REEEEEE

REEEEEE

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/WIRED/status/768942106262048769
youtube.com/watch?v=8lgLYGBbDNs
wired.com/2015/10/how-black-lives-matter-uses-social-media-to-fight-the-power/
apple2.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Wired

Idiot.

I recommend uMatrix. Allows you to selectively permit/deny things from loading and running on individual sites.

Gives you a grid with Source on the left, and cookie/CSS/image/plugin/script/XHR/frame/other along the top.

I pretty much just fuck with what is allowed/ denied until I can access the site ad-free without seeing bullshit like that.

dumb question, how can i add these?

>tfw you never whitelist any sites

Install Adblock Plus

>implying they'd make $1 a week off of me in ad revenue.

Fuck yourself wired, charge $0.20-30 a week and we can talk.

For $1 a month, MAYBE, but honestly wired is shit anyway.

lol wired
page loaded instantly thanks to ad-blocking

I just make sure not to visit any of the sites that have this shit on.
You can find the same information from countless of other places, it really makes zero sense to pay for the access to these places.
Not to mention that site doesn't even show that message for me and I don't even have any fancy scripts installed.

This.
They probably make 0.001$ per person who visits the site.
Asking 1$ a week is hell of a extra income for them.

>it probably took this page between two and three seconds to show up. That's ...not bad
Fucking for real? That's awful. A news site meant to display almost exclusively text should be loading in a second at most, preferably below 600ms

I dont get why they care. Most normies don't even know what a browser extension is.

Look up the percentage of people using adblockers and look especially at how the number is increasing.

Then, come back and have another go at making an intelligent comment.

dumb /r9k/poster

>wired
>journalism

>fix normie's computer
>install UBO in their browser
>"Wow, user, how'd you do that?! This is so much nicer!"

I'm doing my part to make clickbait economically unviable

No problems here sensei. Perhaps there was something odd about that particular article?

>Microsoft Edge

You played yourself.

This fucking sites should stop using clickbait for everything.
"YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT DISTROS Sup Forums LIKES, THE NUMBER 3 WILL SHOCK YOU"

>he could just activate the fucking anti-antiadblock, Op is an idiot, allso, edge is comfy if you are using windows 10 then the privacy is no problemo

My workplace has it pre-installed on every computer. IT department knows what its doing I see.

Who are you quoting?

>(((journalism)))

Can we not, instead of blocking and hiding from it, fight back?

E.g. flooding requests for the anti adblock script.

it's funny how sites try and guilt trip everyone into disabling ad blockers because 'muh monnies it help run this site woe is me'

fuck off, maybe you shouldn't have a website in the first place if you need ads to pay for it

>use AD Block Edge
>none of these anti-AD Block Blockers show up
You fucked up somewhere man.

>Can we not, instead of blocking and hiding from it, fight back?
Of course.

Stop visiting the site.

I remember when I was young, sites were clean as fuck, then the visitor 99999 shit started to appear and I started using adblocks and stuff

>i want things for free

so seeing as so many people are sick and tired of ads on the internet and the ad block extensions are getting more and more popular, what do you think those the fuckers will come up with next to annoy the shit out of everyone?

they're already offering their site for free, we don't pay them, the ads do

They probably will find some legal loophole and screw everybody over.

Using adblock here and the site loads fine

Wired is shit anyways, and you shouldn't be reading it

>can't adapt to a market change
>block people from using your service
Innovation

>Journalism

Since when did Wired become shit?

>supporting journalism
>2016
>supporting INTERNET journalism
>2016

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
I HOPE YOU FAGGOTS LOSE YOUR JOBS SO YOU CAN BE FORCED TO GET REAL ONES YOU FUCKING WORTHLESS TRASH

Make it illegal to decide yourself what you load onto your computer using your bandwith which you paid for?

>>Stop visiting the site.
if they don't want people visiting the site without paying them, then they need to put up a paywall instead of leaving the site on the public internet.

Having a no-paywall site and complaining that people don't look at your ads is like giving away a free newspaper and bitching about people reading it and then throwing out the classifieds. Tough shit, you gave them the paper.

Define 'real' job

i'm not sure exactly what it's called, but what they seem to be doing right now is hiring a bunch of pajeets working in a computer sweatshop to shit post all over the internet. they do it on here, most of the blacked porn shit that is posted on almost every board on this site is a bunch of sweatshop pajeets shitposting. it's almost like an interactive ad.

>i want monetary privilege on the Internet for doing nothing but copy pasting random texts around the Internet into "articles" and sitting in a chair while resting my legs on the table 24/7

It's the free market at work.
They only offer their site to people they profit from.
Everyone else visits other sites.
The end result is an internet use tax that pays for state-sanctioned sites, some commercial sites behind paywalls, some sites that survive on showing flashing banners to tech-illiterates, and a huge mass of hobbyist sites for free.

What's the best editorial tech site gee?

80% of the white collar workforce does that.

A job that:
1. Produces material goods/objects
2. Produces useful code/programming
3. Doesn't involve blogging or making opinionated copy-pasted blog-posts and calling them "journalism"
4. Doesn't involve being on Twitter/Facebook/etc. like some "social engineer" faggotry
5. A job that produces something of actual tangible value for users to donate in trade, like translating books and novels and comics and gaymes and VNs and porn and pretty much anything but your faggy "journalism"
6. A job away from the computer which requires working in the real world.

Savy?

Sounds like a lot of work, given you could just not visit pages wasting your time and ressources like that...

>Source: My anus.

>WIRED
twitter.com/WIRED/status/768942106262048769

>3rd party ads vs 1st party ads
Does it make a difference to you Sup Forums?

On uBlock Origin go to your dashboard and then 3rd party filters.

That's a real job, you faggot.

Makes malware somewhat less likely but you can bet they're still invading your privacy.

I'll turn off my adblocker when ads are static content. No JS, no other servers, no tracking or analytics of any kind. No animations, sounds, or videos, either.

The kinds of people who whine about ad-blocking are the most worthless bottom-of-the-barrel waste and trash.
They are the kinds of retards who can't even scrape a tenth of an income that a random faggot futanari porn artist on Patreon/Deviantart/Tumblr gets.

Let's put it in this perspective: A fucking horsefucker who makes 3D computer generated porn of Lara Croft being fucked by a horse, animopron, gets 13k-16k (variably) off Patreon monthly. And he's been active for 2 years now or such, and doing it for shits and giggles.

Now compare the ad-block whiners.
You can't but look at them as worthless trash and pity their mental disability.
There's faggots out there who get more money drawing teletubbies fucking than the WIRED staff and ad-block whiners.

I've never had a website detect my use of a hosts file, why would anyone be retarded enough to use a browser-based ad blocker and limit themselves to blocking ads only in the browser it supports?

right click -> inspect element -> delete the modal or whatever the element is that's blocking the content.

Profit?

Especially when it's sites like wire or gawker
Talk about ego

this t.bqhwu fαm

What he said or:
A job you can actually survive off, instead of a poor excuse to look busy while daddy is paying your rent anyway.

Windows XP? What is wrong with you?

Loads instantly for me, OP.

I try to whitelist my regular sites. But hot damn, even Sup Forums is getting mobile adware like shit.

I know ads are important, but is that extra 5 percent really worth more people not wanting to visit due to ads giving you cancer?

Literally the only website I have whitelisted is Nyaa, because they're the only website with non-obtrusive static advertisements. And cute 2D girls.

Is there any situation where advertising is ethical?
I don't mean recommending a product to a friend or writing a news article about a business, I mean paid for by the company, advertising.
Every industry that is backed by advertising is shit because of it.
Radio, TV and YouTube is unbearable if you watch all the ads.
Even journalism is a legend old people talk about because advertising ruined it.

There is still under wear commercials on billboards as though that would help sell under wear.
Why?

>tfw you go "no fuck you" everytime and just block the blocker

>"Please disable ad blockers"
>Articles have ads for a product in them

I even had a adblocker popup on Uploaded

>Is there any situation where advertising is ethical?
I'd say product placement, movies specifically.
If done right it's seamless and doesn't alter the piece while making it more realistic.
It can be fucked up pretty bad, but that always results in a shit movie, so they try to keep it subtle.

>this nigga using software that's older than my wife's son

>2 to 3 seconds to load
I would've closed the page, go elsewhere and never return. Honestly. That's fucking ridiculous for today's standard, especially not for a page with only text, a couple images and an embedded video from Youtube, at most.

That's fucking bullshit, and whoever wrote that shit is tech illiterate.

This is great product placement

youtube.com/watch?v=8lgLYGBbDNs

But for BLM wired.com/2015/10/how-black-lives-matter-uses-social-media-to-fight-the-power/

i kept going to the umatrix one, thanks user

>current year
>advertisements are a known vector for malware and viruses
>advertising has advertisements in them
>blocking adblockers are """"""illegal"""""" because
>circumventing anti-adblock code """"""may breach DMCA""""""
>add us to whitelist or pay $1 a week goy ;)
>anti-adblock code is literally spaghetti connections to advertisements
BUT MUH STOLEN 0.0001CENT

>How dare you complain!
It's their site. They can do what they want. If you don't like it, don't go there.

I really feel sorry for journalists, even cyber journalists can't keep up with facts and just don't understand anything that doesn't fit their narratives. At this point I'm never going to whitelist anything and just hope the current standard of journalism dies.

You do realize not everyone lives in the conservative bubble, right?

this is Sup Forums, we all live in bubbles made of meme soap

Yeah, no, That's something like a 5000% markup for a single visitor who might use a few hundred page views a year.

No ad company pays anywhere close to that much.

What does this have to do with a conservative bubble? I can see conservatives grasping at straws elsewhere, and I wont whitelist those sites either. People frame stories regardless of political identities.

>"""""""""journalism""""""""

And? Subscriber model != advertising model. The costs of a readership of 10 million are not 100 times greater than that of 100,000. If you put up a paywall of even a penny your visits will plummet because the difference between "I don't have to pull out my credit card to access this" and "I do have to pull out my credit card to access this" are huge. So you can't equate the cost per person under an advertising model to that of a subscriber base because you simply will not have the same viewership under the subscriber model.

Found the ignorat ruffnek

My whitelist:
Sup Forums.org
and, surprisingly, some job websites need to be whitelisted because job advertisements are exactly that: advertisements.

Man that blockadblock thread was hilarious, with the legal notice in javascript comments. Is this what's it's coming to? Will big sited just chuck a legal agreement in the http response between the doctype and root object saying that by continued use of this site you agree to getting raped up the ass and any attempt to curtail ass-raping is breaching the DMCA?

Unrequested online ads get blocked because they:

- are in the form of popups
- have sound
- use flashy animation
- use distracting colours
- contain questionable content
- contain malware
- take up bandwidth
- take up too much space on a page

Fix your advertising style, or get blocked. Very simple.

Yes user, this is true, but you can't have it both ways. Your enduser can't jump through psychological hoops that wired-the-ad-supported and wired-the-subscription-supported are different things.

Take for example The New Yorker. They offer some free ad-supported articles as a penance. After that they try to boot your ass unless you subscribe.

that looks comfy as fuck. is that a theme/DE post full screenshot

You know, I actually have zero problem with supporting a site that I value, or that I feel deserves revenue because I respect the site and it's content. Fuck, I'd even donate a small amount to the right website

But wired?

LMAO

>wired
And yet another excuse not to go to that pants on head retarded excuse for a tech site.

Or we just go somewhere else. How do they not understand this?

"No"

>Advertisers pay for ad space on sites with lots of hits as well as lots of loaded ads
>Lots of people visit a site, some with adblockers
>Lose small percentage of ad loads and thus payout, but retain page hit count

>Block adblockers
>Same number of ads are being loaded on the site
>Lower page hits and thus page ranking

It's not a big deal, let 'em block ads.

The nu-male tone of this message really triggers me.

The value of the ad revenue is partially dependent on the cost of the ad-free version. Not defending this shit, but mathematically speaking, it makes sense to set the subscription fee much much higher than the expected ad revenue. That part isn't as much of a cash grab as it intuitively seems. The whole thing is still pretty scummy though.

retard

I used to not mind the ads, but since google bought youtube, and pushed their video-ads before and during the play, I had no choice but to install an adblocker. The pop-ups are gone too, and it's fine by me. No more having to "kill PID" in the terminal because a button suddenly popped up wanting me to click here or else...

They're offering you to pay for content that they have to spend money making instead of getting that revenue through ads. That's only fair to me. If you don't want to get ads, then you don't get the free content that ads fund.

Why is everyone on Sup Forums some backward communist who doesn't understand the most basic relations between money and digital content? If anything, we should be happy to pay out of our pocket for digital content-- that breaks the incestuous relationship media outlets can have with advertisers which cause sponsored content to plague the web.

>the current year
>still going to apple2.com/

You ever hear of this great thing called cable tv?

In the beginning the promise was, that since you payed for it, it would be ad free.

Look how that turned out