7 ms·
Show HN: Pesky Adblock – Blocks site access to visitors without an adblocker
- na85 8y agoThis is the hero the web deserves. A web free of advertising and advertisers is a web free of for-profit privacy violations as a service.
- craftyguy 8y agoNow it becomes a cat/mouse game of for-profit privacy violations as a service, where individuals (like OP) are pitted against super rich companies. A more robust solution is probably required here.
- mirimir 8y agoI wonder if one could mess with programmatic-ad auctions by introducing infinite loops. Not from user space browsers, of course.
- flingo 8y agoI don't know if linking to ublock origin specifically, is the right call. I just did it because I prefer it, and I had to link to something. (otherwise it kind of screws non-technical people) Hopefully ublock lasts longer than this script does.
- kyledrake 8y agoMade something similar a while ago. It probably needs some tuning: https://kyledrake.net/adblockbar/ https://kyledrake.net/adblockbar/
- flingo 8y agoNice. Don't know how I feel about whether or not the script loads determining if you have adblock. Does mean you can't change the filename.
- cm2012 8y agoIsn't it hypocritical to annoy people into doing what you want them to do?
- arthev 8y agoBut the adblock-blockers requesting/requiring you to unblock are trying to annoy people into doing what they want as well :)
- yellowapple 8y agoThe difference, of course, being that an ad-blocker can block those :)
- mirimir 8y agoAh, but ad-blockers will block this as well :)
- genericid 8y agoIf someone decides against using an ad blocker, they can't mind being annoyed that much.
- paulcole 8y agoI don't use an adblocker because I don't like feeling like I'm taking something I'm not entitled to. I don't like most of the ads I see, but I understand why they're there and that they're the reason why I don't have to get out my credit card to visit the sites I like. Edit: Didn't realize that not being offended by ads was such a controversial opinion here.
- door3 8y ago> I don't use an adblocker because I don't like feeling like I'm taking something I'm not entitled to. ads are bad and pollute whatever space they are in. the internet would be much better without them. i would describe it as unethical to force someone to view an advertisement.
- erickhill 8y agoThis feels like a house of mirrors.
- shurcooL 8y agoThe adblocker I use is not visiting websites with annoying ads (much). High quality websites tend to not have them.
- meesterdude 8y agowhat websites of the highest quality do you visit that are light on ads?
- beefield 8y agoWikipedia, Hacker News, Stack Overflow and maybe The Economist come to my mind. (Been planning for a while to set up my work laptop to access only a whitelisted set of domains to avoid 1. Procastrination and 2. ads & tracking.)
- shurcooL 8y agogithub.com, godoc.org, gmail.com, golang.org, etc.
- rustler 8y agoWhy am I not using custom AdBlock filters to block pesky social media users? I need to go write a bunch of Mastodon filters now.
- mintplant 8y agoTangent: For anyone else curious about the host of this repository, GitGud.io, it's apparently a GitLab instance run by Sapphire [0], a network of websites affiliated with the GamerGate crowd. I'd mostly forgotten about that particular internet garbage fire until now. [0] https://sapphire.moe/ https://sapphire.moe/
- unethical_ban 8y agoBut more importantly: who gives a damn? And what source do you have, if someone did give a damn? The linked site only shows several open source products and services.
- woodruffw 8y ago> The linked site only shows several open source products and services. Clicking on the "Projects" link brings me to a page that includes racist epithets against Jews and Blacks. That's why I give a damn. Seeking out any service that aims particularly to shelter that kind of language speaks volumes to me about the author's character and state of mind.
- xj9 8y ago> speaks volumes to me about the author's character and state of mind. this is a source repo. the only relevant topic is the code. its free software so it honestly doesn't matter who the author is.
- pandasun 8y agoCurrent options: 1) Allow ads. 2) Block ads. (ea. uBlock Origin) 3) Block ad blocking users. (Javascript) 4) Block the block for ad blocking users. (Userscripts) 5) Block users who don't block ads. (Pesky Adblock) The only one missing is blocking the blockade for blocking users who don't block ads.
- std_throwaway 8y agoThere's another one: Block ads AND block sites who don't block users who block ads BUT don't block the block for ad blocking users. (about:blank)
- franciscop 8y agoThis is overkill. If you are asuming adblockers will remove anything with the id "adTeaser" (as per the code), just use that to display the message! No need for the "setTimeout" or even Javascript: <div id="adTeaser" style="position: absolute; z-index: 10000; ..."> Please turn on your <a href="https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#ublock-origin">ad blocker</a> to continue browsing this site </div>
- dmurray 8y agoThis would still show the rest of the page though. The JavaScript solution hides everything else by setting document.body.innerHTML.
- hawkice 8y agoYou can make it a modal and blur everything else out.
- franciscop 8y agoSure, my mistake. Flip that "position:absolute" for "position:fixed". Note how I wrote "z-index:..." to imply an element covering the whole page. Also note that activating your adblock does not disable the message in the OP, you'd also need to refresh the page since you are effectively removing the body.
- flingo 8y ago
- recursive 8y agoSo if I use a standards-compliant browser, I won't be able to see a site that uses this. So I guess I just won't. I also don't visit sites that run annoying ads. Congratulations on being annoying and not even getting money for it I guess.
- flingo 8y ago> So if I use a standards-compliant browser, I won't be able to see a site that uses this. Yes, that is the point. It is designed specifically to exclude people not using an adblocker.
- recursive 8y agoMaybe this is art, in which case, fair play. But otherwise it seems like a pointless purpose.
- stevefan1999 8y agoThis is a good weapon against the "overfluxing" Internet advertisement. Appreciate it.
- robbrown451 8y agoI'll admit this is funny, but.... I'm always curious what people are against ads would like the web to be. Paywalls everywhere? Micropayments?
- badsectoracula 8y agoThe cat who left the bag is probably dead by now, but i'd like most of the commercial aspect of the web to simply go away with the exception of paid services that i actually seek myself (e.g. i'm fine with the web allowing me to go to an eshop or egrocery to buy stuff, to a hosting provider to rent a server, to a game developer/publisher to buy games, etc). I'd also be fine with buying "magazines" in the form of ebooks (no annoying DRM though), be it per-issue or a subscription, assuming of course the content quality is better than what people would put out for free on their own time (but TBH i expect people would put out quality content for free anyway). I know some would say that this has been tried and it doesn't work, but this isn't really the case because it hasn't been tried in an Internet without alternatives so we don't really know how it'd pan out. I do not expect any of this to ever happen.
- robbrown451 8y agoYeah well I guess I'm not too excited about ideas which expect elimination of alternatives.
- Endy 8y agoNo, the Web I want is a free and open sharing of ideas and passion projects without all the added nonsense. It's fine if corporations have a limited presence, but frankly speaking, I believe we need to go back to Web 1.0. I'd have no problem with allowing non-Web walled-garden commercial services like Prodigy or AOL used to be. If you want to pay to be part of that (social) ecosystem, that's fine and you do you. For me, I want to be part of a free society of mutual benefit.
- ubernostrum 8y agoI run an ad blocker as a matter of security. Ad networks are routinely compromised and used to distribute malware, or else just don't bother filtering what "ads" they accept and end up distributing malware. I'm curious why you think I should accept that as a cost of browsing the web.