Go to site

>go to site
>they ask you nicely to turn off your adblocker so they can stay afloat
Well, why not?

Other urls found in this thread:

reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/
blog.stackoverflow.com/2016/02/why-stack-overflow-doesnt-care-about-ad-blockers/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Well, why not?

because I can, fuck wired anyway

Where can I view that page?

>Forbes pages want me to disable
>Use archive.is and proceed as normal

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

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.

Go to a wired article and scroll down a bit.

Adblock detection is now illegal in Europe.

Or Uncle Sam, for that matter.

If they care about getting paid that badly then put it behind a paywall.

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.

i turned it on for 8tracks, forget where else

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.

Hiroshima Nagasaki is happy selling your data, so he doesn't really care if you look at ads or not
The cucks paying for Sup Forums gold accounts are the cherry on top, his main business is data farming and selling

Remind me: why do we post here?

>>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.

And that is literally retarded because you could under the same argument ban all Javascript.

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.

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.

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.

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

The good thing is that hey wouldn't have a chance to ask me that.

Forbes

protip: set your useragent to a Google crawler and suddenly these sites work perfectly again.

>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

Until they catch on.

The whole thing has pretty much been a reactionary matter.

>leave site

I don't block ads, I just don't request them.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

napulè spotted

>le adblock is unethical thread again

>not whitelisting Sup Forums
Hiro is a qt, he can farm my data all he wants

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.

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 user, 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.

>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"

>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-Sup Forums plebs hate him

>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

Because I have anti-antiadblock script on and that thing doesn't even show up for me.
They can die

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.

I did that for a while but I'm not too fond of anime sex toy adverts

because i am not using an ad blocker,but a pi hole kek

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.

I'm using nothing but ublock origin, and both sites work fine for me. You just have to enable the anti-adblocker list.

similarly to how captcha affects me on Sup Forums. the more i post, the more annoying the captcha gets, essentially telling me to stop shitposting. if i truly cared about shitposting on Sup Forums 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 user, it's a nice day", which i'm not gonna complain about.

There's some idiot user 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."

I don't have a website

ITT people who unironically think they're entitled to a website's content.

>falling for the no JavaScript meme

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

Forbes hasn't died yet so it looks like it's working.

That's what the adblock blocker is for. To block people who don't they believe don't deserve their content.

>turn 2npi radians
>walk away

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.

Forbes has an external revenue stream you idiot.

get this
reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/

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.

>>entitled
you missed the point of the internet. Please turn in your computer and all related paraphernalia.

>implying that the ads are what's keeping Forbes alive
Wat

>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.

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.

>the Internet is communism meme

If they want me to see their ads they should pay for my internet.

>There is a reason nobody makes any drama about sites like Forbes
Sorry, meant Financial Times.

You know that ads are based of your previous google searches, right user?

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.

The only site I turned adblocker off on is Sup Forums 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

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.

>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.

If you're worried about ads/tracking then just pay them $1/week. $4/mo. is nothing if you read them often.

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

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.

malware

>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

This man get it.

What's your website?

(Not shilling if I asked, user)

But i am not 'blocking' ads
Ads are a pull service, i am merely choosing not to download them

Whats so wrong with that?

>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.

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
blog.stackoverflow.com/2016/02/why-stack-overflow-doesnt-care-about-ad-blockers/