3 ms·
I occasionally go The Guardian's web site, and they displayed a nag say I should not be blocking their way of making money out of a non-subscriber. I thought "
by rstuart4133 7y ago
I occasionally go The Guardian's web site, and they displayed a nag say I should not be blocking their way of making money out of a non-subscriber. I thought "fair enough" and disabled my ad blocker. About 2 minutes later, which is what it took for their web site to load with the ad blocker off, I turned it back on again.
In the end solved my attack of the guilts by becoming a subscriber. However, I had no sympathy for them no getting money form ads. That was totally self inflicted. The ad blocker, the thing they were blaming, wasn't the problem. Without the ad blocker I would not be visiting their site at all.
- johnisgood 7y agoYeah, the load times without uMatrix and uBlock Origin are abysmal for A LOT of sites.
- Nextgrid 7y agoWhen I see a site that attempts to stalk me (even if my countermeasures manage to block it) the last thing I would do is to hand them my personal and billing details on a platter, give them money, and act as a "manual" tracking cookie by logging into my account every time I visit the website (to bypass the paywall). At least beforehand the best they could do is to get pseudonymous network & browser data (if they managed to get past my countermeasures like uBlock and nasty IP ranges blocked at the network level), where as once I pay they now have confirmed billing details they can do whatever they want with. If they don't respect my privacy before I pay then I have no reason to trust they'll suddenly respect it after I pay. Most likely they'll just attempt to have their cake and eat it, aka take my money and still stalk me.