
FuckAdBlock - gk1
https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock
======
Geekette
Eh, long live ad blocking! Its great being able to view clean, distraction-
free webpages and I just move on if a site refuses to load otherwise. Since a
lot of content I view online falls under entertainment, the worst case
scenario is that such a page cuts my procrastination/break time short, which
obviously isn't a bad thing.

Plus, ads are _not_ the only way to make money online. So, if it isn't working
for a company, then it's time to change the business model.

------
TheLoneWolfling
And so the cat and mouse game continues.

That being said, ultimately as long as the user has control over what runs on
their computer, they have control. Period. Things like this are doomed to
failure.

~~~
mbrownnyc
Yes. I've just immediately not gone to a site that didn't load content because
I was using an ad blocker. Your content has to be very worth it for me to
disable my ad blocker.

~~~
Zarel
It's unclear why the website would care, since you're clearly not a revenue
source for them.

~~~
nicolewhite
I like what OkCupid does. If you have an ad blocker enabled, they explain in
the space where an ad would normally be that while OkCupid is free, it runs on
ad revenue, with a link to their donation page.

~~~
gk1
That's the purpose of this script (as I see it): Detect if an ad blocker is
being used, and if so, display some custom message.

------
Recurecur
I had never blocked ads, since sometimes they're actually interesting, until
the recent spate of malware propagated by ad servers.

AdBlockerPlus (Chrome extension) allows ads as long as there's no video,
animation, or js shenanigans. That seems reasonable enough to me.

It's actually been amazing how nice things are with faster page loads, and
fewer annoying distractions...not to mention no video/audio autoplay.

I for one would rather not see an ad versus ad blocker arms race.

~~~
Zarel
I don't see an "AdBlockerPlus" in the Chrome Web Store, and a google search
tells me that "Max AdBlocker Plus" is malware. Can you link to the extension
you're talking about?

~~~
gknoy
I'm a fan of AdBlock, but there's also an AdBlockPlus

AdBlock:
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiob...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en)

AdBlockPlus: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-
plus/cfhdo...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-
plus/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb?hl=en-US)

~~~
degenerate
_grumbles_... you should be using uBlock Origin...

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-
origin/cjpa...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-
origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en)

faster, less memory footprint, just as many features

~~~
Zarel
I would use it if uBlock Origin has a blacklist mode instead of a whitelist
mode, but it unfortunately doesn't appear to.

------
skrowl
Windows 10 + Firefox Dev Edition 42.0a2 (2015-09-02) x64 bit / e10s on +
uBlock Origin 1.1.0.0 with everything checked in 3rd party filters other than
"multipurpose"... AdBlock is not enabled

------
staunch
_Cry "Havoc!", and let slip the dogs of war!_

I'm on the other side, with the good guys and all the technical advantages.
Good luck to your side!

~~~
NullCharacter
Seems like it's a matter of perspective and, like most things, not as black-
and-white as "good guys vs. bad guys".

~~~
staunch
The only purpose of ads is to forcefully track, distract, and exploit people's
privacy for financial gain. The surest way to bring about new ethical business
models is to destroy the existing ones.

~~~
dzeanah
You learn something every day.

I thought the purpose of ads was to generate revenue so that content could be
created in infrastructure built. You know, like it's been done for a few
centuries now...

~~~
staunch
What businesses were ad supported centries ago? People used to pay for things
and they liked it!

Netflix, HBO, and Amazon are creating the best content in the world and
they're not using advertising to pay for it. Low margin ad-supported
television is one of the worst aspects of modern cultures.

~~~
NullCharacter
Hey look at that, I found one from 1704 (bottom right).
[http://i.imgur.com/PbmXyhf.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/PbmXyhf.jpg)

And that's just from the Americas.

~~~
staunch
Hey look at that, you're trying to be technically correct instead of actually
correct. Obviously you haven't proven any historical precedent for anything
like the tracking and exploitation of millions of people's private data.

~~~
NullCharacter
Do you know what "moving the goalposts" is?

I assume you do seeing how you like to casually quote Shakespeare in your HN
comments.

You said (quite cynically):

> The only purpose of ads is to forcefully track, distract, and exploit
> people's privacy for financial gain.

Then when someone pointed out that in general that's not the point of ads, but
rather to support businesses that wish to keep their fees nominal or
nonexistent, as has been done for a very long time, you said:

> What businesses were ad supported centries ago?

To which I replied with proof from a newspaper some 300 years ago.

And then you, as a last-ditch effort (I like this one the best):

> you're trying to be technically correct instead of actually correct.

Hilarious!

~~~
staunch
1\. My statement on the ethics of ads was very clearly made in the context of
modern advertising, which is the topic of this HN thread. Context matters.

2\. My assertion that advertising was historically a minuscule part of
civilization and played little to no role in most people's lives is entirely
correct.

3\. It was misleading to suggest that you were even technically correct. I
never claimed advertising didn't exist, nor would I ever. I could point to
ancient sources of advertising much older than your newspaper clipping.

4\. I already replied to you, clarifying that I believe "In some cases
advertising may have been a net positive but I think the future can do
entirely without."

------
edem
I never blocked ads (like AdSense) until the proliferation of popups,
unstoppable videos and such crap. I'm blocking everything since then and the
site has to be really important for me to disable blocking. This is an arms
race you have no chance of winning. If I don't like your blocker I just
disable that script in my browser or null out its reference or whatever since
it is __my__ browser after all and you have no control over it. AdBlock is the
answer for the useless shitstorm of obtrusive ads and while we have them it is
here to stay. I bet there will be a FuckAdBlockFucker tomorrow or even sooner.

------
JohnTHaller
Name and intent aside, being able to detect when an ad-blocker is run and
present alternate messages to the visitor can be helpful in many instances.

As a bit of an outlier example, PortableApps.com makes use of another
detection technique to then show a simple message in place of the first ad on
the page and hide any remnants of the other ads so that the page layout
doesn't look sloppy for ad-block users. The message is shown on all internal
pages (not the homepage) when ads are blocked and asks users to consider
allowing ads for our site with a link to a page explaining how to ad an
exception or making a donation to help keep us funded. The small message uses
the same fonts and colors as the rest of the sidebar navigation so it's not
distracting and has CSS that reserves space for it in the event of ads being
blocked so the content doesn't jump at all and distract from reading a page. I
realize it's a bit of an outlier case, of course, but many users do then allow
ads or make a donation. Granted our ads are bit less intrusive than many sites
with only a single sidebar ad above the fold, no banner ad, no
popouts/flyovers, no download button ads, no ads that autoplay sound, etc and
many of our visitors are open source/free software fans.

For the curious, here's a link to an internal page so you can see it in action
with your ad-blocker active:
[http://portableapps.com/support](http://portableapps.com/support)

------
pritambaral
Mention must be made of the nemesis: Anti-Adblock Killer[0], which can be
enabled with just one check in uBlock Origin's preferences

0: [https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer#supported-
sites](https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer#supported-sites)

------
dwb
The web is, by and large, a distracting, surveilling mess with ads. At least
ads in the real world are just distracting (the surveillance comes from
elsewhere). So no, I'll keep my ad blocker thanks.

------
alkonaut
If you are very paranoid about people seeing content but not ads then just
render the content and the ad into the same pre-baked image. You don't even
need to bake all the content with the ads, just enough to make the content
useless without the ad+content bits.

It will be bad for bandwidth, bad for readability, bad for layout. But it'll
likely make no one see content without ads.

------
johnward
I'm interested in this just for analytical purpose. I'd like to see how many
of my users do block ads, but they probably block 3rd party analytics also.

My only question is: If users can block ads should content creators not be
able to detect that and not serve the request?

It may be a horrible business decision but it only seems fair to me.

~~~
whyenot
> My only question is: If users can block ads should content creators not be
> able to detect that and not serve the request?

Yes, of course, but how are you going to do that, and is the end result going
to be what you want? It seems to me like if a website goes down that road, it
ends up in an arms race with some of its users and the authors of adblockers.

~~~
johnward
I never said it was a good idea it just seems fair to be able to choose not
"waste" bandwidth. Although the argument that hosting is becoming so cheap it
doesn't matters could be made.

The biggest issue with being able to detect ad blockers is that you could do
something nefarious, so I understand why the blockers don't want to be
detected. I could just imagine my someone going to an innocent site with an
adblocker enable and getting goatse'd for example.

------
vezzy-fnord
This is why it's important not to use easily fingerprintable add-ons, but to
simply make use of your operating system's name services, instead (in this
case hosts(5) being the simplest route).

~~~
joepie91_
Your hosts file will not cover all cases. Many locally-operated ad systems,
for example, can't be blocked with it.

------
mpol
Shouldn't Adblock be able to block this JavaScript from loading?

~~~
thoughtsimple
I would think that NoScript will block it.

~~~
probably_wrong
It does. I had to enable scripts on the site to see the message.

------
davidgerard
It's entirely unclear what the thinking is behind this sort of thing. "You
won't fuck me? Well, well, I won't fuck you! So there!"

------
thatusertwo
I've always got Ghostery running on my computer, I use it to block everything,
still see ads sometimes but it certainly enhances my web experience.

------
paulhauggis
The irony is that many people here that want to create a startup and earn any
kind of living will have a diminishing chance over time because of the
increased usage of ad blockers..many of whom support ad blocking with a
passion.

~~~
runin2k1
The problem is that much of the times ads are disruptive, annoying, and
potentially harmful. When your choices are to have a) a safer, less disruptive
browsing experience, b) potentially have your entire screen taken over with
alerts offering to clean out the viruses found on you computer, the smart
consumer is going to take option A every time.

The advertising industry, and those that employ it, need to aggressively move
against bad practices, or the consumers will continue to do it for them.

~~~
johnward
Does B actually exist? I've never used an ad blocker and I don't experience
this. It's either an exaggeration or you're visiting some shady sites :)

edit: B did exist in the days of windows 95 but I don't see it as a problem
now. The biggest issue is auto play video or audio which even browsers makers
are taking on.

~~~
runin2k1
Being the "IT" person amongst my friends and families, I routinely get asked
how to fix a computer that has been hacked. In every single case the problem
isn't that the computer got hacked, it was them clicking an ad that stated
they had a virus, or they downloaded something random because they couldn't
see through the noise. See my CNet link below in another response.

Savvy users can tune these things out, and/or know sites to avoid, but for the
lay-person it is hazardous.

~~~
johnward
I guess that makes sense. I let my mom use my computer a few weeks ago and I
ended up with 20 different "coupon printers".

