4 ms·

Can't say I'm a fan of the whole "blacking out the website because someone's running adblock" though. Adblock is how modern browsers work because it turns out t

Can't say I'm a fan of the whole "blacking out the website because someone's running adblock" though. Adblock is how modern browsers work because it turns out the internet couldn't be trusted to responsibly run them. Blacking out a site until someone turns them off is a literal dark pattern.

dihdif 3y ago
If a site is ad-supported, they should be free to apply any policy they want to control potential revenue loss due to adblockers. Running an adblocker is literally a "free rider" strategy. I've been online since the 90s and have never felt the need to do it. I probably have a high tolerance for unwanted ads, but that's the luck of the draw. What entitles you to run one?
- Kamq 3y ago
  > What entitles you to run one? I mean, you're sending _me_ the bytes. I get to decide what I do with them. I don't tend to complain when people stop serving content when I'm using an ad-blocker, but I do reserve the right to do whatever I want with the bytes you've already sent.
- johnchristopher 3y ago
  > What entitles you to run one? Trauma from GIF and <blink> tags from the 90s. Resulted in low tolerance to ads and a strong aversion to taking the risk to disable adblockers.
- rjbwork 3y ago
  >What entitles you to run one? Operating a client which can choose how to display the content it receives. That's the entire point of a distributed network operated on standards and heterogeneous clients and servers, rather than a monolithic purpose-built application.
- hoistbypetard 3y ago
  Their blackout caught me, and I don't run any ad blockers. I only block things that attempt to track me. They can show me all the ads they want as long as my browser doesn't find an attempt to track me. Quite apart from that, connecting to their site does not obligate me to display everything they try to send in exactly the way they want me to see it. My web client can display things however I want it to. Because it's mine. And I tell it what to do. They're entitled to control what they send me. They're not entitled to control how my client displays that.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  > What entitles you to run one? That's the wrong question. If you have a webserver openly transmitting html to anyone that connects then what entities YOU to dictate how that is interpreted? The answer is nothing. I have the content and I'm not required lawfully, or even imo morally, to also execute any accompanying JavaScript, regardless of what it does.
- yosamino 3y ago
  I will never by anything from an ad - by running an adblocker I am *helping* the site I am visiting by making their targeting more specific. Someone paying $20 for an ad trying to sell me a product, will be happy that their ad is not served to me -I am not going to buy their product in the first place, their money is better spent advertizing to people who might buy it. Me looking at an ad does not help sell any products.
  - mrtranscendence 3y ago
    On the other hand, if the probability that you'll purchase something from an ad really is precisely zero, then the site would be better off blocking you entirely than serving you any traffic.
    - dbalatero 3y ago
      What if they share the same link with friends that do buy something off the ad?
- z3c0 3y ago
  Ad Nauseum clicks ads before blocking them (with uBlock Origin), so it's possible for someone to block ads while providing visited sites with the clicks they need. That aside, what one does with information they've been handed is up to them. When you're in a crowded room, do you feel its entitled to tune out all the noise to only hear the conversation you're interested in?
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  That's literally the web: the entire thing is a free ride, because if you put data online, you knowingly and willingly agreed to the fact that serving that data up from your server to visitors means that data is free. That's the fundamental basis of the web. And if you don't like that, and you don't want visitors but customers, stick your content behind a login. What data you serve is up and how you do that is to you, you fully control that, but what happens once that data is on a user's computer is up to them. Because now it's in their house, not yours, and they get to decide what to do with it, not you. If a site can't exist without ads, you have some thinking to do as site owner, but you don't get to yell about how I parse and render the data you send without charging for it. Ads are not "part of the deal", they just something you slapped on in the hopes that someone else's obtrusive content makes you some money, by the grace of that someone else. No deal, kid.
masfuerte 3y ago
The website works fine with javascript disabled. And there are no ads.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  Too bad modern browsers don't have a "turn off JS" button. NoScript is the best you can get, and any sane config for NoScript is "allow first party JS, don't allow third party JS", so it might run fine but no on in their right mind is going to go "I wonder what happens if I even turn off first party JS?". It should work if JS is disabled, but it should also work with ad blockers turned on because it's 2023 and ad blockers are not going away.

dihdif 3y ago

If a site is ad-supported, they should be free to apply any policy they want to control potential revenue loss due to adblockers. Running an adblocker is literally a "free rider" strategy. I've been online since the 90s and have never felt the need to do it. I probably have a high tolerance for unwanted ads, but that's the luck of the draw. What entitles you to run one?

Kamq 3y ago
> What entitles you to run one? I mean, you're sending _me_ the bytes. I get to decide what I do with them. I don't tend to complain when people stop serving content when I'm using an ad-blocker, but I do reserve the right to do whatever I want with the bytes you've already sent.
johnchristopher 3y ago
> What entitles you to run one? Trauma from GIF and <blink> tags from the 90s. Resulted in low tolerance to ads and a strong aversion to taking the risk to disable adblockers.
rjbwork 3y ago
>What entitles you to run one? Operating a client which can choose how to display the content it receives. That's the entire point of a distributed network operated on standards and heterogeneous clients and servers, rather than a monolithic purpose-built application.
hoistbypetard 3y ago
Their blackout caught me, and I don't run any ad blockers. I only block things that attempt to track me. They can show me all the ads they want as long as my browser doesn't find an attempt to track me. Quite apart from that, connecting to their site does not obligate me to display everything they try to send in exactly the way they want me to see it. My web client can display things however I want it to. Because it's mine. And I tell it what to do. They're entitled to control what they send me. They're not entitled to control how my client displays that.
jemmyw 3y ago
> What entitles you to run one? That's the wrong question. If you have a webserver openly transmitting html to anyone that connects then what entities YOU to dictate how that is interpreted? The answer is nothing. I have the content and I'm not required lawfully, or even imo morally, to also execute any accompanying JavaScript, regardless of what it does.
yosamino 3y ago
I will never by anything from an ad - by running an adblocker I am *helping* the site I am visiting by making their targeting more specific. Someone paying $20 for an ad trying to sell me a product, will be happy that their ad is not served to me -I am not going to buy their product in the first place, their money is better spent advertizing to people who might buy it. Me looking at an ad does not help sell any products.
- mrtranscendence 3y ago
  On the other hand, if the probability that you'll purchase something from an ad really is precisely zero, then the site would be better off blocking you entirely than serving you any traffic.
  - dbalatero 3y ago
    What if they share the same link with friends that do buy something off the ad?
z3c0 3y ago
Ad Nauseum clicks ads before blocking them (with uBlock Origin), so it's possible for someone to block ads while providing visited sites with the clicks they need. That aside, what one does with information they've been handed is up to them. When you're in a crowded room, do you feel its entitled to tune out all the noise to only hear the conversation you're interested in?
TheRealPomax 3y ago
That's literally the web: the entire thing is a free ride, because if you put data online, you knowingly and willingly agreed to the fact that serving that data up from your server to visitors means that data is free. That's the fundamental basis of the web. And if you don't like that, and you don't want visitors but customers, stick your content behind a login. What data you serve is up and how you do that is to you, you fully control that, but what happens once that data is on a user's computer is up to them. Because now it's in their house, not yours, and they get to decide what to do with it, not you. If a site can't exist without ads, you have some thinking to do as site owner, but you don't get to yell about how I parse and render the data you send without charging for it. Ads are not "part of the deal", they just something you slapped on in the hopes that someone else's obtrusive content makes you some money, by the grace of that someone else. No deal, kid.

masfuerte 3y ago

The website works fine with javascript disabled. And there are no ads.

TheRealPomax 3y ago
Too bad modern browsers don't have a "turn off JS" button. NoScript is the best you can get, and any sane config for NoScript is "allow first party JS, don't allow third party JS", so it might run fine but no on in their right mind is going to go "I wonder what happens if I even turn off first party JS?". It should work if JS is disabled, but it should also work with ad blockers turned on because it's 2023 and ad blockers are not going away.