>go to site
>they ask you nicely to turn off your adblocker so they can stay afloat
Well, why not?
>>54524661
>Well, why not?
because I can, fuck wired anyway
Where can I view that page?
>>54524661
>Forbes pages want me to disable
>Use archive.is and proceed as normal
>>54524661
Are their ads intrusive ?
If so, there's your why not.
> No option to bypass it
> "Ask nicely"
Yeah and when giorgio calzone asks you to pay up or he'll break your kneecaps he's asking nicely too right
>>54524673
Here's the thing, if you aren't using a website, it doesn't matter. But if you are using adblock is it not unethical? Someone had to create that content. Someone had to pay for the servers it's hosted on. It's not right to consume it without giving anything in return.
>>54524677
Go to a wired article and scroll down a bit.
Adblock detection is now illegal in Europe.
>>54524684
Or Uncle Sam, for that matter.
>>54524692
If they care about getting paid that badly then put it behind a paywall.
>>54524692
If they think the content is worth it, they can put it behind a paywall.
But they won't because most sites have shit content.
>>54524661
i turned it on for 8tracks, forget where else
>>54524692
You created the content of your post and someone is paying for 4chin's servers to host it, but there's no way in hell anyone would ever pay to read it.
>>54524775
Hiroshima Nagasaki is happy selling your data, so he doesn't really care if you look at ads or not
The cucks paying for 4chan gold accounts are the cherry on top, his main business is data farming and selling
>>54524794
Remind me: why do we post here?
>>54524661
>>go to site
>>they ask you nicely to turn off your adblocker so they can stay afloat
>leave site
Web advertising is a scam. In traditional advertising the content provider is paid up front by advertising companies because even though they know that a large portion of the user base won't act on the advertising the portion that does will make it worthwhile.
Somehow they have managed to scam content providers on the Internet into only paying for clicks or views which is hugely beneficial for the advertising companies because they pay more directly for results but is far worse for content providers because they give up space on their site, or introduce shitty popups, or, even worse, help distribute malware and then have to beg users to click through ads.
No. Fuck you. You agreed to this shitty model. You got yourself scammed. It isn't my fault.
>>54524694
And that is literally retarded because you could under the same argument ban all Javascript.
>>54524661
Just use uBlock Origin
This about this for a minute.
Why doesn't Google employ Adblock detection when they are a huge web advertiser and include advertising in content sites?
It is because companies PAY Google to advertise for them. Google is getting lump sum payments so it doesn't matter if people block the ads. And the funny thing is that they then go and scam content providers with their Adsense and people don't realize that Google is offering them the shit side of the model.
>>54524794
There's no search function yet. Supposedly no data is being sold just yet.
>websites actually do this
Source? Link some websites that actually do this.
>>54524898
Wired.
And wired's implementation is fairly sophisticated. You can read about 50% of the article and then it will actually delete the element holding the article and replace it will the message, so you can't just css trick to hide the message like most sites.
Still, it can be gotten around. You can even just pretty much block scripts on the site and still read the full articles.
>>54524661
There is no such thing as "ad blocking". The web is a pull medium, not a
push medium. I merely decline to request ads.
t. Anonymous 2015
>>54524661
The good thing is that hey wouldn't have a chance to ask me that.
>>54524898
Forbes
>>54524928
>>54524919
protip: set your useragent to a Google crawler and suddenly these sites work perfectly again.
>>54524661
>go to site
>they ask you nicely to turn off your adblocker so they can stay afloat
>close the tab
>avoid using the site
OR
>purge adblock, install uBlock Origin
>go to site
>it just werks with no ads
>>54524941
Until they catch on.
The whole thing has pretty much been a reactionary matter.
>>54524661
>leave site
>>54524692
I don't block ads, I just don't request them.
>>54524833
But that would be a good thing.
>go to site
>block ads
>site has embed pictures as ads on top of the normal ads
this is actually illegal in some countries, blocking ad blockers.
Intrusive ads = trust violated
Websites that I like and trust get one chance
>>54524661
Advertisers have been irresponsible with our data. That didn't bother me too much, by when malware started being deployed via ad networks because they're not monitoring the content, because there is so god damned much of get rid of the humans, well then fuck you too.
>>54525015
No, fuck you, Javascript is great but used for a bunch of shitty things.
And of course the language itself is shit but it is still the best of what we have.
These companies have a way of defeating ad blockers. They can host ad content themselves. It's call first party advertising, if you don't get your ads from a shit-tier ad network the blockers won't work.
>whitelist site
>penis enlargements everywhere
Nah I'm good thanks
>>54524661
Tried to go without adblocker for a while, but the ads are so incredibly annoying and offensively obstructive, that I turned it on again. If it kills a few websites, then so be it, collateral damage I assume. At leat it frees the internet of that annoying bullshit. Probably saves a lot of traffic as well.
>>54524928
wait how didnt forbes learn from the last ad faux pa?
im pretty sure last time they forced users to disable their adblockers a whole bunch of people got infected with a lot of nasty stuff from their "trusted" ad partners.
>>54524684
napulè spotted
>le adblock is unethical thread again
>>54524794
>not whitelisting 4chan
Hiro is a qt, he can farm my data all he wants
>>54524941
that's a good idea desu
Forbes
>continue to site
Doesn't work?
>Just open it new tab a few times
Do the same for multiple pages.
>>54524661
If they did this legitimately, I wouldn't mind. By legitimately, I mean about $0.02/year, which is about how much they make by showing you ads. But when they keep trying to jew you like this... the only option is anti-ad-blocker-ad-blockers.
i quite enjoy coming across these things. they serve as a reminder for me to not visit the site ever again, but usually it's more of a "stop reading trash anon, you have work to do"
1. Because i don't want to risk harming my computer when people were harmed from ads turning malicious even on places like YouTube, Wikipedia, and such. Will you compensate me if such a thing happens under your watch? No, you won't. And neither will is turn off adblock for you.
2. Because the Internet is a communication medium which can be used for monetary gains, but this isn't its purpose. The Internet existed before ads did, and the Internet would exist even if ads stopped existing.
If you are the kind of idiot who can't maintain his site without ads, or treats his site as the main income medium, then you don't get my sympathy for your shitty management and decisions. And if you want to stop me from coming to your website, then convert it into a pay-wall, else i have no obligation to do anything for you or to your benefit under the circumstance of a free-flow website.
>>54524661
>go to site
>big ass "please turn off your adblocker to continue using the site blah blah" appears and prevents you from using the site.
>go to site
>"your adblocker is interfering with the operation of this site"
>>54524661
>using an ad blocker
There are other easier and better ways to block ads and not set off Adblock detection but I won't tell you plebs about it :^)
>he blocks ads without an ad blocker
>wired.com and forbes.com loads perfectly without ads for him
>neo-/g/ plebs hate him
>>54525366
>ads on wikipedia
wait... that used to be a thing?
>Think "Yeah that's fair enough, I get a lot of enjoyment from this website so why not help them generate a little revenue to continue providing me and others with this service"
>Turn off adblocker
>Website bloats in front of my eyes, elements shifting and being nudged aside, all formatting thrown into the abyss as the site hits 60mb, 58 of which are advert
>Grinds my browser almost to a halt
>Pop-up appears with a link to some external site not relevant in any way
>Turn ad blocker back on
>>54524661
Because I have anti-antiadblock script on and that thing doesn't even show up for me.
They can die
>>54525382
Yeah, there was a time they put on ads, and they fucked up with it. Since then, no more. Also users tended to fuck with certain pages using advertising linking.
>>54525264
I did that for a while but I'm not too fond of anime sex toy adverts
>>54524661
because i am not using an ad blocker,but a pi hole kek
>>54524683
Bad question.
Tracking is what they jew on, more so than throwing shit in your face.
Why would I financially support lazy asses who live off a fucking website ? They don't produce anything, and if they're not happy I can just go elsewhere and never visit their website again.
>>54525378
I'm using nothing but ublock origin, and both sites work fine for me. You just have to enable the anti-adblocker list.
>>54525360
similarly to how captcha affects me on 4chan. the more i post, the more annoying the captcha gets, essentially telling me to stop shitposting. if i truly cared about shitposting on 4chan that much, or reading some shitty articles on forbes or wired, then yes, i would either pay for a pass or even consider disabling adblock. all the signs so far are saying "go outside anon, it's a nice day", which i'm not gonna complain about.
>>54525424
There's some idiot anon here who thinks he is special, and his website is special, and he thinks that what he produces on his website is in any way different from what thousands of other such websites produce;
so he is convinced that his own failure would be a "loss" to the Internet.
Such anons are called "Idiots who came too late to the Internet, and don't understand shit about it."
>>54525447
I don't have a website
ITT people who unironically think they're entitled to a website's content.
>>54525378
>falling for the no JavaScript meme
>>54525469
If you think they are not entitled, then make a paywall.
It's quite easy.
I only deactivate it on NosTeam.ro, those guys deserve my shekels
>>54525447
Forbes hasn't died yet so it looks like it's working.
>>54525478
That's what the adblock blocker is for. To block people who don't they believe don't deserve their content.
>>54524661
>turn 2npi radians
>walk away
>>54525533
Nah. Adblockers don't stop the traffic hits.
Ad blocker is merely a way to lose potential donators by blocking off the general ad-blocking userbase, because you are too stupid or unwilling to accommodate them otherwise.
A paywall at least serves as a redirect and keeps a proper wall, without the site being harmed by traffic, and it eliminates any "leechers".
What you are arguing is having a prison without walls or doors, and still calling it a prison.
Pure retardation.
>>54525533
Forbes has an external revenue stream you idiot.
>>54524661
get this
https://reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/
>>54525013
Teach me plx
I don't really mind ads, the annoying ones are the intrusive ones.
I mainly block ads because of the intrusive ones and the way they track you.
>>54525469
>>entitled
you missed the point of the internet. Please turn in your computer and all related paraphernalia.
>>54525533
>implying that the ads are what's keeping Forbes alive
Wat
>>54525533
>That's what the adblock blocker is for.
No, that's what a paywall is for.
An adblock block is for when you want to bitch about leechers, but are too frightened of losing them at the same time, because you are not 100% confident about your entitlement mantra. You are basically a cuck who doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, so you decided to act like a child and keep an uncertain middle-ground in hopes of appearing neither good nor bad to the general audience.
And adblocker blocks still don't negate any server hits.
There is a reason nobody makes any drama about sites like Forbes, because paywalls clearly draw the line in the sand and clearly state the intent of the website and its philosophy. They are honest and upright about it, and nobody will argue with this.
Adblocking blockers basically signify that you don't know what the fuck you are doing, that you have no idea of what kind of management you want, and that you don't have the balls to go all the way properly and honestly.
You are a dishonest dumbfuck.
>>54525570
It's true that Forbes could offer a payment service to disable ads like Wired.
I don't understand what your prison analogy has to do with anything.
>>54525622
>the Internet is communism meme
If they want me to see their ads they should pay for my internet.
>>54525664
>There is a reason nobody makes any drama about sites like Forbes
Sorry, meant Financial Times.
>>54525122
You know that ads are based of your previous google searches, right anon?
The thing almost everybody seems to be missing is that adblockers are necessary for browser security, given the eventuality of being served a malicious ad. It's not about not giving people money, it's about not wanting to compromise your own machine.
>>54524661
The only site I turned adblocker off on is 4chan because ads are mostly cute anime grills :^)
How is my seeing your ads going to get you money? Even if I DO see the ad, I will not buy whatever it is your ad service is shilling. Rather than come crying to me about losing money for not seeing ads, you should cry to your ad host about not getting paid simply for hosting it instead of how many people see it or whatever shit mechanism it operates by
>>54525664
Forbes and Wired are trying convince regular users who are willing to disable their ad blocker for the sites they enjoy. They aren't appealing to man children like you.
The advertising is in the content now, not just the ad space. If you can't critically read content, you are up shit creek without a paddle.
>>54525774
>Forbes and Wired are trying convince regular users who are willing to disable their ad blocker for the sites they enjoy.
Kek. I'd be willing to disable my ad block, if you are going to guarantee me compensation for if your adverts ever turn malicious and harm my system.
Of course, you can go the man-child way and just act like you have no obligation to provide a secure environment for users,
in which case users have no obligation to provide for you.
Then you are being the man child.
>>54524661
If you're worried about ads/tracking then just pay them $1/week. $4/mo. is nothing if you read them often.
>>54524692
Someone should write a login with accounts and let you pay for this instead and hide some articles behind the login-system, fucknut.
You are all idiots basically.
uMatrix all the way
>>54524661
Because they host malware ads.
That's why.
Network traffic is push pull. The web happens to be a pull medium.. I simply choose to not ask for ads.
i can't afford to pay every single website money. that is why.
they all ask for it. fuck that.
>>54524661
malware
>>54525810
>I
Stopped reading there. This isn't about you. They are appealing to NORMIES. They're the only people willing to trust a website like Forbes. Whether or not you are too entitled to browse websites without ads has nothing to do with this because you're not their target user base.
Back in the day we used to create websites for free, purely because we had information we wanted to share.
Then Jews came along and convinced you faggots that you're entitled to be paid for building and hosting a website. You're not.
I've been hosting my ad-free website (at a cost to me) for the last 15 years, I don't make a penny from it, and that's fine with me because..
ITS MY FUCKING HOBBY
>>54524922
This man get it.
>>54525972
What's your website?
(Not shilling if I asked, anon)
>>54524661
But i am not 'blocking' ads
Ads are a pull service, i am merely choosing not to download them
Whats so wrong with that?
>>54525963
>Stopped reading there. This isn't about you.
Scroll up and see the OP post.
Now scroll down and see your own sentence here.
Now up again.
And now down again.
Now realize how retarded you just made yourself look, and how you lack reading comprehension.
You are the one steering off-topic with this thread with your posts.
>>54524661
What wired and the like are doing is clinging to a business practice and a market situation that no longer exists. They have the choice of either adapting or ceasing to exist. There is no third option, people will not stop using adblockers, and any of their attempts to block adblockers will be circumvented.
As for the question "How are sites financed by ads supposed to stay afloat then?", please see an example at
https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2016/02/why-stack-overflow-doesnt-care-about-ad-blockers/
>>54524661
>what are filters
>what are scripts
People like you, OP, who don't know shit about configuring the stuff that they install, don't deserve a right to surf the web without ads.
>>54526173
enjoy prison faggot
ITT people who unironically think they're entitled to advertising dollars because they copy/paste a few lines of code into their webpages
>>54525664
What the fuck are you even trying to say?
>>54526220
Actually keked at your b8 m8.
>>54524661
Dont have that problem. ublock origin and uMatrix
>>54525612
That's every adblocker dood
>>54526255
It's pretty clear if you can comprehend English.
>>54526299
I'm pretty sure I can comprehend English. Can you?
>>54524692
When sites learn how to actually manage ads maybe I'll stop using adblockers.
Audio ads, video ads, animated ads, large ads, terribly placed ads, ads that stop you from using the site, ads that pop up when you're trying to do shit, ads that open themselves, ads that start in a new tab or window, tons of ads that make up most of the page, and so on.
These are types of ads that 99% of websites use all the time. I'm not going to stop using ad blockers. It'd be the most frustrating thing in the world to have to deal with all of those ads like I used to before I found ad blockers. The internet was hell, audio and video ads fucking all over just one page, you couldn't even find where some of them were so you'd just be looking around and FUCK, there's no controls you just have to wait until it's over. Animated ads murdering my performance, ads opening new tabs and windows just because I clicked one link that seemed safe, it's all bullshit.
No, I'm not going to get rid of my ad blocker.
>>54526358
How do you know what ads are being used if you use adblockers?
>>54524692
Here's the thing, I'm paying for my connection and for the data I download. It was never an issue back in the mosaic or netscape days for me to turn off autoloading images. Now half the time you click on a new page it loads audio, video, and god knows how many scripts to track behaviors. The average webpage is approaching the size of doom. As long as there is that trend to waste my money I feel no qualms about blocking unwanted data from public servers.
Don't waste my money and I'll pay you for your content (through ads or subscription ).
>>54524661
Why not? Oh maybe because I DONT WANT FUCKING MALWARE ON MY COMPUTER
Paywall or GTFO, let us finally see what their content is really worth. Pr0tip: jack shit.
>>54526376
fuck off.
>>54525284
hur dur im to retarded to use ublock origin + noscript/uMatrix and block all ads in existence
>>54526376
because he started using an adblocker due to the ads, you dumb nigger.
>>54526427
That doesn't mean he knows which ads are being used now. Sites are constantly changing.
>>54526442
yeah, they keep adding more ads.
>tfw no ads even on nyaa
thank you based autist Gorhill
>>54526445
Good one, but it's not about more ads it's about being less intrusive / annoying. The only common shitty ads nowadays really are ads on videos.
>>54526454
>>54526459
The worst kind
I'll turn mine off if they ask nicely and I like them.
By if a single ad makes a noise or takes over the screen it gets turned back on.
>>54526331
He can, but you can't.
You can't have an open website and expect every visitor to provide income, your expectation is not legitimate.
You CAN have a CLOSED website, and your expectations for everyone to provide income is thus legitimized.
Using an adblocking blocker while keeping an open website, doesn't legitimize an expectation to get revenue from all visitors. It merely makes you look like a little bitch who doesn't have the balls to be upright, and close (paywall) your site like many proper websites do.
More importantly, if you are adamant about traffic hitting your servers and increasing their upkeep, paywalls resolve this while adblocking blockers don't. So there's even less excuse to avoid making paywalls if monetary upkeep is your main whining point.
Have you become less retarded now?
Just a daily reminder that adblocking is making YOU a FREETARD if you think about it.
>>54524673
> because I can
This
>>54524661
Anti adblockers are illegal btw
>>54524692
If a website cannot financially survive even after paywalling their material, then its because the content was NOT WORTH IT.
Not everything people create is worth keeping around.
>>54524794
>Hiroshima Nagasaki is happy selling your data
proof pls
also is that really a garrison work?
>>54526641
>also is that really a garrison work?
are you retarded?
>proof pls
yeah you're retarded
>>54524692
>WAAH THEY'RE SENDING THE WRONG BATCH OF HTTP REQUESTS MY LIFE IS OVER
Throwing up an ad supported website and having no second plan for how to turn it in to a viable business is a relic of the .com bubble era. Ads are intrusive, heavy, malware vectors that have no business being downloaded or rendered.
>>54524661
>reading Condé Nast drivels and clickbait sites
fuck ads
>>54524694
>yurop
>thinking they have power
lel
besides how are they going to enforce that internationally?
>>54524692
>>54526640
btw on the biggest news sites in my country paywalled their content about 18 months ago
since then they recorded 60% drop in 6 months
and they dodge every question regarding number of subscribed and paying users (unofficialy it's less than 5% of the original)
>>54526779
are you that danish guy that posted the same a few weeks ago?
How about I figure out what they're doing to detect I'm blocking their ads, and then block that along with it?
>>54526525
>>>54526331
>He can, but you can't.
>You can't have an open website and expect every visitor to provide income, your expectation is not legitimate.
>You CAN have a CLOSED website, and your expectations for everyone to provide income is thus legitimized.
>Using an adblocking blocker while keeping an open website, doesn't legitimize an expectation to get revenue from all visitors. It merely makes you look like a little bitch who doesn't have the balls to be upright, and close (paywall) your site like many proper websites do.
What a stupid thing to say. Websites that use ad blocker blockers are not closed? And why are you autistic about them using ad blocker blockers? Most people would rather turn off their adblock than pay to pass a paywall.
>More importantly, if you are adamant about traffic hitting your servers and increasing their upkeep, paywalls resolve this while adblocking blockers don't. So there's even less excuse to avoid making paywalls if monetary upkeep is your main whining point.
Maybe the money from advertisements is worth more than what they would expect from a paywall.
>Have you become less retarded now?
Are you less under age now?
>>54526779
Their content has less value than they thought then. Maybe if they were producing something people wanted, they could continue paywalling or blocking people from accessing until they turn off adblockers.
But that won't happen. People who are against adblock forget one thing: The only "journalists" this affects are people who rely on you clicking their aricles. In other words, people who write clickbait instead of "real" news.
Nothing of value will ever be lost because of adblock. Only people who's content was worth NOTHING.
>go to site
>they ask me nicely to turn off my adblocker so they can stay afloat
>exit the site and never visit it again
Give me ads - fine. Don't give me ads - fine.
But blackmailing I won't tolerate.
>>54525378
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>54525751
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>54526640
Forgot to tip your fedora, my libertarian amigo.
>>54526823
>Websites that use ad blocker blockers are not closed?
Are you mentally retarded?
Adblock blockers don't make a site closed, they merely block an addon.
A closed website is a website that has a function which can't be casually overturned by the general userbase. A registration system dependent on a condition.
>Most people would rather turn off their adblock than pay to pass a paywall.
[Citation Needed for your unbacked ASSUMPTION]
Your assumption completely ignores that people can find alternative sites that provide the same shit as well.
>Maybe the money from advertisements is worth more than what they would expect from a paywall.
If it were an open advertisement system, then maybe.
But a forced advertisement system is quite another story since management psychology and customer psychology enters the game now.
I see that your mental retardation can't be cured. But i can suggest a support facility, >>>/biz/.
>>54526887
I'm not a libertarian. People who write for tech blogs don't have real jobs. If people aren't willing to deal with ads on their articles, what does that say about the quality of their content?
>>54524661
They should get a real job then.
>>54524694
No, it's not.
t. Yuropoor
>>54526823
holy fuck you're stupid
>>54524661
>not using ant-adblock killers
>>54526923
The quality of the content isn't determined by how (if any) people are willing to pay for it.
>people who write for tech blogs don't have real jobs
I wonder how many times you've googled something to the effect of "what is the best version of x?" or "should I buy x or y" and factored some "tech blogs" editorial into your analysis. Generating content is most certainly a "real job," whatever that means, that takes lots of money and time to accomplish.
>>54526819
reek antiadblock killer
I donate to sites I enjoy the content of. EFF, Lain chan,FSF. Moot should have just done donations.
>WIRED
>journalism
Pick one
>go to site
>they ask you nicely to turn off your adblocker so they can stay afloat
If it's a site I regularly use and respect, I disable ad blocking. If not, fuck 'em.
>>54524661
>a site has paid for a crappy adblock detection script several times more than the total ad revenue over next 10 years from people this shitty "polite asking" will convince
>just installing it will lose them a significant % of total page visits
>people that want to get to the content ad-free will just bypass it anyway with no hassle
Why do they do this? Don't they see that it costs them more than the potential gains?
>>54524692
>is it not unethical
I stopped giving a fuck after I got infected with malware from tesnexus' ads. An adblocker is the first thing I install when I install a browser, and that's not going to change.
>>54526823
>Websites that use ad blocker blockers are not closed?
Pic related.
>Most people would rather turn off their adblock than pay to pass a paywall.
People who are willing to turn off their adblock are the kind of people who would turn it off if they saw a plea on the site, rather than an adblock blocker.
An adblock blocker doesn't do anything except reduce the amount of people who would be willing to turn off adblock otherwise sooner or later, and would divert a percentage of people who used an adblocker but donated to the site as a substitute because they may feel insulted.
Not that anyone gives a shit anymore. News sites are many and smaller sites do tend to provide better editing and writing quality due to a more focused operation. Why turn off adblock if i can just switch sites?
There are also sites that copy that content for shits and giggles, while not requiring adblock unblocking.
>>54526908
>Are you mentally retarded?
>Adblock blockers don't make a site closed, they merely block an addon.
>A closed website is a website that has a function which can't be casually overturned by the general userbase. A registration system dependent on a condition.
Such as an ad blocker blocker.
>[Citation Needed for your unbacked ASSUMPTION]
It's called common sense. Which do you think takes more effort?
>Your assumption completely ignores that people can find alternative sites that provide the same shit as well.
Irrelevant.
>If it were an open advertisement system, then maybe.
>But a forced advertisement system is quite another story since management psychology and customer psychology enters the game now.
Path of least resistance.
>I see that your mental retardation can't be cured. But i can suggest a support facility, >>>/biz/.
Ok kid.
>>54527071
>a site has paid for a crappy adblock detection script
That's your assumption, which is probably wrong in most cases.
>>54526299
>>54526525
Obvious same fag
>>54526962
Nice argument kid.
If they ask me in an non-intusive way AND I like the site I'll do it.
If If this was some kind of content wall then I'd just go somewhere else, or just block the overlay with an inspector.
I feel like if you want to make a living out of it just be THAT good. A server that makes a living out of their job shouldn't be begging for more tips from everybody, they should just be excellent at their job and even do it when those that look like won't tip are there.
Same with this, I've supported some websites and other content makers like Nardwuar and MrChiCity3 just because I have enjoyed them that much. I ain't about to give these niggas a chance to throw ads at me with a guilt trip. If you really want to entice users to do that, then be that good.
>>54524661
The page is loading on my computer and I can display it however the fuck I want. If you can't stay afloat without ads, no need for you to exist at all. There will always be other sources of content.
>>54527139
>which is probably wrong in most cases
Now that's your assumption. And it's also probably wrong in most cases.
And sure, it was an assumption, so what? You think it's unreasonable? Then disregard that post.
But you know the funny part? My assumption at least relates to the topic, yours is just a blatant "no".
>>54524661
>Be me
>Using Privacy Badger
>See similar "please whitelist our ads" message
>Blocking ads that do not comply with "do not track"
>Site is using ads that track you
>Close webpage
You don't deserve a visit from me if you don't know or don't care what "do not track" is, kike
I literally block that ad usings an ad blocker feels good man
Sure, I can disable ads on one site.
I don't freak out like an autist from a few ads.
The problem is when every site is filled with ads.
>tfw blocking ads on 4chan.
Fuck it.
>>54527237
Not that guy but just as adblocking script are around, anti adblocking script can be downloaded for free, or at least that's my assumption
>>54526990
>people are willing to pay for it.
If people aren't even willing to look at an ad to view your article, then your article isn't worth it to them. Let's just say there's a website with an Adblock blocker, and they can't make it. Why do you think that is?
Is it because 'assholes take what isn't theirs :((((' or because their articles weren't worth it to the readerbase?
It's not some "edgy libertarian" philosophy to think, "hey, maybe it's not my problem if clickbait writers end up without jobs." I could waste time picking about random cherry picked articles (I think I might do that anyway because it's fun.) but the point stands. If people cared about your content, you wouldn't take a hit by forcing them to disable their adblockers to view it or paywalling it.
Instead of giving me any legitimate argument as to why I should care about websites that generate money through ads, you instead cherry pick single sentences from my post and accuse me of being a lolbertarian because I can sleep at night even after someone loses their ability to blog for a living.
More importantly, you're ignoring that websites that generate revenue from ads are creating an environment in which writing the most efficient clickbait is more important than writing something that is actually informative. This isn't helpful to anybody.
>>54527097
>Pic related.
Where
>>54526990
I took too long to reply, so now if you don't mind I'll pass the time by cherry picking an example to shit on. Let's say I use Firefox with Adblock Plus (because I do) and that I'm running Noscript because a lot of websites have a ridiculous amount of bloat, and my outdated PC might lag out while browsing some of these incredibly informative and useful websites!
And I google "linux user should i buy a mac" and one of the results I can find is:
Linux advocate contemplates the purchase of a Mac - TechRepublic
Well, it's a tech website, and it's apparently about a Linux user who is considering to buy a Mac! Good enough for me, so let's dip right into this quality, informative writing!
Even if it was unethical they can suck my dick. I will never disable adblock ever, It baffles me that people want ads to interrupt livestreams/youtube videos or whatever. Time is your most valuable asset and you want to use it watching a fucking ad? Donations/premium services/non intrusive ads are the way to go desu.
>>54524692
Blocking ads is no more unethical than viewing the ads and not purchasing the advertised products/services.
Ad revenue can be seen as paying for the chance to brainwash/trick/convince consumers into purchasing your product. If the chance is already zero, then what difference does it make?
Too much effort to turn it off and back on just for one site
>>54527715
If the advertising payment is based off hits, then they don't get payment for the bandwidth you used. The "ethical" thing to do would be to use an adblock that only hides ads instead of stopping the connection.
>>54527823
You just permanently whitelist the site dummy. It takes 2 clicks.
>>54524661
It's not my fault that their business model relies on advertising revenue.
>>54526990
>>54527631
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/linux-and-open-source/linux-advocate-contemplates-the-purchase-of-a-mac/
As you can see, I disabled adblocker, and began to press "temporarily allow all this page" repeatedly to allow the ads to come through, because of the ridiculous amount of shit the website seems to bombard you with. Pressing "temporarily allow all this page" over and over will cause an old piece of shit Core2Duo computer like mine to slow down dramatically. Because god forbid a webpage be simple and fast.
Anyway, the article's lead is:
>Linux is, always has been, and always will be Jack Wallen's platform of choice, but an iMac may very well be his next purchase. Find out why.
Oh, so this is an interview with some important Linux person named Jack Wallen! Oh wait, no it isn't, you can see the writer is just referring to himself in third person for the sake of self promotion. This is also made evident when he lists some of the useful software he uses for his work:
>Audacity — to record both my Zombie Radio podcast and audio books for clients
Evidently using his 'tech writing' to promote his books and podcast because there aren't enough ads on this page.
His article begins with a tryhard attempt at being sophisticated:
>"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."
He then translates for us:
>"The more that things change, the more they stay the same."
And the usual point he has to make on why Mac's are a better option than Windows?
>Windows: Malware and viruses
"I'm too inept to not get infected with malware, even though all I'm fucking doing on my computer is recording audio!"
Thank god I turned of Adblock Plus for this starving artist to make money in his craft of creating "QUALITY, USEFUL CONTENT."
>>54527869
>it takes 2 clicks
4u
>>54527838
If I view every ad and never clickthrough or buy anything, the clickthrough % goes down and the rates paid out are adjusted accordingly.
pro-tip: a view or a click has NO intrinsic value. What carries the value is the % chance a user who views the ad will actually buy something.
It's no different than just not buying anything.
>>54527881
>>54526990
After pushing the idea that he, as a Linux user only uses Linux because he is too cheap to buy a Mac and too incompetent to keep a Windows installation free of malware, he later writes in his usual third person:
>Jack Wallen is a seeker of truth and a writer of words. Although he resides in the unlikely city of Louisville, Kentucky, he likes to think of himself more as an interplanetary soul ... or so he tells the reflection in the mirror.
Oops, just kidding. This is actually his amazon account, this is more or less how the article opens. The average tech blogger, and what he does is promote his ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE THEMED PODCAST.
http://www.zombieradio.org/audio/crazy2.mp3
And don't forget: if you don't randomly decide to give a shit about whether this complete stranger is able to make a living with you using adblock, it's because you're an edgy neckbeard fedora libertarian! Keep that in mind as you listen in to his fantastic podcast:
>that's a little bit of truth that I just dropped on you, and if you can't take it
>well, i guess i'm just going to have to play you a song, GOSH GOLLY XDDDD
Now, I don't think I'm 'edgy' for saying that I don't care that "writers" like Jack "I wish I made Nightvale" Wallen might have to get a job working cash register like everyone else who tried to make silly noises into a microphone for a living and writing his own fedora-tastic autobiographies on his online profiles.
So no, anon, I'm not turning off my fucking adblocker. I don't care if writers at Gawker and Techrepublik might have to work for money because of it.
>>54525382
>ads on wikipedia
>During the late 1800's, a drought in the Mesopotamian xenocidal plains brought lack of endeavor from trees, whose leaves ended up being golden brown and crunchy, much like McDonald's™ Premium Savor-Fries™.
>>54524661
The answer is literally in the continuation that starts We get it.
I like a cleaner browsing experience on top of reduced bandwidth usage and less tracking + malware and it is on by default, won't go out my way for your ads sorry.
Also, it is called content blocker, I block bad content, it just happens yours is mostly ads.
Wired is especially bad, because it pops up after you started reading. Everytime I baited to their site I wanna do some serious damage to these guys, not just blocking their shitty ads.
>>54524661
>>54524692
If your way of making a living is harmful, I am not going to support it. If I can circumvent the harm while still viewing the content, so much the better.
That your business model is outdated is not my problem.
I just use adblock plus to block the script that detects adblocker.
>>54524661
>Well, why not?
Malware sometimes gets distributes by adware networks, that's why.
>>54529146
>2016 people still use ad blocking addons kek
>>54524661
>wired
>>54524661
Just enable REEK's anti adblock filter in uBlock Origin
I do disable my adblocking for 4chan, forbes, ars technica, WIRED and reddit though.
>Falling for an extortion racket
>>54524661
>Well, why not?
Because last time they did, they served malware thru their ads.
Ain't falling for that ever again.
Cheers.
>>54529156
Gets the job done without any hassles. I don't see what the problem is.
>>54529139
At least know every time you block ads you're stealing.
>>54524794
No he isn't you dumb gaymer gate retard.
He has improved this ire considerably and listens to the users
Never forget moots cuckoldry in his final days
I adblock because advertising is a common door for malware to use, and there isn't a single website in existence with 100000 or more users that hasn't been hit by some form of hack that caused them to deliver ads filled to the brim with malicious shit.
I adblock because I can
>>54524684
>implying that analogy the same
You forgot that giorgio calzone is also giving you the option of going home and not ordering any pizza.
>>54529205
Stealing removes the original.
What I'm doing is more akin to cutting across the grass instead of taking the official path, because it gets to the destination faster.
the grass is protected only by a "keep off" sign which is never enforced.
>go on small website
>pls unblock ads sir
>turn off adblocker for site
>shit ton of obnoxious ads show up
>download now buttons and other shit ads make up the majority of the site now
Yeah no, you and your family can starve to death for all I care.
>>54524872
>Why doesn't Google employ Adblock detection when they are a huge web advertiser and include advertising in content sites?
Google doesn't employ ad-block detection, because they pretend ad-block doesn't exist. Only sites like Wired which have technical audiences bother with Ad block.
Google's user base is far more diverse. Google believes if they talk about ad-block more people will find out about and use ad-block, so they just decided to pretend it doesn't exist.
If you talk to any Google/YouTube ad-ops engineer this is what they will tell you, protocol is to pretend ad-block doesn't exist to prevent other people from learning about it.
>>54524966
>reactionary
that word doesn't mean what you think it means
>>54525424
yeah this
journos and everybody else who relies on adverts to make their shitty living deserves to die, or get a fucking real job like the rest of us. The internet would be a better place without this cancer, and all the cancerous cells feeding on it
>>54524694
no it is not, otoh, it violates the CFAA Exceeds Authorization part
https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_%28CFAA%29
>ianal
>>54524661
I like it when they ask nicely.
>>54526824
>Only people who's content was worth NOTHING.
99,99% of "journalism" is completely worthless and the world would go on turning just fine without knowing 10 dudes got blown up in syria, or some child is starving in africa
journalism is completely and utterly worthless, and thats how the free market has valued it. Either do it for free and admit you are a blogger, or just fuck off and get a real job
>>54524661
>go to site
>they ask you nicely to turn off your adblocker so they can stay afloat
>Well, why not?
>browse their content
>a lot of flash ads and shit popping up in the page
>shut off computer and go to sleep
>power on again in the morning
>cryptolocker is installed and asking for $500 in bitcoin
>just disable your adblock goy, you wouldn't want some poor content creator to lose his job would you?
>that's the only thing at stake when it comes to the advertising industry: jobs. think of the jobs anon!
>>54529205
Nope sorry, reading clickbait with adblock isn't "stealing"
>>54529515
the alternative is being a stealing cunt, you wouldn't want to put people like Jack Wallen out of work would you?
http://monkeypantz.net/nice-guy-manifesto/
What if this guy has to work SLAVE LABOR would you? that's what minimum wage is you thieving cunt
stop STEALING FROM ME
>searching for historical information on a topic of interest
>open a site
>anti-adblock window which makes reference to "the content you enjoy"
I haven't seen your content yet you presumptuous fucks.
>>54529595
>you wouldn't want to put people like LITERALLY WHO out of work would you?
Yes, I would.
>why not?
Because ad networks for famous for not vetting ads properly, which leads to malware ridden ads cropping up every couple of months. I use an adblocker to keep away from that noise.
>>54529699
*are famous
>>54529545
Why would they want me to log-in with my real name, Anon?
What purpose could that serve?
>>54524692
Is it not unethical that sites shove their shitty full screen, background, moving and sound, video ads down my throat?
>>54524692
>is it not unethical?
why should I care?
>>54526376
It's called Microsoft Edge testing
>>54526460
Did nyaa switch over to first party advertising in the past few months? I get ads even though nyaa is the only domain I'm connected to. If I leave ublock on, all of the download buttons and category pictures disappear in addition to adds.
>>54529690
>LITERALLY WHO
i wrote a book about him:
>>54528114
Some faggot who advertises his zombie themed podcast in his "tech." I also linked you his NICE GUY MANIFESTO in which he talks about his wife and her two daughters, he's a living meme.
>there are people in this thread that think adblocking should be illegal
>there are people in this thread who sympathize with clickbait writers because it's harder to make money now
>there are people in this thread too young to remember the XP era of browsing single-tabbed with no adblocker to stop literally any google link from infesting your fucking PC with aids
And they think you're autistic!
It's 2016; if a site can't survive without ads then they don't deserve to exist.
>>54529460
>the world would go on turning just fine without knowing 10 dudes got blown up in syria, or some child is starving in africa
these are actual news though.
"top ten epic replies on tumblr" are the kind of shit """journalism""" for which writers should be deported to africa for a long-term research project.
Conde Nast are owned by Jews
Only clickbait websites ask for that. Coincidence? hmm
>>54524742
This.
>>54529780
if you're smart enough you'll figure out how to download from there without nyaa doing XSS attacks on your ass with shitty j-list ads
>>54524946
>never installed adblock in my life
>use ublock since forever
>go to wired.com
>no ad warning
>kek hard
>>54525443
this sums it up perfectly
>>54524661
if i like the website and the ads aren't too intrusive, i usually put it on my white list.
you might call me a weeabo or whatever but a site that transitioned from being free to a paywall is fakku, and i don't see them going anytime soon105, if your content is worth it, people will buy it
>>54529341
They appeal to the geeks in the end though allowing our small clique to block ads while buying their shit like Nexus
>>54524922
Doesn't work for me
>>54524661
I turn 360 degrees and walk away.
Because ads killed my family so fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all.
>>54524692
What about those poor telemarketers?
They are real people that need the money to feed their families.
Would you really ignore them and let their families starve
>>54529595
>being a wage slave
You literally missed the entire point of the website.
>>54530262
Sorry, you're out of your depth. Maybe you should try reading Jack Wallen's nice guy manifesto:
http://monkeypantz.net/nice-guy-manifesto/
>Once I finish up my time machine, I will go back to that very moment Leo Durocher coined his infamous line and say “No, sir, you are wrong. In the end, nice guys finish first.
>I will never objectify women…in any way.
>I will do my best to head bonk every kitty I come in contact with. And, if offered, will rub their bellies.
XDDDD!!!!!
>I will embrace other cultures.
Look at Jack Wallen's picture on his webpage, with his wife and her two daughters, and TELL ME, that he is not a nice fucking guy... and he deserves your money so don't use FUCKING ADBLOCK, OKAY?!?
Until you can live up to the nice guy manifesto, don't even TALK to me... kid.
>>54524808
Lol, reminds me of this retarted edgelord who was like "oh yeah they may have your data but I'm careful, I take the battery put of my phone when I'm not using it and I run Debian and I never go where there are security cameras" literal tarx.
>>54524692
>Go to a wired article and scroll down a bit.
I don't see OP's message on any Wired article or page. (using uBlock Origin) I'm guessing OP is using AdBlock Plus or some other shit like Ghostery, which is owned by an advertising company.
>>54530371
yeah ok jack
>>54530401
i dont know what you're talking about
http://monkeypantz.net/zombie-radio-podcast/
>>54527097
This, if a site has unobtrusive ads and isn't complete shit, so long as they respect my rights and ask respectfully, I'll turn off adblocker, every, fucking, time, I really do appreciate when sites have the little banner asking kindly to turn off adblock, don't know why. Also, on 4chan I don't turn off adblock because of the type of ads you see here.
Now what I DON'T put up with is bullshit anti adblock, I just have a script for that which takes quick care of the problem. I'll use your site all I fucking want if you try that shit with me, I won't turn off fucking adblock, I won't donate a single fucking penny, and you won't get Jack fucking shit from me.
Rule of thumb for website owners: Respect the users and they will respect you.
What the fuck did the internet do in the pre-9/11 days?
I swear I don't remember there being this big push for ads everyfuckingwhere. How did all those websites stay afloat?
Until we go back to 1996-1999 era internet, fuck all yall.
>>54524661
>>54524684
That made me kek
Yeah, but then you turn it off and you are BOMBARDED with ads. Like, seriously, some sites are so bad, you would think that they were doing some kind of parody if you didn't know any better.
Here's the thing with ad-blockers. They work, they save computers, and they save bandwidth and help keep your browsing experience from being slowed down by shitty ads in concurrence with shitty website code.
They are also never going to become illegal ever, because the Internet is not a monetary device, it is a communication device.
>>54524661
>Disable adblock.
>Forbes still doesn't let me visit their website.
>>54524661
Let's finish the story:
>go to site
>they ask you nicely to turn off your adblocker so they can stay afloat
>well okay I like this site, I'll whitelist it
>first pageview, blinking ad and something trying to give me malware
>remove exception
Never again. You brought this on yourselves, ad industry cocksuckers. Don't bother begging for sympathy until you fix this.
>>54524661
You want me to turn off ad what more precisely?
>>54524661
>Go to small website
>Little sidebar asking politely if I will turn off ad block to support them, doesn't block any content
>Sure, no problem my man.
>Go to Forbes
>Rudely ask to turn off adblock, block all content from my eyes
>Shit in some clingfilm and send it to Forbes HQ
I love it when websites treat me with courtesy, but fuck, I hate the way Forbes does shit.
>>54532394
uBlock is better. Can your hosts file block stuff residing at one path on a domain while allowing stuff at another path? Can it add additional filters simply by right clicking an unwanted element and selecting "block this element"?
>>54532510
Well, I use both actually, since having that hosts file does no harm.
>>54524661
i don´t read wired
>>54524661
I don't give a single fuck. If you want to force ads upon me I'll stop using your service. Marketing is afucking cancer
