9y ago
I'm really disappointed in rockpapershotgun.com's adblocker strategy. They make you click on "I'm a bad person" in order to continue without disabling adblocker. While somewhat funny, I'm firmly on the side of ending bad ad implementation. The advertising industry needs to improve (I actually like the rare good ad), as most of them are trashy. Anyways, rant aside over.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y agoI take a complaint about adblocking as a sign that the creators of the website do not understand how the Web works. Users get to choose what web browser they use and configure it to show or hide any element that they want. If you want to force some specific layout, use a page description language and render the output yourself. Otherwise you're just signalling you're clueless about the medium you're publishing in.
- mod 9y agoI'm also convinced that they haven't thought it through very far. The type of user who wants ads blocked is highly unlikely to click on one, and has been done a great disservice if forced to view the ad. If the model is pay-per-impression, they are doing their advertisers a huge disservice (and will probably run impression value down to nothing). Either way, the site is behaving poorly and for no obvious benefit to itself.
- vskjlvew 9y ago> I'm also convinced that they haven't thought it through very far. The type of user who wants ads blocked is highly unlikely to click on one, and has been done a great disservice if forced to view the ad. No, they thought further than you. If they don't punish adblocking, they risk that eventually it becomes default in browsers, and then no one will see ads, not even those who would click on them.
- potta_coffee 9y agoAdblockers will become the default and sites that punish users will disappear.
- vskjlvew 9y agoI hope so, but I fear it's just a pipe dream. There's too much money involved.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 9y agoDoesn’t the same idea apply to the creators? They get to choose what content they serve, and they can make that content complain about whatever they want.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y agoWhere did I say they couldn't? I just take it as a sign they don't understand the medium.
- mikeash 9y agoSince both sides can do as they please, serving code that attempts to change behavior when advertising elements are blocked is no more a misunderstanding of the medium than using code in the client that attempts to block elements that look like advertising.
- blacktulip 9y agobrave (the browser) doesn't show this message as I tested. Safari + ublock will see the message.
- cholantesh 9y agoFirefox with uBlock does not display it either.
- touristtam 9y agoChromium + uBlock doesn't show it either.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- msla 9y agoI'm willing to admit that I'm a bad person for blocking their ads if they're willing to admit they're bad people for potentially exposing their own readers to malware shoved through an ad network they've chosen to do business with. But of course they won't do that. It is constitutionally impossible for anyone in their position to admit that malware comes through ad networks.
- izacus 9y agoIf you actually pay money for their content, the ads will (and malware in them) will stop.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y agoReally? Because last I checked they didn't. I'm a subscriber and I use uBlock and feel totally justified in doing so.