How do you feel about adblock-shaming?
As long as they don't actually block the content
i hate anything that causes a website to awkwardly personify itself and treat me like a friend when i'm usually there because no other site has the specific thing i need
i only really use one site that has ads and that's 4chan
>>53701802
adblock just prevents bad sites from being sustained
I see no reason to not use it
>go to website
>content is blocked because adblocker
>close website
There are so many sites, why should I stay with one.
Where the fuck is my ad block shaming blocker?
>>53701802
literally me when I see an anti-adblock post/pop-up
I block them too.
My efforts are directed at making my browsing experience as non-obnoxious as possible.
Greasemonkey scripts handle that jewing thing.
i dont use no memescripts so they cant effectively detect it
>>53701817
They are blocking content and they'll continue to. Starting with no name porn sites. It's happening right now.
>having nonfree software (javascript) enabled in your browser
Fuck 'em
If you don't want me to see your website then don't send me it when I request it
>>53701802
>Not using Anti-Anti-Adblock.
It's like you want to get viruses.
>ad block shaming pop-up asking me to disable ad block otherwise it doesn't let me use the site
>add the pop-up window to my ad block block list
When will they learn?
isn't wired gawker media? no wonder they need the money.
Here's the thing with content providers:
They will never compensate you for the damage an ad has done to your PC after it has gone malicious via ad domain hijack or code injection or any other myriads of ways.
Here's another thing with content providers being stupid:
They'd rather shame the people who block ads and by effect lose more than half their potential site revenue,
than provide a non-ad based revenue system hinging on the good-will of the users who use ad-block, but might be ok with a donation system or buying goods from a store the site might link to as an alternative.
All in all, adblock shamers are retarded people who are in it to play a game of moral superiority complex, more than they are into realizing rational solutions, mainly because they are either too lazy or too fucking stupid.
The only time I've ever run into the issue was news sites. Ooh yeah you've got quite some original content there, like I can't go to 50 other sites that don't resort to such jewery for the same story.
No one should be using adblock indiscriminately (meaning they shouldn't be blocking ads outside of the obviously obnoxious). If you disagree, you've probably never created a piece of online content in your life.
I don't understand the entitlement when it comes to online content. Why do you think you should be able to get it without any compensation on your end? Even more, why would you want to do that to entities creating content you value?
>>53701938
>They will never compensate you for the damage an ad has done to your PC after it has gone malicious via ad domain hijack or code injection or any other myriads of ways.
this only happens on shitty gay porn websites.
you fucking communists just look for an excuse to block unintrusive static ad banners.
>>53701802
Instead of fighting all ad blocking, they should encourage white listing non-intrusive and malware free ads.
The only reason why advertisers want me to look at ads is to fool me into making bad decisions. That's all ads are for. I don't want that.
The only site where I have adblock disabled is 4chan because visiting this site is a bad decision already and the ads can be fucking dank.
Fuck Forbes. They don't allow you to read the article until you disable adblocker. Fuck them.
>>53701971
I disagree because of ads' history with malware. They ruined it for themselves.
>>53701971
If you don't want me to get it for free
Then stop giving it to me for free when I request it
>>53701993
Hey kid, you want this QUOTE OF THE DAY?!
>>53701802
>Go to web page
>Start reading article
>30 or so seconds later a full page advertisement pops up
>"Your page will load shortly"
They aren't even trying any more
>>53701847
this
>>53701986
>this only happens on shitty gay porn websites, and Amazon, YouTube, and Yahoo
You see anon, people who hijack ad domains do it for ads that have the highest coverage, not some niche gay porno website.
I know you are mentally retarded, but bear with me here.
>>53702000
That's a BS excuse. This isn't 2001.
How, exactly, do these sites detect that you are using an adblocker?
Are they using javascript that detects whether or not your browser has loaded certain content?
Would it not be possible to have volunteer contributors go out to these sites with paywalls and figure out exactly which lines of javascript code deal with checking for ad blocking and showing the paywall, and have the browser plug-in not execute those pieces of code?
Or are browser plugins not allowed that degree of control? If it were possible, how difficult would it be to get this kind of extra functionality put into ublock or something?
>>53701971
>If you disagree, you've probably never created a piece of online content in your life.
You know you're posting on a board where people post original content ANONYMOUSLY all the time, right?
>>53702034
Yeah it's 2016 where PCs get infected with random-ware distributed through ads.
>>53701802
If their ads didn't block the content, I wouldn't use adblock.
If you send data to my computer, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it, period. If your business model depends on me deciding to do one particular type of thing with it, it's a stupid business model and that's your problem.
On the principle of the matter, I'll stop using a service sooner than disable ad blocking for it, no matter how useful. I've blacklisted several news sites for this reason.
>>53702034
This very month there was another incident of Google ads spreading malware.
Ad platforms never learn.
>>53701971
>entitlement
Yeah because demanding that I sit through ads to read the news is not the definition of entitlement. I'm not reading your fucking ads
>>53701971
>If you disagree, you've probably never created a piece of online content in your life.
I have, but I'm not some stupid web hipster who thinks everything has to be a fucking business.
>>53701802
Don't care
>>53702034
I don't give a shit, it happened then and it can happen now. Fuck em.
>>53701971
The problem here anon is that it isn't the users who depend on your site, it is you who depends on users.
The entitlement is in your court. It's not the users' fault that you are shitty at providing a service, at not providing multiple revenue routes besides ads, and bad at management.
That's on you. You are basically spewing the same shit that outdated Hollywood companies who can't keep up with technology and want to stay in the stone age are spewing with regards to the whole Netflix affair.
>>53701971
>entitlement
How is it entitlement?
I pay for my internet connection and my computer, I will be the one to decide what is displayed on it.
HTTP is a pull protocol, not a push protocol. I am not "blocking" ads from showing up, I'm simply choosing to not download them.
If this gets the publisher's panties in a bunch, then its their problem.
This is like hosting a party for your friends, shoving flyers for useless stuff in everyone's face, and then complaining that everyone feels "entitled" when they call you an ass.
>>53701987
Most ads on respectable websites are non-intrusive outside of video ads.
Also someone please tell CNN to stop with the autoplay bullshit.
>>53702053
Interesting idea.
I think another trick would be to load the ads, but not show them to the user.
ie: filter them further down the chain, so the site can't detect you're blocking them.
>>53701802
Sucks for them if their business model can't survive. I'd shed as any tears for them as I did popups and pop unders.
This is literally my face when i block ads
There isn't a single site I use anymore daily that relies on ads.
For those I rarely use (like this shithole), I couldn't care less if they vanished.
I'm blocking the shame too. It's easy, use uBlock Origin with the right filters.
>>53701971
The internet used to function fine without ads everywhere.
I'm not gonna say it was any better or worse than the internet now, but content will exist regardless of advertising.
>>53702031
>>53702062
>>53702069
Those ads aren't injecting malicious software into your browser. It's people clicking on the ads and stupidly downloading software. Modern browsers (especially paired with noscript, which you all have) don't have this problem for the most part. At this point Flash is a much bigger problem and I bet you guys are still using it despite the fact it has a new vulnerability like every week now.
>>53701847
FuckFuckAdblock my man.
>>53701971
>entitlement
You are providing what any idiot can provide and what thousands of other sites provide. What makes you so special in comparison to other sites that you should be entitled to user support?
Chances are that most of your users aren't there because of your content as much as they are there because you happened to luck out and they are too lazy to seek other sites that provide your same content.
So what do you have that you can provide for those users to stay?
What makes you so special?
You are good at playing the blame game, but winning philosophical arguments doesn't win a solution and resolution in the end. When your sites fails, you will still be the stupid one in the end. The users will just move onto another site with the same shit you provided.
I don't see this discussed a lot on here. But I'd be really interested to know how many people here think ad blockers will be forced out in the next decade.
I feel like we're in the golden age of ad blocking right now. I don't know how long it's going to be before advertisers and websites flex their nuts and show us who is in charge.
>>53701924
>pop-up windows
Haven't had one of those in years. How are they? Are they prettier now than they were around 6-7 years ago??
>>53702053
It usually works by some JS trickery and honeypot ads. I.e. they have some specialized ad with a URL attached to your cookie and they check if this URL has been visited.
And yes there are ways to circumvent it. I don't know of any "anti ad blocker" that hasn't been circumvented yet
>>53702117
I think that a firefox addon does it, it's a simple hide ads. It loads them but does not make them visible.
>>53702164
hello forbes employee
are you getting paid enough?
>>53701802
Ads are a shitty business model, so is paying $5 a month for 99 sites. Why couldn't Tim Berners Lee just copy the telephone rate system? This would literally be a non issue if going to https;//news-website.com would bring up a page "this site has a premium rate of $xx for y duration of time or z amount of data" i.e you find "https://news-site.com - $0.53" on your monthly bill.
>>53702187
It's pretty much impossible to prevent adblocking. You can always choose to selectively not load certain resources, even if you have to do it on a lower level (read: not as a browser plugin, but as a proxy in between your browser and the web).
>>53702189
They are part of the same page now: just a DOM element with position absolute.
>>53701802
>>53702208
>"this site has a premium rate of $xx for y duration of time or z amount of data"
>Site enables a fuck ton of ads to make the 300kb site into a 350MB site
Goyim pay ur bills
>>53702200
Unless they add crippling DRM it's impossible for them to really block adblockers from blocking the ads. Worst case would be loading those ads and simply not displaying them. Really bad for privacy but way better than looking at company propaganda.
How about sharing your ad revenue with users who don't use ad blockers?
>>53702117
If I recall correctly, Adblock Plus did something like that before, and was really slammed for it.
It does seem like the simplest solution, but I am sure that many people don't want to even have the ads downloaded to their computers.
If all the sites do to check for adblocking is to see if a certain html element has not been loaded, then maybe some kind of "placeholder" hidden element could be made to fool the scripts?
>>53702200
I see, that makes sense. Are there any thorough books or articles that go in-depth on how these detection systems work? I want to take a deeper look.
Its more trouble to whitelist a site or one-time allow it than it is to simply use another website
The only site I have this issue with is Forbes but honestly fuck those guys those articles sucked anyways.
>>53702208
Man, fucking dialers, remember those?
>>53702054
Okay, but how many of you are making a living from Youtube, blogging, or journalism?
>>53702075
Ads on a webpage are so ridiculously passive. They don't affect your experience any differently than any other content you might not be caring that much about right at the moment. When you go on, say, CNN to read a news article, do you block the "recommended articles" portion of the webpage because it's not what you were there to see? Of course not. Going after ads is quite arbitrary unless they're really obnoxious and affect your experience poorly.
>>53701986
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3044874/security/large-advertising-based-cyberattack-hit-bbc-new-york-times-msn.html
It took me literally 5 seconds
>>53701971
I sort of agree, but the problem with that is that most sites that serve ads also happen to serve shitty ads. In fact, if sites had only been using stuff like Google AdWords or responsible providers like The Deck, adblockers never would've happened in the first place because ads wouldn't really be an annoyance.
But that's not how things played out. Instead, ads more often than not are obnoxious and if I manually blacklisted sites I'd spend a not-insignificant amount of my surfing time blacklisting sites. I don't like that. When I'm surfing I want to surf, not micromanage my browsing experience, and thus my adblocker remains on unless a site impresses me as particularly worthy for one reason or another.
>>53702164
>Those ads aren't injecting malicious software into your browser.
One of those links described just that.
>It's people clicking on the ads and stupidly downloading software.
So you are saying that shop owners shouldn't be arrested by the police for having free cocaine bags lined up on the stand for customers to pick up? Ain't the service providers fault that he has drugs in his stand!
What if someone accidentally clicked on one of those ads because you dumb site was loading too slow and the ad rolled over the area where the user wanted to click a fucking site related button, and the shit automates a download?
Fuck off.
You know what's a great idea? If a rule is made that sites are shut down for 48 hours after a malicious ads has been identified and reported being hosted on their site,
and an additional amount of days corresponding to the amount of computers infected by that ad during the period it was effective.
If you agree to this, i'll agree to removing all my ad-blocking software, FOREVER.
>>53702210
>You can always choose to selectively not load certain resources
That's more or less what I'm worried about. A "Load Our Ads or Eat Shit" policy.
>>53701904
That's exactly what they're doing
>>53702259
And you make a living off jewtube because of memes and shit made from random assholes here on 4chan that just did it for the hell of it
youre literally stealing from their work matey
fuck you, pay up goyim
>go to website
>ads load first
>actual content you went to site for loads after ads, sometimes it hangs up and never loads
honestly I dont even know why an informed computer user wouldn't use an adblocker
and fuck video websites that can load a 1080p commercial instantaneously meanwhile the sites own content loads like a slowbro hopped up on weed
>>53702097
If I'm providing a service to you whose dependent on the contribution from you and other consumers, you generally have an ethical obligation to support me when you consume my content. It's a red herring to go about other ways in which I might be able to generate revenue. The fact is you're taking the fruits of my labor without giving me anything in return. I won't go as far as to say it's stealing, but it's wrong.
>>53702053
The way I would implement it:
1) send ad link containing session ID.
2) put session key (hash of session ID plus my secret passphrase) in ad.
3) content request must contain the session key, or they won't load for that session.
Probably not how they implement it though, but I think this is pretty much fail proof.
>>53701802
I open it in mpv is what I think
>>53702300
>and fuck video websites that can load a 1080p commercial instantaneously meanwhile the sites own content loads like a slowbro hopped up on weed
Well the ads are probably more commonly accessed while the video you are trying to watch is on some hardware hardly spinning s somewhere.
>>53701802
>use picker
>block that crap
>never go to that site again
I really don't give a fuck.
>>53702304
>but I think this is pretty much fail proof
Except for the part where the adblocker loads that thing and just doesn't display it.
>>53701802
>supporting journalism ever
>giving money to cultural marxism distributors
Pick both
>>53702259
Youtubing and blogging is a hobby, not a profession.
Real journalism should require a subscription, just like paper newspapers used to have.
Amateur "journalism" is cancer.
>>53702034
>its current year
>malware just isn`t a "thing" anymore you know
Enjoy getting cuckd by ads.
>>53701802
>How do you feel about adblock-shaming?
It shouldn't exist.
A website that undermines their customers by mixing them with shit does not deserve those customers in the first place.
And this is coming from a person who never used adblock.
>>53702302
>he puts his work on the internet for free
>he complains about "taking the fruits of my labor"
just admit that your business plan is a little flawed, buddy.
if your content is so valuable, why not pursue a subscription-based model?
I find it interesting that you say others are not fulfilling their "ethical obligation", when your entire business model revolves around throwing a shitload of ads at people who found your site on google.
If your content is really worth pursuing, why not remove it from public access and have your users pay a subscription fee?
>>53702335
Yes.
So conclusion is: they need to block it on display, not on load.
They use a script to detect adblock. I kill them with anti adblock killer.
https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer
If I like a website and visit it daily I will disable my adblock manually for that site.
Ex : anichart, ANN, etc.
>>53701802
Send a e-mail complaint to the [email protected], don't forget to include an ad in it or baka.
>>53702185
You don't go to a tailor and demand they fix your clothes for free because you know someone who knows how to sew but who isn't around today.
You don't steal apples from a grocery store and justify it by saying that you have an apple tree in your backyard.
You don't download a movie and justify it by saying that you have a friend who has this movie.
>>53701986
>communists
Stopped reading there.
>>53702302
>you generally have an ethical obligation to support me when you consume my content
A subjective opinion that doesn't resolve the situation and only only progresses your downfall since you just lost a bunch of customers, that you could have otherwise retained if you provided a quality service and alternatives to what is factually considered a potentially malicious revenue system.
The only thing you are achieving with your infantile ethics preaching is to make yourself feel good.
Too bad business isn't run by you feeling good, but the customers feeling good.
If you don't realize this, then you deserve to fail, and it will be an ethically correct failure. Ethically correct as in the business ethics definitions of ethics.
>not using noscript
am i on /g/?
>>53701847
https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/antiadblockfilters.txt
>>53702384
Umatrix reporting in with no scripts by default
>>53701802
Blocking their blockers/pleas feels so fucking great.
>>53702402
you matrix?
I heard of µmatrix though.
>>53702364
All inaccurate analogies.
If a tailor offers to fix my clothes for free, I am not obligated to pay him.
If a grocery store offers to give apples for free, I am not obligated to pay for them.
If the publisher gives the movies out for free, I am not obligated to pay for them.
Similarly, if you put your web content out for free (in the form of a publicly-accessible web site), I have no obligation to compensate you for it.
Ads aren't a form of payment, they are simply a request made by the site publisher that will make them money.
If I don't want my browser to show the ads, I can do so. You can't do that with a tailor or grocery store or movie publisher, because those offer actually useful services.
>>53702364
You aren't a tailor unless you have acquired the skillset to be one, and aren't supported by a secure payment form as regulated by the Government and the banking system.
You don't sell apples unless your apples are approved by the food regulatory body, and unless you are supported by a secure payment form as regulated by the Government and the banking system.
You don't sell a movie in one country and not in the next one, and then whine about how people are pirating it because you were too stupid to provide a myriad of content providers to ensure that the people there are capable of paying for it.
>>53702356
1)user enters site and asks to load ads from the ad server
1.1)ad server generates a secret code
1.2)ad server sends the code to the content server
1.3)ad server sends the code to the visitor
2)the visitor sends the code to the content server
3)the content server checks if the codes match
3.1)if the codes match the content server sends the content
btw this is a patented design ;^)
>>53701971
Until you give me static, non-obtrusive, non-sexual, non-drug, malwareless, non-tracking, silent, verified first party advertisements that don't penalize my monthly data then I will continue to block ads with uo and hosts (for other applications).
>>53702281
You're being completely ridiculous here. Even a real-world analogy doesn't stack up. If one of Wal-Mart's distributors sent them some bad stock of some food, once found out Wal-Mart has to immediately remove it from shelves, obviously, but it's not their fault, and blame would and should be put on the distributor.
It's obviously impossible for advertising firms to audit every single ad that comes in, and we don't require them to. Just like websites are exempted from harm if someone illegally puts copyrighted material on their servers as long as they promptly remove it.
>I'm no longer allowed to decide what I see or not
>It's compulsory that a program displays certain things and versions of the program that don't aren't permitted
where the fuck is this planet going?
>>53702355
The issue with this is that even if ads are not displayed, just downloading them from a third-party server will easily allow for your internet browsing to be tracked.
If a bunch of sites use the same ad provider (very common, actually), and the ad provider sees that the same browser on the same IP address has downloaded these ads consecutively, they can then make a target profile of your browsing habits.
Blocking the ads from downloading in the first place is a lot harder, but IMO will be the best solution.
>>53701986
>communist
If you have an open site and aren't running your site behind a paywall, you pretty much are the definition of a communist.
I am going to await with a grin as you attempt to justify yourself out of the fact that paywalls are the only and most capitalist form of running a site, because you are afraid of using a proper capitalist method of running it.
>>53701903
spidermonkey is free software
js can't be compiled so it's freeish too
>>53702164
You are quite possibly the biggest moron on the internet.
I skimmed through a wired magazine recently and literally every 2nd page was an ad and there were several full spread ads, it was absolutely fucking unreadable. Those fucking jews can keep their shitty "content" if I have to see 3 pages of ads for each page of actual content.
>Its current year + gnu
>not having adblock in your Googlemobile
>not using GNU/Linux self-guidance OS on your 4 wheeler vroom vroom thingy
This is the future you chose.
>>53702486
Trying to keep their website running. Apparently it is considered evil to run a website.
>>53701802
>supporting journalism
Considering what "journalism" entails today, I'm doing my duty by not supporting "journalism", period.
>>53702082
iloveyou.exe
>>53702354
It's flawed not because it's bad, but because it's not perfect. It's not perfect because not everyone will follow it. This is generally taken into account, just like with firms who offer a product/service and are supported by donations.
There is nothing unethical about supplying advertising with my content. It is unethical to take it away when the content I give you is dependent on it.
>>53702483
>it's obviously impossible
No it isn't.
>>53702483
>once found out Wal-Mart has to immediately remove it from shelves, obviously, but it's not their fault
It actually is if Walmart didn't do any food checking and people were poisoned because it allowed the food to be put into the stands.
Are you mentally retarded or have you not followed any of the food scandals in the past few years?
You talk about real-world analogies, yet so lightly ignore the real world.
What a fucking idiot.
>Just like websites are exempted from harm if someone illegally puts copyrighted material on their servers as long as they promptly remove it.
And if you don't remove it, you are fucked unless you got lots of money. As proven many times before.
Can you make at least one correct statement without fucking up?
> clickbait
""""" journalism """""
>>53702527
Friend, if you feel the need to restrict a user's activities on a computer and internet connection that they paid for out of their own pocket, then perhaps it is for the best that your site goes down for good.
>>53702535
have you ever read wired?
>>53702364
These people are just too dumb to argue with, save your energy
>>53701992
you've convinced me
Well, we brought this on ourselves, didn't we? If we hadn't told the fucking pleb about adblocking, we wouldn't have this problem now.
We meant no harm, we were just trying to protect the pleb from malicious ads and yet it backfired...
>>53702571
Read Wired before, now moved onto another site.
>>53701802
I dont give a shit
/Thread
>>53702571
No, I'm assuming it's some clickbait or native advertising shit. What makes wired special?
>>53701802
Ad blocking is theft, clean and simple.
>>53702443
Ads are a form of payment. You're surely not simple enough to think that only money backed by your government can be a form of payment, right? They aren't required, but that isn't the question here. The question here is what's ethical. Is it right to consume content that is dependent on your compensation without compensating the content creator? I think not.
>>53701993
>new incognito window with UO on
>google name of article
>click on it
Works for me
>>53702588
Letting the pleb in on these things has always backfired.
>>53702588
>Well, we brought this on ourselves, didn't we?
I think you mean, the websites brought this on themselves with malicious and invasive advertising.
>>53702571
If WIRED dies, nothing of value will be lost. Unless you can convince us otherwise.
>>53702564
This is why there's all the complaining. It's better for people to see nothing that it is to see the website without ads. It's all or nothing.
>>53702617
Well, it kinda worked, because the amount of "anon, fix my computer, it has a virus" has decreased a lot.
>>53702462
That's not how ad blocking works in reality.
People just copy the code from adblock detector sites.
Anti adblocker killer deals with that kind of protection.
Well, at least with anti adblock killer I can surf forbes without disabling my adblock now.
This is pointless, it's like battling crackers, you'll never win and your games will be cracked.
>>53702612
If somebody gives you a free cookie with a raisin on top, you don't have to eat the raisin.
>>53702617
When I was in high school my English teacher went out of her way to show everybody how to install adblock. I blame her.
>>53701802
>$1 per week for ad-free version
>every site i visit now asks for JUST $1 per week or else it won't display the """"""""""""""""""""""""content""""""""""""""""""""""""
>now i pay $1500 a year more for """"""""""""privilege"""""""""""" of not being robbed of my bandwidth limit
>>53701802
At the risk of sounding like a hipster, but I really preferred it when ad blocking was just a niche thing only "nerds" did and you didn't have to deal with this crap.
Why did it suddenly become mainstream? Huge annoying flashy ads have been around for well over a decade, so have adblockers, why now?
>>53701903
which cambodian claymation is this semen demon from
>>53702549
You're right, supplying advertising isn't inherently wrong.
I routinely enable ads on sites I visit frequently.
>take it away
And here lies the fundamental misconception. When I download a web page over http, I only get the html file. From there, my browser can choose what resources to download. For example, a text-based browser may elect to not download CSS sheets, and a mobile, data-conscious browser may elect to not download large images.
"Blocking" ads is a bad term, because I am not blocking or "taking away" ads at all: I am simply telling my browser to look at the html file I got from your server, and choose which additional resources to download as well.
Simply telling my browser to not download a certain resource (whether it be an image, video, flash content, or ad), is completely within my moral boundaries, because I have paid for my computer and internet access, so I will decide what goes over the wire and what doesn't.
Again, if I like your site's content, I WILL disable ads. However, I will not disable ads for a shitty blog with a small piece of information that I found through google, and the site owner must learn to live with that.
>>53702646
As long as we don't tell the pleb about anti anti adblock, we'll be fine.
>>53701920
Lol! Very fine meme you have here.
>>53702552
Logically impossible? No. Practically impossible? Yes.
>>53702555
If Wal-Mart put the food there and it wasn't their fault the food was poisoned, they would not be held at fault.
>And if you don't remove it, you are fucked unless you got lots of money.
Your point? I didn't imply otherwise.
I had no problem with ads if they were a simple banner or something, but when a site requires me to have 30 scripts running just so the devs can "keep the lights on", something is wrong
>>53702648
Why are you accepting a cookie that features a raisin only to remove it? That's like getting a hamburger and removing the meat patty - totally missing the point of the burger. If would be better to decline the cookie and let someone else appreciate it fully.
>>53702648
If the implicit agreement was that you would eat the raisin, you very well should.
>>53702691
It is very possible. Ad companies simply don't want to have to do it, because it would be costly.
The solution must be punitive fines for distributing malware. No excuses.
fuck em, even if i like the site i wont disable µblock and noscript
>>53702691
>If Wal-Mart put the food there and it wasn't their fault the food was poisoned, they would not be held at fault.
But they are held at fault for not checking it before putting it there.
Much like all the intermediaries and marts that were fined and found at fault in Europe during the Romanian horsemeat scandal.
What your wishful thinking conjures just so you can grasp on that non-argument of yours,
and what the real world and the justice system thinks, are two separate things, you fucking uninformed retarded idiot.
>>53702612
Ads aren't compensation, or a form of payment, end of story. Your condescending tone isn't helping your case.
I paid for my internet with a bandwidth limit, so I will choose what goes over my wires, end of story.
If your content is good, I may be willing to pay you monthly for an ad-free version, but I'm not going to view your ads unless your content is exceptionally good, and that's that.
>>53702694
Well anon, keeping their lights on in their 6 mansions built with the blood and tears of ad-victims sure is expensive.
>>53702661
>why now?
A lot of idiots went around shouting "INSTALL THIS TO BLOCK ADS" from the proverbial rooftops. Couple that with mobile adblockers and they became "mainstream" really fast.
>>53702712
There is no implicit agreement. An HTTP GET request is not GET-AND-I-PROMISE-TO-DISPLAY-IT-ALL.
i dont.
i'll continue to block ads the way god intended
>>53702471
being this prude
>>53702712
>implicit agreement
>agreement
>implicit
Really starting to grasp at straws now, aren't you?
Just accept that the user is allowed to decide whether or not to download certain content.
>>53702712
And the implicit agreement from me to you is that you can go fuck yourself unless we didnt expressly agreen upon it
>"Turn off adblocker if you want our content"
>Turn off adblocker
>Ads eclipsing content
>Content isn't even that good to begin with
>Immediately turn adblock back on and use another site
I learned my lesson /g/. Have you?
>>53702709
So now the point of a website is to display ads? The mask slips...
>>53702767
That's why there are complaints about ad blockers on the web site. So you can go away when you choose not to remove your adblocker.
>>53702609
Did he died?
>>53701986
People were asked to turn off ad blockers for Forbes, they were served ads holding malware. Someone post link
>>53701992
>half the ads on 4chan aren't ads but moot telling you to obey the rules because nobody actually wants to buy ads for this shithole
>>53702664
I'll put it this way: on the internet there is an implicit agreement between content creators and consumers that consumers will consume the advertisements along with the content they're there for in lieu of giving them money. I would say it's kind of a social contract.
As for your semantics, it's really not that relevant here. This isn't about what you can do or have the right to do (I won't argue it should be illegal to block ads), this is about what you should do ethically. Whatever the background mechanisms at play here, taking content without compensation (in this case, maybe a glance at a product or service you might be interested in), is wrong.
>>53702780
Of course. If it wasn't, then it would obviously not exist.
>>53702773
We all have. I think everyone here gave this "no-adblocking" a try before.
I would have chuckled at Forbes "ad-light experience" if I weren't so busy puking blood and tearing my eyes out.
That shit makes me wonder what the vanilla ad experience is.
>>53702802
>implicit agreement
>social contract
fucking lol, get the fuck out pajeet
>>53702786
Blocking the javascript that complains about ad blockers isn't that hard, buddy.
Even if I couldn't get rid of your nagging paywall, I can guarantee you that anything you put on your site can be found elsewhere, with less intrusive tactics.
Adblocking is degenerate.
It's a "free lunch"
Don't be an asshole. Websites can't make money if you keep your Asperger addons on.
t. website owner who lives from ad revenue
>>53702609
>>53702802
There actually isn't, they just want you to think that so you feel guilty.
If their shit is so special offer a bitcoin address, patreon or whatever
>>53702786
And go away users will.
And die the site will.
And other sites who are more intelligent about how they do things will prevail by learning from your arrogant mistakes, while providing the same content, if not better, that you did.
And the digital Universe is in balance again.
>>53702809
I've made websites before. They had no ads. I had no misapprehensions that I was owed anything by my visitors.
>>53702828
I hope you get evicted :^)
>>53702754
>>53702767
Again, what the user is allowed to do and what the user should do are two different things.
4chan is the only site I frequently browse that has them and I just hide them. Most other sites that have them I could probably just as easily never visit the site again and I would barely notice.
>>53702851
So go home and cry about it.
>>53702827
Which is exactly the point. Which is why I wonder why people are complaining about adblocking complaints and all the entitlement they have to visiting websites who complain about adblockers. Stop complaining, just go away and let them be.
>>53702135
where else would you post your smug anime faces anon-kun?
>>53702828
>Websites can't make money if you keep your Asperger addons on.
Good. I remember when websites were a business expense or just a hobby, not some autistic way to make money by forcing ads on people. When you're gone, I won't shed a fucking tear because there will always be an alternative.
I think it's ethical for users not to pay back a shitty site, and continue incurring server load on it,
because it's ethical to speed up the death of shitty sites.
>>53702802
>implicit agreement
I wrote out that long post because I thought you were actually interested in having a reasonable discussion, but if you seriously think that it is possible, in ANY situation EVER, to have an "implicit agreement", then it is not worth holding a discussion with you any further, because you are too far gone to see why an "implicit agreement" is inherently impossible to make.
If that level of delusion is what you need to convince yourself that blocking ads is a moral evil, then let's just stop the discussion here. Don't bother replying if you can't make a reasonable, well-measured response.
>>53702828
I hope your site dies
>>53702828
>t. website owner who lives from ad revenue
>life from ad revenue
Get a real fucking job you parasite.
The funny thing here is that those of you arguing in favor of adblocking on the basis that sites have shitty obnoxious ads are always using adblock, so how the hell would you know?
>>53702828
Lets see your "website" that's so fucking important and special that you live off it
>>53701802
>How do you feel about adblock-shaming?
Absolutely nothing, as you can block that too.
>>53702766
>wanting to be a slut for the advertising jew
>>53702828
>website owner who lives from ad revenue
>can't make something valueable
>has no regrets to jew people of CPU time
i hope you will die by being skinned alive
>>53702754
some serious wit goin' on here
>>53702828
here's hoping you starve, faggot.
>>53702891
Experience fixing my parents' computer time and time again after they have clicked on dodgy ads and gotten malware.
>>53702847
How is it possible to run a website when there are no ads? If the content was blocked, and people go away, that's a better outcome than people who visit with an adblocker. That's actually a good thing.
>If they don't let me block ads, then I won't use their site!
I don't think they really care. If you're blocking ads, then your traffic isn't making them any money. They don't consider you a customer.
>>53702851
>i am the supreme authority on what users should and shouldn't do
>let me shower you with my supreme moral wisdom, for i know better than you
How many fedoras do you own?
How many times did you beat off to cartoon ponies today?
What do you say when your dad asks you to get a real job?
>>53702911
Read>>53702816
We all tried to play it your way at some point.
>>53702848
Now hire full time editors to create high quality content for your site. How do they work without money?
>>53702906
HTTP GET-BENT
Here's a challenge:
Name 3 websites that could actually make you comply by adding adblock-blockers.
Personally this is all I got..
1. Google
2. ???
>>53702920
Then they should stop coming to these threads and complaining at us, desu.
>>53702848
i think he meant that the point of websites which shame adblocking is to push ads
like wired content isn't really worth anything; so his argument goes they're only around to get people to look at ads
>>53702938
Why should I do that? The websites were for my own amusement and that of my friends.
>>53702944
Then you should also stop coming to these threads and complaining that websites put up adblocking complaints.
>>53702938
>high quality content for your site
>high quality
oh I'm laffin.
>>53702941
Time for bing to shine, i guess.
>>53702941
Not even Google. There are alternatives
>>53702959
Then your website is no comparison to their websites. You're making an apples and oranges comparison.
>>53702941
4chan maybe? I would probably just go to the archives and read posts there though honestly, I don't care that much about this shitty place to disable my adblocker.
Name one worthy website that you can't use if you have Adblock enabled.
You can't.
>>53702938
>hire full time editors
>high quality content
your content is so shit you have to hire other people to do it for you :^)
>>53702851
I take it you support internet-crippling drm and trusted computing?
>>53702978
Altavista will rise again!
>>53702828
>t. website owner who lives from ad revenue
So you would rather call adblocking users assholes, than provide a non-advertising based income path for users who would use it instead of opening potentially malicious ads?
Shit son, if all people in this world were as stupid as you with a twisted sense of "ethics" there would be no business in existence.
>>53702913
>How is it possible to run a website when there are no ads?
Ask any of the Chinese novel sites that i visit, which don't have ads, have tens of millions of views, and still maintain themselves perfectly.
Or ask TekSyndicate on how they managed to circumvent dependence on ads.
What you are basically saying is:
>mommy mommy, i don't want to learn and work, i want to do it MY WAY
Well sorry, but the business world doesn't operate on what you want, but on adaptation.
If you go with your business into an Islamic nation, and bitch about how everyone there is an asshole because they won't buy your pork, then it's part of business ethics that you die while a proper business adapts to the environment there and succeeded where you failed by selling fish or lamb.
Dumb fuck.
>>53702963
/g/ has always been in favor of ad-blocking.
You are the outsider here, you are the one that needs to avoid these threads, not me.
>>53702987
I'd honestly just go straight to another chan or make my fucking own. They actually have templates for imageboards now, I'd imagine they are piss easy to make. Just difficult to maintain and monitor.
>>53702884
The agreement becomes valid as soon as the consumer becomes aware that ads are a (possibly THE) revenue source for the website.
Of course it's possible to have an implicit agreement. There is a reason I referenced the social contract, an implicit agreement philosophers have been discussing for centuries now and underpins probably the very philosophy you have on society in general.
To not get too deep here, our social interactions are full of implicit agreements, are they not? There is an implicit agreement, for instance, that if you see someone you know well at a grocery store who you haven't seen in awhile, you stop and chat for a second. No one ever told us that's what should be done, but we've implicitly agreed to do it as a part of being in relationships with people.
>>53702941
4chan
YouTube
..............
I don't block ads on reddit anyway, because they are fine...
Stackoverflow, maybe? I hate this "work on work you love. From home. $3 / hour" ad-bullshit.
>>53703003
We can but hope!
Maybe bring back the unholy trio of Geocities, Angelfire and Tripod too.
>>53702963
>being this butthurt
>>53702992
>your burger business is so shit you have to hire other people to do it for you
>your construction business is so shit you have to hire other people to do it for you
>your accounting business is so shit you have to hire other people to do it for you
>your gym business is so shit you have to hire other people to train for you
Yeah, nice argument senpai
>>53702978
Do you honestly believe that the alternatives will give non shit results? I don't think you understand what search engines were like before 2000. Even today, Bing isn't fantastic.
>>53703015
I don't stop and chat with people I know unless there is a good reason to.
>be year 2018
>some huge sites including tumblr, reddit, pcworld, shit. etc have adopted the "pay us 1$ month to see content" business model
>the average pleb has to pay ~10$ month to access his favorite sites
>be year 2019
>now you can use applel pay to pay for your website visits as you go, 0.01$ per page or 1$/week per site
>many medium to big sites have adopted the pay per visit model
>the average pleb needs to pay 50$ month to cover his browsing habits
>every forum implement pay to post system
>be year 2020
>almost every worthwhile site is behind a paywall now
>ad networks have died one by one
>networks of sites join together and create a premium hub
>20% OFF!!! for a small price of $29.99 you can now access over 99 sites goy! register for a year and get 1 month for free! (best value)
cap this and watch.
you brought this on yourself
>>53703024
>hey i have no idea what im doing
>I have no money to live off, but ill invest whatever i got into random bs
>why wont people look at the massive neon sign blinking in perfect harmony to induce epilepsy
>I WILL SUE ALL PEOPLE THAT DONT LOOK AT MAH FUGGIN SIGN
mkay brah
>>53703020
This thread is all about butthurt senpai and you're in it with me.
>>53702483
>It's obviously impossible for advertising firms
Are you fucking retarded? Auditing ads to make sure they aren't malware is pretty easy since an advertising firm can establish a policy of source code review like most other companies that buy and sell software do.
It's especially easy compared to the stuff that other industries are required to do by law. Which one is cheaper? Inspecting all the ads you put up to make sure they aren't malware or testing the chemicals you sell to write up MSDS reports?
>>53702920
The problem is it's generally worse to not have them consume your content at all.
>>53702922
I'm using very simple kindergarten-level philosophy that basically everyone in every observable society agrees upon. You do realize I'm simply saying that these principles apply to the Internet just as much as they do to real life, right?
>>53702985
My websites are more like what the web used to be, before big business got involved. Hobbyists and enthusiasts sharing things, for free. It was wonderful. You wouldn't understand, though.
>>53703047
I will willingly use tor then or stop using the internet. It's such a waste of time anyways.
>>53703049
No strawman senpai desu
>>53703047
Isn't this essentially the argument behind net neutrality?
Question to all the anti-adblock fags in this thread: Is it morally wrong to fast forward through ads on a DVR (or good old VCR back in the days)? What about switching to another channel with picture-in-picture? Muting the sound? How about getting up and making a sandwich?
>>53703076
you seem upset
>>53703047
>some huge sites including tumblr, reddit, pcworld, shit. etc have adopted the "pay us 1$ month to see content" business model
Reddit already has alternatives. Those alternatives won't go pay to view, and if they do, other alternatives will creep up.
Same with PCworld, the most useless kind of content provider site that has thousands of copy-cats waiting for it to fuck up so they can take some of that "strain".
Same with Tumblr i imagine, though i don't follow it and don't know alternative creations.
Your whole post is invalidated by the existence of Human drive to do something "different" from predecessors, or norms.
This is the main point anti-adblocking idiots can't accept because they think they are "special".
>>53703070
Then that's okay. But you should not complain when there's a complaint that you're blocking the ads. You should accept that they're complaining and go away.
>>53703080
Net neutrality applies to ISPs. It wouldn't stop websites doing what that anon describes.
>>53703019
>Geocities
>Angelfire
I miss those sites. Apparently Geocities is still a thing in Japan though.
>>53703015
>social contract
It's a load of bullshit made to make people feel guilty about questioning government's role in society; read some Stirner. The only people who unironically go on about "social contract" are those who have no knowledge of history or philosophy outside of high school classes.
>social interactions
That is definitely NOT an agreement of any kind, implicit or otherwise. It is simply a gesture of courtesy. You don't do it because you feel obligated out of some nebulous concept of "agreement", just that you will feel nice for doing so, and maybe the other guy will feel nice as well. You don't do it because you think you will be breaking some sort of "agreement".
>>53703087
you seem upset
>>53703001
I don't believe that content creators should send obnoxious content or take control away from consumers with respect to things that they now own.
>>53703115
you seem upset
>>53703100
If they don't like me reading their content for free then they should set up a paywall, and then perish.
>>53703108
There's a torrent with every Geocities site
>>53703126
Access to someone else's website is now owned by the visitors to the site?
>>53703047
>year 2020
>create free alternative to paywall site
>become the most visited site in that niche
Now what?
>>53703143
If you don't want someone to get your content
Then don't serve it as a response to an HTTP request
>>53703066
Again, the issue with these ads aren't that the ads themselves are malware, but they're linking to content that is malware. You'd basically have to require an advertising firm audit the content the advertiser is linking to, which *is* practically impossible.
>>53703067
>very simple kindergarten-level philosophy
You do realize that the entire point of philosophizing is to discern lesser truths from greater truths, and that there is no such thing as an ultimate truth that you claim to have made, right? Every post makes you seem less and less intelligent.
>b-but my ethics are absolute because i read a book on philosophy once and because I need to justify my braindead business model
just stop posting buddy, I won't think badly of you.
>>53703138
That's exactly what they're doing. But you still complain that they won't let you access without an adblocker. That's what's getting me confused. If you don't like it, then stop going!
>>53703169
Regulatory capture and crony capitalism is used to kill your site.
>>53703066
>Auditing ads to make sure they aren't malware is pretty easy since an advertising firm can establish a policy of source code review like most other companies that buy and sell software do.
Malware even slips through the Apple walled garden sometimes on their app store. I have not a single fucking ounce of trust in the ad industry to even try to have a fraction of the standards that even those fags at Apple do. Going without an adblock is like saying
>There's only a .1% chance you'll get Herpes, you don't need a condom bro!
No thanks, I'll wear the fucking condom every time I request for a site to open its legs up for me.
>>53703099
leddit is so much more outspoken in their self-righteousness, they'd never let the pay2post thing happen. They'd all fuck off to voat or some other shit site.
Just bake ads into the content
>>53703080
Nah net neutrality is:
>Google sends a businessman to Comcast
>they work out a deal
>20$ discount for a Google package which only offers access to Google services.
>Facebook goes to Comcast
>The standard internet package is now 4 times as slow on sites that are not Facebook
>>53703142
Yeah you can still read all those sites through a variety of means but they're frozen, and will never be updated. It is no more. Little sites are a thing of the past now.
>>53703170
That's what's happening. What you see is a paywall message. Now you are complaining that there's a paywall.
>>53703184
They're not, though. They're still sending me their content, just with junk mixed into it, and I filter it.
>>53701971
>you've probably never created a piece of online content in your life.
I have created many amazing shitposts here on 4chan and various forums distributed across the internet. Never once have I asked for monetary compensation for my contributions to these communities.
>>53703114
Stirner doesn't seem far from Ayn Rand
is he?
