
Apple Says the Government Bungled Its Chance to Get That iPhone’s Data - plhetp
http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apple-says-the-government-bungled-its-chance-to-hack-that-iphone/?
======
newscracker
This is off topic and is about wired.com's serving of this page and the user
experience.

I read about two paragraphs or so of this article, scrolled down to read
further and then was shown a glaring "Here's the thing about Ad Blockers...We
get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on.
So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free
version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really
appreciate it." message.

I immediately closed the tab and remembered that there were other sites
reporting the same piece of news. I could've looked at the internals and found
a way to read the rest of the article, but it didn't seem worth it.

With the ad blocker on, this page was _just_ about 54 HTTP requests and about
3.5MB in size (including all assets loaded). Not as bad as the homepage which
is about 126 HTTP requests and more than 5MB in size with the ad blocker on.

I do whitelist some sites that I visit often and if they don't seem to have
many trackers (sometimes temporarily), but wired.com is something I visit only
occasionally. I really am not interested in being subjected to what another
site (forbes.com) did with the appeal to remove ad blocking software and then
get served malware.

I wish there would be an aggregator site that could collect some subscription
money, provide information from a basket of websites without ads and trackers
(like for ad free paid TV). Paying each site separately or disabling ad
blockers on several sites - neither of them are optimal solutions for me right
now.

~~~
plhetp
I'm using uBlock Origin and had no problem reading the entire article. But I
agree, something like Blendle* seems a great solution.

*Blendle: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9453821](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9453821)

