10 ms·

How many people actually disable their adblockers when sites don't allow you to access them if you have one enabled? It's just much easier to close the tab.

by Hamuko 6y ago

ivanstame 6y ago
Yep, just close the tab :D
Aachen 6y ago
I don't remember ever disabling my blocker in response to such a request. What I do do is look for donation options when it's a valuable resource, but it's often hidden or nonexistent.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  They will still show ads. Paying users are more valuable and the ones you actually want to show ads to.
  - notriddle 6y ago
    There's no rule saying I can't pay them money, and continue to use an ad blocker as well.
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      Assuming they'll still let you see content with an active blocker. Once you have a business relationship they can set any terms they want.
      - notriddle 6y ago
        If I'm giving them money, and they still insist on screwing with me like that, then I won't stay a customer for very long unless I actually HAVE TO.
derefr 6y ago
I do use my adblocker disable button, but not in response to sites pleading for me to do so. I just find that sometimes it helps when a web app is being wonky. (Usually, the adblocker has misidentified one of the app’s main first-party JS files as an ad script and prevented it from loading.) Of course, since we’re talking about web apps, no ads usually result from this.
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  Usually. But Fidelity loads bootstrap.js from the ensighten CDN on some pages, so it’s not a mistaken first party domain blocked but a tracking third party you need to allow.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago
    Then it sounds like you might be in the market for a new stockbroker.
discardable_dan 6y ago
I am almost never in a situation where the content is worth the trouble of disabling my ad-blocker. Information is so-readily available that is it laughable that a website would be essential enough for me to bother turning my ad-blocker off, and the few times I've had it has nearly-universally resulted raw clickbait. Furthermore, that sort of behavior displays an arrogance from the publisher that makes me question the overall integrity of the article I was trying to read in the first place.
goda90 6y ago
I've done it for a small number of sites that I frequently visit and they ask nicely. If a site outright blocks me, then I never get to the point of frequently visiting them anyway.
jjkaczor 6y ago
Well - all of my ad-blocking is through a Pi-Hole - and I am not in the habit of logging into it's management interface and whitelisting sites unless absolutely necessary. So... tab gets closed, site loses my eyeballs completely.
deepspace 6y ago
Back in the day, Forbes was one of the first sites asking users to disable their ad blockers. I whitelisted them, seeing that they asked nicely. But then it came to light that they were not screening the ads, resulting in users being served with pop-under malware. Ever since then, I just close the tab when a sites asks me to unblock. It is not worth the risk.
arendtio 6y ago
If you find turning off your ad-blocker, just install a second ad-blocker. Having to turn off two ad-blockers, makes it a whole lot harder ;-) uBlock Origin + DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials is the combination I am using.
- taborj 6y ago
  I use DNS hijacking to redirect known adhosts to a black hole (basically a pi-hole, but done on OpenBSD with Unbound). You think disabling two ad-blockers is a chore, wait until you have to SSH into another box, tweak a .conf file, and reload a daemon...
mrspeaker 6y ago
I have the same approach to sites that require JavaScript. If a page loads blank, or contains a single line of text "this applications requires javascript", it's an insta-close. The unintended benefit of this is I nearly always realize I was procrastinating when I clicked the link anyway... so now I regard NoScript as a productivity tool!
Animats 6y ago
Right. There's usually a site just as good without ads.
pesfandiar 6y ago
It's still worth it for them to ask if a non-zero number of people turn it off (and make them some money rather than none).
- MereInterest 6y ago
  Option A: Decrease the amount your site is shared by X%. Get ad revenue from 100% of viewers. Option B: Maintain current number of visitors. Get ad revenue from Y% of viewers. Depending on the values of X and Y, the ad revenue may go up or down as a result of requiring unsafe browsing. Your conclusion assumes that X is always equal to zero.
madeofpalk 6y ago
Today i finally disabled Adblock for Twitter.com because scrolling the Timeline is way too wonky as Twitter and Adblock fight over dynamically adding and removing ads as I scroll.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  Really? I've never noticed any issues with uBlock Origin and Twitter.com.
inetknght 6y ago
> How many people actually disable their adblockers when sites don't allow you to access them if you have one enabled? It's just much easier to close the tab. Some sites intentionally break if you're using an adblocker. It's really easy to argue to not use those sites. But... What about government sites? Government sites don't work with strong ad blockers. What about bank sites? Bank sites don't work with strong ad blockers. What about your work related sites? My employer's HR site doesn't work with strong ad blockers. Many of my employer's internal sites don't work with strong ad blockers. Yeah it's much easier to just close the tab. Unless the site is literally required for your continued living.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  Anecdotally, I can't recall a single time my adblocker (uBlock Origin, AdBlock Plus before that) ever interfered with any of my online banking websites, ANY government website, or employers' websites. And if they ever do, well, most people only use a small number of such sites. Whitelisting them would be easy enough.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I try my best to send a polite email to sites that don't work but I need to use.
- bostik 6y ago
  > What about bank sites? Bank sites don't work with strong ad blockers. For these sites I use anonymous mode in a different browser. I don't disable my adblocker. I wouldn't go walking around dark alleys blind drunk in Mexico City at 2:30 in the morning either.
- hardlianotion 6y ago
  Thankfully, UK government sites don’t have this misfeature.
- collyw 6y ago
  I have used a few different bank sites and they all work with ad blockers.
XCSme 6y ago
I had to disable adblocker to view my old Yahoo mail inbox. I didn't find a way yet to safely switch from Yahoo to Gmail without potentially missing out on emails or lose access to sites registered using that email. I did disable it. I am not proud.
- thewebcount 6y ago
  Really? I have an old Yahoo mail account I give out for companies I know will spam me. I use an ad blocker and have not had any problems with Yahoo mail. I don't use it daily, and it's not my main email client, but it works just fine. I'm on Safari with 1Blocker.
  - XCSme 6y ago
    If you disable ad-blocker they force you to use an outdated interface where you can't even format the text. So they offered two options: disable ad-blocker or switch to the old interface. Yahoo mail keeps get worse and worse every year.
- ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago
  Enable forwarding of your Yahoo inbox to Gmail, or enable Gmail's periodic fetching feature from the Yahoo mailbox.
  - XCSme 6y ago
    On mobile I can use the Gmail app to add Yahoo accounts. It's possible to also have the same thing for the web app?
xzel 6y ago
Depends on how annoying they are. If it is a simple overlap I'll delete the element. If that doesn't work I'll trying google cache or something similar if I really want to access it. I also run the bypass paywalls app so I don't run into that problem on most news sites anymore. I do pay for a small number news sources I read consistently but still want to read articles posted on HN / Reddit outside of those. I don't think bypass payways is the most ethical solution but I'm not really sure there is a great solution right now.
collyw 6y ago
Some sites ask you to do it voluntarily, and if its something I value enough I will do. If it's forced I will sometimes try a workaround, sometimes just close it.
slowmovintarget 6y ago
It depends. If I'm trying to refill my prescription on my pharmacy's web-site, or complete the paying of road tolls through my state government site, I turn it off... Temporarily... for that site. If it's to read an article, see a video, or find information: never. Also: Firefox with Multi-Account Containers is great.
CM30 6y ago
Honestly, whenever a site doesn't allow me to access it with an adblocker active, all I do is look up the right adblocker rules to remove that restriction and continue on my merry way. Usually not that tricky to do so, most rely on JavaScript and HTML elements for this stuff. Alternatively, if it's a single page, then either reader view, an archiving service, or flat out editing the offending elements with the inspector works fine.
squarefoot 6y ago
Some sites can be fooled using tools such as uMatrix which block elments at finer granular level, but is tedious to configure and not very friendly to non technical users. If I can't stop junk on a site that way, unless the information is really vital, I usually close the tab and forget about it.
- gxnxcxcx 6y ago
  I think medium mode in uBO is a fair balance between granularity and usability: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium-mode https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium...
mcintyre1994 6y ago
It’s way more rewarding to use ublock’s little picker to block their overlay :) if that doesn’t work though, nope - close and move on.
asdff 6y ago
If sites have a wall come up complaining about my ad blocker or cookies, I can usually get around it using my ad blockers content filtering to block the paywall itself. If it starts to take more than three seconds, I close the tab and move on.

How many people actually disable their adblockers when sites don't allow you to access them if you have one enabled? It's just much easier to close the tab.

by Hamuko 6y ago

How many people actually disable their adblockers when sites don't allow you to access them if you have one enabled? It's just much easier to close the tab.

ivanstame 6y ago

Yep, just close the tab :D

Aachen 6y ago

I don't remember ever disabling my blocker in response to such a request. What I do do is look for donation options when it's a valuable resource, but it's often hidden or nonexistent.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
They will still show ads. Paying users are more valuable and the ones you actually want to show ads to.
- notriddle 6y ago
  There's no rule saying I can't pay them money, and continue to use an ad blocker as well.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Assuming they'll still let you see content with an active blocker. Once you have a business relationship they can set any terms they want.
    - notriddle 6y ago
      If I'm giving them money, and they still insist on screwing with me like that, then I won't stay a customer for very long unless I actually HAVE TO.

derefr 6y ago

I do use my adblocker disable button, but not in response to sites pleading for me to do so. I just find that sometimes it helps when a web app is being wonky. (Usually, the adblocker has misidentified one of the app’s main first-party JS files as an ad script and prevented it from loading.) Of course, since we’re talking about web apps, no ads usually result from this.

ComputerGuru 6y ago
Usually. But Fidelity loads bootstrap.js from the ensighten CDN on some pages, so it’s not a mistaken first party domain blocked but a tracking third party you need to allow.
- ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago
  Then it sounds like you might be in the market for a new stockbroker.

discardable_dan 6y ago

I am almost never in a situation where the content is worth the trouble of disabling my ad-blocker. Information is so-readily available that is it laughable that a website would be essential enough for me to bother turning my ad-blocker off, and the few times I've had it has nearly-universally resulted raw clickbait. Furthermore, that sort of behavior displays an arrogance from the publisher that makes me question the overall integrity of the article I was trying to read in the first place.

goda90 6y ago

I've done it for a small number of sites that I frequently visit and they ask nicely. If a site outright blocks me, then I never get to the point of frequently visiting them anyway.

jjkaczor 6y ago

Well - all of my ad-blocking is through a Pi-Hole - and I am not in the habit of logging into it's management interface and whitelisting sites unless absolutely necessary. So... tab gets closed, site loses my eyeballs completely.

deepspace 6y ago

Back in the day, Forbes was one of the first sites asking users to disable their ad blockers. I whitelisted them, seeing that they asked nicely. But then it came to light that they were not screening the ads, resulting in users being served with pop-under malware. Ever since then, I just close the tab when a sites asks me to unblock. It is not worth the risk.

arendtio 6y ago

If you find turning off your ad-blocker, just install a second ad-blocker. Having to turn off two ad-blockers, makes it a whole lot harder ;-) uBlock Origin + DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials is the combination I am using.

taborj 6y ago
I use DNS hijacking to redirect known adhosts to a black hole (basically a pi-hole, but done on OpenBSD with Unbound). You think disabling two ad-blockers is a chore, wait until you have to SSH into another box, tweak a .conf file, and reload a daemon...

mrspeaker 6y ago

I have the same approach to sites that require JavaScript. If a page loads blank, or contains a single line of text "this applications requires javascript", it's an insta-close. The unintended benefit of this is I nearly always realize I was procrastinating when I clicked the link anyway... so now I regard NoScript as a productivity tool!

Animats 6y ago

Right. There's usually a site just as good without ads.

pesfandiar 6y ago

It's still worth it for them to ask if a non-zero number of people turn it off (and make them some money rather than none).

MereInterest 6y ago
Option A: Decrease the amount your site is shared by X%. Get ad revenue from 100% of viewers. Option B: Maintain current number of visitors. Get ad revenue from Y% of viewers. Depending on the values of X and Y, the ad revenue may go up or down as a result of requiring unsafe browsing. Your conclusion assumes that X is always equal to zero.

madeofpalk 6y ago

Today i finally disabled Adblock for Twitter.com because scrolling the Timeline is way too wonky as Twitter and Adblock fight over dynamically adding and removing ads as I scroll.

Hamuko 6y ago
Really? I've never noticed any issues with uBlock Origin and Twitter.com.

inetknght 6y ago

> How many people actually disable their adblockers when sites don't allow you to access them if you have one enabled? It's just much easier to close the tab. Some sites intentionally break if you're using an adblocker. It's really easy to argue to not use those sites. But... What about government sites? Government sites don't work with strong ad blockers. What about bank sites? Bank sites don't work with strong ad blockers. What about your work related sites? My employer's HR site doesn't work with strong ad blockers. Many of my employer's internal sites don't work with strong ad blockers. Yeah it's much easier to just close the tab. Unless the site is literally required for your continued living.

EForEndeavour 6y ago
Anecdotally, I can't recall a single time my adblocker (uBlock Origin, AdBlock Plus before that) ever interfered with any of my online banking websites, ANY government website, or employers' websites. And if they ever do, well, most people only use a small number of such sites. Whitelisting them would be easy enough.
saagarjha 6y ago
I try my best to send a polite email to sites that don't work but I need to use.
bostik 6y ago
> What about bank sites? Bank sites don't work with strong ad blockers. For these sites I use anonymous mode in a different browser. I don't disable my adblocker. I wouldn't go walking around dark alleys blind drunk in Mexico City at 2:30 in the morning either.
hardlianotion 6y ago
Thankfully, UK government sites don’t have this misfeature.
collyw 6y ago
I have used a few different bank sites and they all work with ad blockers.

XCSme 6y ago

I had to disable adblocker to view my old Yahoo mail inbox. I didn't find a way yet to safely switch from Yahoo to Gmail without potentially missing out on emails or lose access to sites registered using that email. I did disable it. I am not proud.

thewebcount 6y ago
Really? I have an old Yahoo mail account I give out for companies I know will spam me. I use an ad blocker and have not had any problems with Yahoo mail. I don't use it daily, and it's not my main email client, but it works just fine. I'm on Safari with 1Blocker.
- XCSme 6y ago
  If you disable ad-blocker they force you to use an outdated interface where you can't even format the text. So they offered two options: disable ad-blocker or switch to the old interface. Yahoo mail keeps get worse and worse every year.
ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago
Enable forwarding of your Yahoo inbox to Gmail, or enable Gmail's periodic fetching feature from the Yahoo mailbox.
- XCSme 6y ago
  On mobile I can use the Gmail app to add Yahoo accounts. It's possible to also have the same thing for the web app?

xzel 6y ago

Depends on how annoying they are. If it is a simple overlap I'll delete the element. If that doesn't work I'll trying google cache or something similar if I really want to access it. I also run the bypass paywalls app so I don't run into that problem on most news sites anymore. I do pay for a small number news sources I read consistently but still want to read articles posted on HN / Reddit outside of those. I don't think bypass payways is the most ethical solution but I'm not really sure there is a great solution right now.

collyw 6y ago

Some sites ask you to do it voluntarily, and if its something I value enough I will do. If it's forced I will sometimes try a workaround, sometimes just close it.

slowmovintarget 6y ago

It depends. If I'm trying to refill my prescription on my pharmacy's web-site, or complete the paying of road tolls through my state government site, I turn it off... Temporarily... for that site. If it's to read an article, see a video, or find information: never. Also: Firefox with Multi-Account Containers is great.

CM30 6y ago

Honestly, whenever a site doesn't allow me to access it with an adblocker active, all I do is look up the right adblocker rules to remove that restriction and continue on my merry way. Usually not that tricky to do so, most rely on JavaScript and HTML elements for this stuff. Alternatively, if it's a single page, then either reader view, an archiving service, or flat out editing the offending elements with the inspector works fine.

squarefoot 6y ago

Some sites can be fooled using tools such as uMatrix which block elments at finer granular level, but is tedious to configure and not very friendly to non technical users. If I can't stop junk on a site that way, unless the information is really vital, I usually close the tab and forget about it.

gxnxcxcx 6y ago
I think medium mode in uBO is a fair balance between granularity and usability: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium-mode https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium...

mcintyre1994 6y ago

It’s way more rewarding to use ublock’s little picker to block their overlay :) if that doesn’t work though, nope - close and move on.

asdff 6y ago

If sites have a wall come up complaining about my ad blocker or cookies, I can usually get around it using my ad blockers content filtering to block the paywall itself. If it starts to take more than three seconds, I close the tab and move on.