13 ms·
No adblocker detected
- WD-42 1y agoI wonder what the overlap between visitors to a site that would display this and visitors not already using an adblocker is. Then again I've seen developers with ads plastered all over their screens before, I'd like to believe it's a conscious decision on their part.
- omoikane 1y agoI see it since I don't have adblockers installed. Instead of adblockers, I remember sites that are user hostile one way or another and just avoid those sites. Those sites that are heavy on ads usually aren't worth my time anyway, so the presence of those auto-playing videos in every corner ends up being a signal for me to go somewhere else.
- giveita 1y agoUse the original adblocker: hosts
- GuB-42 1y agoNow that I think of it, when a professional YouTuber shows their browser, more often than not, there is no ad-blocking. But as professional YouTubers, there is no way they are not aware of ad-blocking. I wonder if they actually watch the ads on purpose, even in private or if they turn their adblocker off just for the video, as not to give ideas to their viewers and potentially losing ad revenue.
- creatonez 1y agoA while back Linus Tech Tips said ad blockers are a form of unethical piracy. His audience accused him of spreading self-serving bullshit. Oddly, his position changed a few years later and he started promoting adblocking. The chance that he was using one the whole damn time? 100%
- zem 1y agoback in the heyday of the daily wtf there was a beautiful submission from a developer who worked for a banner ad company. got called into a VP's office one day and yelled at because some new annoying ad wasn't showing up where intended, a bunch of debugging later it turned out that the VP was running an ad blocker and had just forgotten about it.
- joquarky 1y agoNearly every human being has a hintergedanken. I think this one is pretty benign.
- WD-42 1y agoYea, I've seen a few videos from Low Level Learning where the content of the article he's reading from gets covered by annoying banner ads and such. I don't know why but security websites have really obnoxious ads. In any case, you can see the anguish on his face but the show must go on.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- est 1y agoI wish browsers could just provide a way to disable javascript after page `onload`. Perhaps only enables js when user clicks something.
- rkagerer 1y agoAmen to that. I used to think the Stop button in IE did this.
- userbinator 1y agoOld Opera (before it became another Chromium-shell) had an easy JS on/off toggle in the menu, but I don't remember if it only took effect on load or immediately.
- dheera 1y agosetTimeout(() => { // fuck up all future javascripts setTimeout = setInterval = requestAnimationFrame = () => {}; Element.prototype.appendChild = () => { throw new Error("Blocked"); }; document.addEventListener = () => {}; window.addEventListener = () => {}; Object.defineProperty(document, "readyState", { get: () => { throw new Error("No JS"); } }); document.write = () => {}; // fuck up canvas if(window.HTMLCanvasElement) HTMLCanvasElement.prototype.getContext=()=>null; // fuck up webgl if(window.WebGLRenderingContext) window.WebGLRenderingContext.prototype.getParameter=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}}; // fuck up webgl2 if(window.WebGL2RenderingContext) window.WebGL2RenderingContext.prototype.getParameter=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}}; // fuck up websockets window.WebSocket=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}}; window.EventSource=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}}; // fuck up popups window.open=()=>null; // ... }, 500);
- charrondev 1y ago> but if you use external CSS, it’s quite common for the request to fail resulting in an unstyled page That’s a pretty crazy statement. How often do you see loading a CSS stylesheet fail to load? Most sites are completely unusable without their stylesheets and I don’t recall the last time I saw a stylesheet fail to load.
- copypaper 1y agoI've had it happen to me exactly once in the past few years. And a simple refresh fixed it. Definitely an overstatement to say it's common.
- userbinator 1y agoSomewhat common if a site is being overloaded.
- saghm 1y agoThat checks out, I feel like the place I've seen it the most is on Github, which also seems to be the site I use regularly that has the most frequent outages (which also aren't quite at the level I'd call them common, but still _somewhat_ common_ compared to everything else I use anywhere close to daily)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- inetknght 1y ago> How often do you see loading a CSS stylesheet fail to load? Often. It might have something to do with my adblock settings though... > Most sites are completely unusable without their stylesheets Those sites are generally completely trash anyway.
- daemonologist 1y agoA few times a month for me. (Some combination of Comcast, a Qualcomm NFA765 on Linux, and ad-block. Probably mostly the second thing.)
- Vortigaunt 1y agoThe FBI also makes a good argument that adblockers prevent scammers from directing people to malicious sites. https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/22/fbi-ad-blocker/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/22/fbi-ad-blocker/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230219020056/https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624 https://web.archive.org/web/20230219020056/https://www.ic3.g...
- nicce 1y agoI have said it years that adblocker is the best anti-virus these days.
- caminante 1y agoI get miffed when corporations manage employee browsers and disable adblocker extensions.
- BLKNSLVR 1y agoI don't understand why DNS ad blockers (Ad Guard, Pi-Hole, other) aren't frequently used across corporates. Especially given the regular-ish training on cybersecurity and related.
- bitpush 1y agoBecause ads are not how malware is distributed? You have higher chance of getting a malware from `pnpm add` than seeing an ad on the web.
- BLKNSLVR 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
- minitech 1y ago> Because ads are not how malware is distributed? Malware is absolutely distributed through ads. In the case of more reputable ad platforms that don’t allow arbitrary scripts, it’s by linking to malware, but they’re also used to serve drive-by exploits. > You have higher chance of getting a malware from `pnpm add` than seeing an ad on the web. If you’re a normal computer user who browses the web without an ad blocker and never runs `pnpm add`, the relevant chance is a little different. (Fun side fact: current pnpm wisely doesn’t run install scripts by default.)
- userbinator 1y agoI found it amusing that my proxy detected the "/ads/" in the URL and killed the connection automatically. Of course highlighting this fact that the presence of an adblocker is detectable, unfortunately only results in escalating the cat-and-mouse game further. I have also considered popularising a script that replaces the whole page's content with "JavaScript detected, please disable it to view this content and improve your security".
- zamadatix 1y agoIronically, the latter would probably end up being cat-and-mouse blocked by tools like the former.
- joquarky 1y agoThe cat/mouse are only interested in what happens in the mainstream. Find something off the beaten path that works for you and it will rarely need updates.
- creatonez 1y ago> I have also considered popularising a script that replaces the whole page's content with "JavaScript detected, please disable it to view this content and improve your security". This is exactly what most dark net markets do.
- reactordev 1y agoInstead of document.cookie consider document.localStorage since there’s verbiage around showing a notice on your site if you use cookies, etc, for tracking purposes. At least with local storage, you aren’t using cookies :P
- Tarq0n 1y agoThe law doesn't care whether it's a cookie or an equivalent.
- minitech 1y agoAnd this cookie isn’t for tracking purposes anyway, so doesn’t require a notice.
- dheera 1y agoThe "law" only applies if you live in the EU anyway.
- DocTomoe 1y agoSee, this is where you are wrong. The law applies if you target people living in the EU (such as using one of the languages spoken within the EU. English applies thanks to Malta and Ireland. So does not explicitly removing tracking from EU IPs). Whether it is technically enforceable in your particular case may be the question. But historically, it has been enforced outside the EU. As you live in the Bay Area - the CCPA and the CPRA, which are similar in many ways and seem to require an opt-out mechanism (e.g. if you operate a commercial website with >100k devices accessing it during a year). Talk to a lawyer, don't take advice from strangers on the internet.
- dheera 1y ago> The law applies if you target people living in the EU I disagree with this. Tencent WeChat targets the entire world, including people living in the EU. They do not follow GDPR. Likewise, Facebook targets people living everywhere, including in China. They do not follow Chinese laws. Hence, China sets up a firewall and blocks Facebook. EU can set up a firewall too if they don't like something. "Oh but EU doesn't do firewalls?" Not my problem. Tough luck. China, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, all did it, you can too if you have beef with foreign websites. But no, I do not need to follow EU law just because EU users use my thing. It's on them to firewall it if they don't like my website. > CCPA and the CPRA This is fine. I live in California, I need to follow California law, and I can choose to live somewhere else if I don't like it. What I'm not okay with is some distant jurisdiction thinking they can make laws that I "need" to follow.
- aaron695 1y ago[dead]
- jojobas 1y agoI was wondering why I don't see such a for a second.
- initself 1y agoThere's no hope anymore of a solution.
- neilv 1y ago> No adblocker detected. Consider using an extension like uBlock Origin to save time and bandwidth. And attention and privacy. This notice is a great idea. I might remove the "like" from the notice, since "uBlock Origin" is good, but some others are questionable or even outright malware. BTW, note that the `ublockorigin.com` Web site that is linked to isn't by Raymond Hill, leader of uBlock Origin. It looks well-intended, and is nicely polished UX, but good practice would be to be careful (since it doesn't appear to be under Hill's control, and is an additional point of potential compromise in what would be very valuable malware). Hill seems to operate from <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock>. One link that isn't too bad to view <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/README.md>. Another that isn't great but OK is <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki>.
- balamatom 1y agoUnderappreciated comment. But yeah, even on the README, way too much GitHub header. UBO really needs an official landing page.
- kelnos 1y agoYour average internet user is not going to have any idea what to do with a link to GitHub. It's a shame there's no official website with easy install instructions. (But I agree with you that it's not a great idea to link to a website not under control of the author.)
- pmxi 1y agoFortunately, the GitHub README opens with a list of links to install ublock Origin. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock?tab=readme-ov-file#ublock-origin-ubo https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock?tab=readme-ov-file#ublock-...
- shiomiru 1y ago> It looks well-intended The recent PuTTY domain squatting debacle has made me suspicious, and indeed... if you look closer, you'll notice that the owner of ublockorigin.com is also advertising his completely unrelated products in a "my other tools" section.
- ksynwa 1y agoI am extremely insulated from ads online and have been for about a decade. Once in a while I have to browse on a device that does not have an ad blocker or most of the times does not even let you install one. Seeing a website that is SEoptimised and heavily ad supported feels like walking into a crack den. That this is the normal experience for the vast majority of users is sad.
- pea 1y agoI wonder if you could spend a few million on promoting adblockers to justify a short position on Google or Meta.
- jbstack 1y agoYou'd have to be very careful not to run afoul of insider trading and/or market manipulation laws. Whether you would or not would depend on all the details and the jurisdiction.
- loeg 1y agoNot in the US. There's no insider trading angle at all, and it's not fraudulent market manipulation to attempt to persuade consumers to cease supporting a business you're shorting as long as you're not lying about it.
- jbstack 1y agoHence why I qualified that it depends on the details and the jurisdiction. I didn't say it is insider trading, just that you need to be careful to avoid that. > There's no insider trading angle at all Such a blanket statement would definitely be wrong in the UK for example. Insider trading is defined at Section 52(1) of the Criminal Justice act 1993 as: "(1)An individual who has information as an insider is guilty of insider dealing if, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), he deals in securities that are price-affected securities in relation to the information." Whether you trigger the offence depends on a number of factors such as whether the information is "inside" information and whether you were an "insider" (these terms are defined in subsequent sections of the Act). As an example, if you were an employee of a listed company (not such an unlikely scenario given the capital requirements to pull this off) that was about to engage in the proposed scheme (publishing pro-adblock adverts) and it wasn't yet publicly known (which would be necessary if you want the scheme to be fully effective), and you shorted Google shares, you could easily fall foul of insider trading. I'm not particularly familiar with the US legal system so I can't claim you're wrong there.
- toastercat 1y agoI'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeloaders resisting the ads then services won't host the content, and on the path to that the freeloaders are really just leeching off a system in an entitled way (unless their goal is to destroy the services they use in which case good on them for consistency and for picking a worthy target). If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine, enforcement was always by an honour system. But strategically if a service's social contract doesn't work for someone then they shouldn't use that service - they'd just be feeding the beast. They should go make their own service work or investigate the long list of alternative platforms.
- zartcosgrove 1y agoI feel like SEO and click bait of all kinds has already broken that unwritten social contract. I feel like your argument is that using an adblocker is impolite, borderline unfair. But I also feel like we, the users, have been exploited by surveillance capitalism. If anyone broke the social contract, it's the websites that participated in [enshittification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification).
- bb88 1y agoAds in and of themselves aren't really the issue. It's the tracking that is. If the ad was delivered without cookies and without tracking, as just a stationary gif, I'd be more okay with it. But without tracking, back in 2008/9 ish before the real estate crash, the Simpsons made a reference to the dancing cowboys ad for selling mortgages. These were the adjustable rate mortgages that went sky high shortly after closing on the house. https://trailers.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1f73a011-858b-418b-9404-dfe3ffacef28/gif https://trailers.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1f73a011-858b-418b-940...
- randunel 1y agoThe websites you speak of don't get to decide what my hardware and my software does when running in my hands. Their content is a suggestion for my user agent, not some unbreakable law. If they don't like it, they should shut down completely.
- mediumsmart 1y agoThe message does not show on Orion and I have no adblocker installed. I was also not told any Jellyfish facts.
- Squarex 1y agoHave you disabled the bult-in adblocker?
- mediumsmart 1y agoI am not aware of a built in adblocker as a component. The browser is zero telemetry by default and quite a few sites helpfully point to howto disable adblock plugins in chrome and firefox tutorials when they encounter Orion.
- Squarex 1y agoIt is enabled by default: https://help.kagi.com/orion/privacy-and-security/ad-tracking-blocking.html https://help.kagi.com/orion/privacy-and-security/ad-tracking....
- noam_k 1y agoCan anyone explain why the ID of the div is modified?
- kelnos 1y agoBecause the -hidden variant is styled "display: none".
- mcintyre1994 1y agoIronically a content blocker on iOS Safari blocks this page from loading at all, I’m guessing because of the /ads/ in the URL rather than the domain. I didn’t see the notice on iOS after disabling the content blockers, but that’s probably because of the not enough space/off to the side constraint?
- throwaway290 1y ago[flagged]
- lclc 1y agoWhy do you feel entitled to my bandwidth, disk space, and attention?
- throwaway290 1y ago??? You are the one visiting seeking information. Visit it and pay with your bandwidth and attention or rob the guy who does the work of income that helps him do this work. Your choice
- b3lvedere 1y agoWhy do corporations/publishers feel entitled that people feed them as much (personal) information as possible via invasive ads, even when these people did not consent to that? Businesses should really stop complaining the consumer is the problem here. The businesses made this model and expected consumers to gladly accept it. Don't want people to consume your content for free? Make it a subscription or something. Can't get enough subscribers to be profitable? We're so so sorry... Same with cookies. Don't want the mandatory-by-law cookie popups? Stop using cookies.
- throwaway290 1y agoa guy makes a website and publishes useful stuff and wants to make money, not feed your personal information. if you feel it's wrong, make an ad platform that doesn't feed personal information. if you feel any ads and profit are wrong then clearly I'm talking to a communist. if you feel like the only answer is paywalls instead of ads then I'd like to see how happy you would be if that was reality. this is leeching on expense of people without adblocks who have to endure more ads thanks to people with adblocks, for the above mentioned information publisher to make the same money
- DocTomoe 1y agoIt's bad enough we got extra work for those who use adblockers. Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach. It's also deeply paternalistic: Even if it is meant well - and I assume that's the case here - it implies the site operator knows better than the user what is good for them. Finally, this will also lower the guards of less technical users for installing random plug-ins on website demand. From a subjective gut feeling: Please do not do this. Let people decide what they need, and what they don't need.
- _Algernon_ 1y ago>Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach. This already happens with every ad successfully shown to a person. Why don't you criticize the ad business for much more extensive overreach instead of someone doing harmless activism on their own website?
- dspillett 1y ago> Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach. This is far from the same as the overreach of many (most?) ads. From the description: “It’s shown off to the side, and never covers content. It won’t be shown if there isn’t enough space.”. In fact the space issue is overly careful, on my protrait 1080p monitor it doesn't show because 1080 pixels is just a little too thin for its test. And someone who is used to how things are without a blocker, is unlikely to notice this extra little (non-animated, soundless, out-of-the-way) message in the general melée! > Finally, this will also lower the guards of less technical users for installing random plug-ins on website demand. That is a fair point (though those guards seem so low enough already in general that this will make litle real world difference). Instead of pointing to a particular thing to install, when I do this on my output I'll point to a page listing common options and a warning about installing random stuff without at least minimal research.
- elashri 1y agoEven CERN would advice everyone to use ad-blocker [1] for a safer internet experience. I am sure ads as it is today wasn't part of the web plan when it started. [1] https://home.cern/news/news/computing/computer-security-block-ads-stay-clean https://home.cern/news/news/computing/computer-security-bloc...
- diggan 1y agoGuess nowadays they recommend everyone to use Firefox or some other non-crippling browser then also? I helped my wife with something the other day, noticed the ads everywhere, while I was sure I had installed uBlock for her in the past. Went to the Chrome's addons page, and Google apparently is automatically disabling uBlock and calling it unsupported, yet you can enable it until next time you restart Chrome. But seems Chrome is actively trying to get rid of adblockers lately.
- teekert 1y agoBig tech has slowly convinced us that it is their right to violate us. Because they give us so much for free. But they also take things away from us, without our knowledge and consent, they manipulate us, they make barriers between us en the information we need. They change the human condition for the worse. We do not have to feel guilty to act against them. Btw, yesterday Chromium told me Ublock Origin is no longer supported. Well, thank you, now I know why I wasn't using Chromium for anything other than MS365 stuff. It's working just fine on Firefox.
- dspillett 1y ago> Unfortunately, I have no way to detect DNS based blocking short of loading an actual ad. Before that point I'd already spotted that limitation, but there might be an easy solution: get a domain added to a common block list used by DNS based blockers. If you get the right content from a resource on a host with that name (or the other test passes, so we test for both forms of blocker) show the message. Of course there will be false positives if the page goes down or if they're is some other network issue, but no test like this will be perfect. Anyone want to save me the research to find out the easiest way to get a domain on the lists? I have no objection to sacrificing a few £ per year on a name to use and I've got spare resource to serve the pile of tiny requests that'll go through because people aren't running a blocker. EDIT: as a secondary note, I wouldn't just flip between “display:none” and “display:block” on one element upon detection result. That might cause visual disturbance in many page layouts as things load. I would leave a block of the same positioning and size properties in the flow in either case, either blank or with a message like “You'll be pleased to know that your ad blocker seems to be working.”, perhaps leaving the space blank (but still in the flow with the same dimensions) initially so an incorrect message isn't displayed if something (scripting being disabled client-side for instance) stops the tests running at all.
- 8organicbits 1y agoI think getting a domain is well worth the effort. If you set up the domain and write a small blog post I'm sure HN will be willing to help add the domain to every blocklist imaginable. If you do, I also think it's worth adding a donate button.
- nntwozz 1y agoThe ads themselves are one thing, the more sinister part is that they eat battery life and cause extra network activity. It's like a leech, and they want you to think it's a symbiotic relationship.
- unwind 1y agoThis is a very nice idea, nicely presented too. Bug report: There's a typo in the actual popup as shown to me, it says "extention". Consistently enough, the typo is present in the code snippet in the article: if (!document.cookie.includes("notice-shown")) { document.getElementById("ad-note-hidden").id = 'ad-note'; document.getElementById("ad-note-content-wrapper").innerHTML = "No adblocker detected. " + "Consider using an extention like <a href=https://ublockorigin.com/>uBlock Origin</a> to save time and bandwidth." + " <u onclick=hide()>Click here to close.</u>"; }
- crazygringo 1y ago> If you want to support your favorite authors: send then money. A dollar helps more then viewing ads ever would. This isn't really true. I ran an ad-supported site at one point with my content, just a small banner at the top of each page. The ads paid for a significant portion of my monthly rent. Getting a few dollars from the occasional viewer would not, since 99.99+% of people are not going to do that. I don't like viewing ads, but let's not pretend like they don't make money for content creators. They absolutely do.
- neogodless 1y agoReread the statement though. Does one person viewing ads pay you more than one dollar?
- crazygringo 1y agoBut it's not one person viewing ads on just your site. It's across all the sites they visit. A person viewing ads over the course of a year is generating much, much more than a dollar in revenue. And in a parallel universe without ads, they're definitely not sending a dollar to every site they visit. You can't compare one person who sends a dollar to a site with one person's ad revenue to a site, because as I said, 99.99+% of people are never going to send you a dollar. The author is implying ads don't generate meaningful revenue but paying a dollar does. That's just false.
- sceptic123 1y agoBut the ad dollars are ruining the internet, ad revenue based on impressions/clicks/tracking is whe we end up with more and more invasive ads and more and more content farm websites trying to get enough eyeballs and clicks to earn some of that money. The parallel universe I'd like is where websites/publishers had small, privacy protecting, static banners or ad text on their sites. In that universe lots more people would feel comfortable with not using ad blockers.
- crazygringo 1y ago
- jwr 1y agoI love it. But in the spirit of today's Internet, you should make this message an obnoxious pop-up that requires dismissal with a tiny "X" button that is dark-grey-on-black and placed tactically so as to be the least accessible. The touch target on touch devices should be tiny and slightly off. The pop-up should also fail completely on iPads, covering all the content with a dark overlay but giving the user no way to proceed.
- coldpie 1y agoFYI you can nuke all that crap with a simple browser bookmark: https://www.smokingonabike.com/2024/01/20/take-back-your-web-browser-screen-space-with-kill-sticky/ https://www.smokingonabike.com/2024/01/20/take-back-your-web...
- bshacklett 1y agoThere’s also a browser extension which does the same thing, but attempts to be a bit more content-aware: https://popupoff.org https://popupoff.org
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mustaphah 1y agoAdblockers might not be enough. Some services claim to turn "anonymous" visitors into actual email addresses (and some other basic info), likely via identity graphs (IP/device/hashed IDs). I've heard of cases where people are getting outreached (via email) after just visiting a product website, even with an ad blocker on, using a private browser (Brave or similar). Opensend is one example. They're pretty open about it in their FAQ [1]. [1] https://www.opensend.com/faq https://www.opensend.com/faq
- driverdan 1y agoProper adblockers like uBlock Origin block privacy invasive trackers that do this too.
- NoSalt 1y agoMake a Pi-hole ... you will not regret it.
- 61j3t 1y agoThe close button isn't working