21–30 of 37 posts
The Washington Post site has 21 trackers, ad services, and other junk. They dug their own hole.
I block all ads. Full stop. I also whitelist a trimmed set of websites to allow logins. I disallow HTTP/S referrer, DOM storage, WEBRTC, and whole host of other things. I have not seen an ad in years, I have not suffered malware in years, my bandwidth is my own, not to be used for ad servers to serve up their dreck. The morality surrounding ad blocking is up for debate, but I do not feel guilty because there is no OB…
I block all ads. Full stop. I also whitelist a trimmed set of websites to allow logins. I disallow HTTP/S referrer, DOM storage, WEBRTC, and whole host of other things. I have not seen an ad in years, I have not suffered malware in years, my bandwidth is my own, not to be used for ad servers to serve up their dreck. The morality surrounding ad blocking is up for debate, but I do not feel guilty because there is no OB…
> For instance, the Washington Post has begun testing a system that locks out visitors who block advertisements. I understand that position. But that's a losing position. It's an arms race, ad-blockers will always find clever ways to bypass these schemes then consultants will come with more complicated scripts that will make web pages heavier and harder to visit for those who don't block ads ... The Washington Post c…
For tech-savvy people who understand the issues an ad-blocker might be worthwhile even if it means some websites don't work temporarily while the ad-block developers think of new ways around things. For more typical web users though, the Washington Post's approach will result in a line of thought like "I installed that software and my Internet broke because some websites didn't work any more. I'm going to uninstall it." It's not unreasonable to believe ad-blocking might never become a mainstream technology that enough people use for it to change the way websites are funded. That, I would argue, would mean the ad industry has won the war.
> For instance, the Washington Post has begun testing a system that locks out visitors who block advertisements. I understand that position. But that's a losing position. It's an arms race, ad-blockers will always find clever ways to bypass these schemes then consultants will come with more complicated scripts that will make web pages heavier and harder to visit for those who don't block ads ... The Washington Post c…
I do this the other way round; I block entire sites that use obnoxious ads rather than use an adblocker. Funnily enough, WaPo are on my block list - they must've hit me with a modal (I unblocked them temporarily to see if they're still doing it, apparently not) The only ads I do block are the 'recommended for you' fake content from outbrain, zergnet, gravity and taboola. Just terrible.
I block all ads. Full stop. I also whitelist a trimmed set of websites to allow logins. I disallow HTTP/S referrer, DOM storage, WEBRTC, and whole host of other things. I have not seen an ad in years, I have not suffered malware in years, my bandwidth is my own, not to be used for ad servers to serve up their dreck. The morality surrounding ad blocking is up for debate, but I do not feel guilty because there is no OB…
I block all ads. Full stop. I also whitelist a trimmed set of websites to allow logins. I disallow HTTP/S referrer, DOM storage, WEBRTC, and whole host of other things. I have not seen an ad in years, I have not suffered malware in years, my bandwidth is my own, not to be used for ad servers to serve up their dreck. The morality surrounding ad blocking is up for debate, but I do not feel guilty because there is no OB…
You of course have the right to ignore the ads, but from the perspective of the content providers and advertisers, it's only fair that the ad gets DELIVERED to the reader. Because on the off chance that you might actually look at the ad, and on the off chance that you're actually interested in what you see and decide to buy ... that small chance for every reader is how the content provider stays in business.
I block all ads. Full stop. I also whitelist a trimmed set of websites to allow logins. I disallow HTTP/S referrer, DOM storage, WEBRTC, and whole host of other things. I have not seen an ad in years, I have not suffered malware in years, my bandwidth is my own, not to be used for ad servers to serve up their dreck. The morality surrounding ad blocking is up for debate, but I do not feel guilty because there is no OB…
not making any moral judgements, just curious, do you pay for content where possible (via donation or subscription)?
I block all ads. Full stop. I also whitelist a trimmed set of websites to allow logins. I disallow HTTP/S referrer, DOM storage, WEBRTC, and whole host of other things. I have not seen an ad in years, I have not suffered malware in years, my bandwidth is my own, not to be used for ad servers to serve up their dreck. The morality surrounding ad blocking is up for debate, but I do not feel guilty because there is no OB…
But is the an 'OBLIGATION' for them to serve you content? As such if they want to serve content with ads they have that right. You always have the choice whether you want to view their content, with ads and all. You dont have a right to their content.