BlockAdBlock

They have to keep their lights on somehow.

I don't see anything wrong here

>>55849117
someone will just make a blockblockadblock

Adblock block adblock-block bok

>>55849117
If they're okay with losing their traffic, sure.

It seems like a straightforward solution to the problem but it will only hurt them

>>55849117
Anti adblock killer

>>55849117
Check the website source code, he left a nice message for us.

I had to enable anti-adblock killer just because some faggots think they're smart.

>>55849117
Anti adblock killer. Just enable that shit.

>>55849147
I bet it sounds like absolute angry hogwash.

I tried looking at that page. For some reason the "anti-adblock" shit pops up ~10 seconds after I load the page.

>>55849195
they fucking made the anti-adblock. Of course they're going to disable ads on their own damn site

>>55849117
>you can block it with umatrix
into the trash it goes

>>55849147
What i dont see anything.

>>55849117
If the adverts aren't intrusive I turn off adblock for that site.

However, on the vast majority of websites they are very intrusive, so I keep it on.

People just need to learn how to make non-cunty adverts

File: fd.jpg (67KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x480px

>>55849117
>recapturing revenue from your BLOG

HAHAHAHA! How about getting an actual, real job? Those "content creators" are a bunch of cry babies.

Lol its implemented inside a <script> tag. Just dont load that and then it doesnt work.

i have a better option, don't have 1001 ads on your website and don't block your content with them

>>55849133
This. They actually already exist.

File: 1438661505068.jpg (6KB, 250x183px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x183px

>>55849412
I bet you think twitchers aren't real professionals too, you cunt.

lol I always navigate away from pages that do this.
Forbes.com is the only one I run into anymore and thats because they started writing shill articles

blockadblock.com still shows you the whole page for several seconds first. in instances like that I'll just screen grab everything I wanted to read before it gets pissy about it

>>55849117
Maybe if advertisers didn't initially treat the internet like some kind of marketing dumpster people wouldnt be using adblock.

I mean, before adblock was popularized people were exposed to some of the annoying and obtuse ads that would have never been acceptable anywhere else.

There are/were emojis that scream at you, page redirects that trick old people into giving out their credit cards. After all this, people that use adblock are somehow bad people?

Websites using this shit circle the drain harder than if they just ignored adblock users.

I don't have the link to the article but there was a write up and statistics that show that sites like Forbes have experienced a huge decrease in visits after implementing AAB practices leading to them considering removing it because alongside ad revenue they're losing other sources of revenue by not being visited as much.

frankly I dont care how much revenue anybody gets from any website. You'd have to be an idiot not to use adblock. I talk to people at my work and they all complain about being infected with all kind of spyware and shit and how they dont know how they get it. I know how they get it, they load all kinds of shady shit off the web through adverts.

I dont know why anybody puts up with it, just for the convenience. I mean is it just acceptable that random webpages will just load videos and start playing them for you? sometimes they're not even in a place that you could click out of them

The way I see it I'm allowed to pick and choose what elements of a webpage to load. They didn't load the website as a completed published document, it comes in pieces and you dont need all of them. simple as that.

>>55849763
While obviously it's much better to just not give them any traffic, for forbes and other sites with similar interstitial ads you can use adsbypasser (https://adsbypasser.github.io/)

For blockadblock type scripts it's just a matter of blocking local scripts. Both noscript and umatrix can do this.

The war against adblockers cannot be won. The more annoying those scripts get, the more people will start blocking javascript in turn, which will result in better adblocking utilities that also block annoying scripts.

yeah I'm not about to let open the floodgates just so a shill site can get they coins

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbes-site-after-begging-you-turn-off-adblocker-serves-up-steaming-pile-malware-ads.shtml

>>55849758
they aren't. playing dota 2 or csgo all day isn't a realy job.

>>55850045
It is if thats how they're earning income.

Getting naked on camera isn't a real job either but thousands of women work it as their only source of income

File: 1464297898326.jpg (10KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 320x320px

>>55850045
Yeah but making gambling sites rigging them for their own profit and doing all that while streaming takes its toll.

>>55849117
Just use BlockBlockAdBlock
protip: it exists

File: 1365253003320.gif (2MB, 403x234px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 403x234px

>>55849390
i used to be that way, but then sites i visited and allowed ads onstarted changing their ads to the bullshit.

Now i just run it on every site and not give any fucks

>>55850115
>cs go gamling
Not any more since steam is cracking down on them.

>>55850257
They do it to themselves. They shouldn't allow these fucking obnoxious advertisements on their website to begin with. It's like they don't care if the website they took so long to make and design ultimately looks and runs like shit because of the insanely intrusive advertising.

I've haven't had a single virus since i've stopped downloading .exe files, started adblocking, and started using flash block (to stop videos from loading)

>be shitty fucking website/blog/whatever the fuck
>bloat your page with ads to the point that it's practically unusable
>people block those ads so they can actually fucking use your website without having their experience hampered
>get angry at those people instead of realizing how fucking dumb you actually are

is there an example page that uses it?

>>55849117
>disable ublock
>the popup still appears
hahaha, nice scam

File: blocktheblock.png (94KB, 1233x528px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1233x528px

:^)

unpacked script

paste .ee /p/MW5FB

>>55849390
>If the adverts aren't intrusive I turn off adblock for that site.
but.. how do you know if the ads are intrusive if you are blocking them?

>>55850045
according to the tax man it is a job

>>55849117
Fuck advertisements. Seriously, I really don't give a goddamn about the lost revenue. These companies should adapt and find another source of revenue.

Again, fuck advertisements. I will continue to block as many of them as possible until the day I die.

>>55850287
Because they must, not because they want to. They made shitton of money off people losing their stuff.

>>55849117
Same as Trace Buster Buster.

They are making too much noise.
Most people don't even know about adblockers.

The "lost" revenue is miniscule anyway...

File: 1467659584649.jpg (29KB, 320x283px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 320x283px

>>55850510
>add blockadblock.net to DNS blocklist
>blockadblock just got blocked

Thanks anon

File: %2528pic+-+Story%2529+Catch+22+-+Title[1].png (68KB, 450x278px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 450x278px

>>55850582
thats the beauty of it

>>55849117
>BlockAdblock is an easy-to-use system for recapturing lost revenue

Won't get any lost revenue back when I close your site for blocking me because of adblock

Browsers are already bloated as is.

What's going to happen when we all have 50 blocking extensions running?

>>55850795
One is enough, you shithead.

File: Screenshot_20160731_191819.png (36KB, 551x582px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 551x582px

idk

>>55850582
>>55850852
If you like a site, then support it by turning on ads. Simple

>>55850867
I'd like to swap from Adblock to ublock. I've read that you need to get your own filters for it. Which one do you use then?

>>55850880
And what if this site then shows malicious ads? That already happened a few times to me, not risking it again.
>>55850901
Nah, just open the dashboard and enable some filters. I'd recommend ticking everything under "social" (blocks stuff like "like us on facebook") and "privacy".

>>55850045
>getting paid for acting all the time isn't a real job
>getting paid for playing football all the time isn't a real job
>getting paid for playing a guitar isn't a real job

Alright maybe so but they still make more money than you, anon, from your own society.

File: Screen Shot 2016-07-31 at 19.30.16.png (471KB, 1702x2252px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1702x2252px

>>55850901
>I've read that you need to get your own filters for it.
Where did you hear that from?
Here are the ones I use.

>>55851035
No idea where I heard it, but I've heart it multiple times somewhere.
>>55850961
>>55851035

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=nl

This is the one I should get right? Shitstore is full of bullshit addons.

>>55851070
That's the right one.

>>55849117
blockadblock.com##script:inject(bab-defuser.js)

>>55851159
Could someone send this to Reek on Github so the anti-adblock killer can block this shit?

>>55849130
Sure.

But that is a bit late after newspapers overloaded their web pages with noisy visually distracting ads that induces ADHD into everyone, rendering them into gibbering reddit readers.

Now they pay the price.

I have BTW given up most newspapers for that reason.

>>55849117
A desperate last cry as the (((ad industry))) realizes the gravy train of internet advertising is about to end.

>>55849117
NoScript

>>55851389
Mah boi!

File: kot is chilled as fuck.jpg (46KB, 422x353px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 422x353px

>// LEGAL NOTICE: The content of this website and all associated program code are protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Intentionally circumventing this code may constitute a violation of the DMCA.

File: 1446765946928.gif (573KB, 267x199px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 267x199px

>>55851414
Circumventing code is a copyright violation?

>>55850967
None of those are jobs they are just sources of income

>radar-detector-detector-detector

I'd like to say that they should just be happy with their revenue from normies who don't know or care about adblock, who don't mind closing the 5 screen-filling popup ads with sound. The problem is, anyone even slightly savvy immediately installs it upon helping somebody when their computer is "slow" because it's going to single handedly prevent 95% of the shit that's going to fuck up their computer.

I'm all for whitelisting good websites that you frequent, but adblock actually pretty important for general browsing. Especially for normies.

>>55849133
>>55849117
stock uBlock/ABP both have "anti-adblock" lists.
kek.

File: 1469563743152.png (155KB, 455x396px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 455x396px

>>55850510
>>55850718
>mfw they actually think they can block adblock
I hope their sites die

>>55849117
>not AdBlockBlock
soiled it

File: BAB.png (11KB, 298x348px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 298x348px

>>55849117

File: abp.jpg (76KB, 950x450px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 950x450px

>>55851713

>>55851414
EFF's lawsuit can't get resolved soon enough

>>55849117
blockadblockadblock

>>55851449
> A job is an activity, often regular and often performed in exchange for payment.

?

Block my ad blocker = I no longer use the website

Ad blockers are a natural response to increasingly intrusive ads. Nobody can seem to understand this, especially advertisers and big publishers.

>You don't like our tracker cookies or our 500mb script that slows your high end i7 to a grinding halt? You're part of the problem!

>>55850718
Wouldn't that also work to just add an entry for blobkadblock.net to your host file?

>>55851789
He's talking about Reek's Anti-AdBlock Killer, which actually removes it and stops it from executing.

>>55849390
Thanks for watching the ads for me so the websites can continue to exist.
And thanks everyone who does the same.

I personally despise ads and blanket block them. Since you don't, you and me and the shareholders of the websites and the companies you buy products from all profit.

>>55849117
hahah, lol

>>55849412
Capitalism can't die quick enough.

Oops.
blockadblock.com##script:contains(eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,d))
Works with recent versions of uBlock Origin.

>>55852436
filtered

I have as much right to block ads as they have to try and stop me from blocking ads.

If the money is that important you should be seeking alternative revenue streams, however. Traditional advertising is only going to get less and less effective.

>>55852044
Sure, but I have a DNS server with a blocklist. If I add it to that it's also blocked on my mobile devices.

>>55849117
>>55849147
This retarded faggot doesn't know how to use comments or indentation properly. Can you specify which line of the SauceChode the messages is on?

>>55853080
>:contains()
This is pretty dank.

File: Screen Shot 2016-07-31 at 4.50.18 PM.png (245KB, 1280x729px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1280x729px

>>55849117
Okay?

>reading the news in 2003
>maybe 2 or 3 static banners at the top, bottom and side of the page

>reading the news in 2015
>pop-ups, enormous animated banners scripted to follow you as you scroll down the page, drags the browser to a halt
If they don't want people to block the ads they should just tone it down.

>>55849117
Maybe content creators should try making their ads suck less, rather than bitching about ad blockers. First off, I'm on a metered connection, as are many other people. I should not have to deal with loud, obnoxious video ads that weigh more than ten times the page itself when all I wanted was to read about the Large Hadron Collider. I have the right to not waste bandwidth. Second, ads are a HUGE vector for malware. I have the right to protect my machines and other less tech-savvy users on my network (like my fiancee). When I can safely wear headphones while reading news articles, and look for legitimate software without having to guess which of the 500 download buttons is the real one, MAYBE I might consider removing privoxy from my router, and uninstalling ublock. But as it stands, content creators can eat my dick. I hope their families starve because they chose to serve a video ad instead of a gif for pennies more a day.

>>55849795
This.

If the ads were unobtrusive, didn't take up 90% of the page, play sound automatically, didn't download crap to my computer, and weren't intentionally misleading I'd turn adblock off.

>>55855012
I still wouldn't. Damage is done as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to continue blocking all ads forever.

It's your duty as a netizen to block ANY and ALL advertising on the WWW.
I tell every single normie I come across this very statement.
If you don't block ads you are a KEK and are BANKRUPT and FINISHED after being put on SUICIDE WATCH.

>digital cucking 101

The sites that are most likely to use this are garbage anyway.

File: Screen Shot 2016-07-31 at 5.32.34 PM.png (26KB, 1079x417px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1079x417px

Daily reminder to require an ad blocker on your personal site

File: 4222550777_28f62c6a69_z.jpg (144KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 640x640px

Useless and worthless.
The Internet is a communication medium, not a monetary medium. It can be used for monetary purposes, but that is not its main function, and income isn't a right anyone has on the Internet, because that's not the Internet's function. There was an Internet before ads ever existed, and there will always be an Internet afterwards.
A random site going down or content creator failing won't change a thing. The vacuum will be filled by another person who will do things in a different way.

If you want income, then paywall your site. The Internet is not obligated towards your wallet, because the Internet by definition has no obligations.

The problem is the idiots who think income is a right on the Internet because they came late to the game and don't understand anything about the Internet. Idiots with brains still frozen in the stone age.

File: 1.jpg (236KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1024x768px

>>55855012
>If the ads were unobtrusive

There's a very good reason why most browsers nowadays come with a pop-up blocker that's enabled by default. (Even fucking IE has one)
If those wouldn't exist, we all would still be clicking away a shitton of browser windows or tabs you never wanted to look at.

So how does this protect against programs that intentionally click ads rendering them useless?

I encountered some website that had this, I think it was Forbes

Instead of jumping through hoops for them I just closed the tab instead. That's what a lot of other people will do too.

A lot of so-called 'content creators' are unwilling to admit their content isn't all that great. Couple that with the fact you can't force people to do something they're unwilling to do and it's clear this idea is DOA

>>55849117
Just as I am permitted to block ads, they are also permitted to try and stop me.

Don't care

They detect easylist
turn it off
bypass
profit

>>55849117
i noticed these scripts often detect ad blocking even when the site has been whitelisted. This was never a good solution though. Anti-Adblock killer it is

The only place where I have adblock off is 4chins

>>55851826

twitch is basically bartender tier crap job that relies on donations, but hey as long as it works, good for them

the question is how much intervention would you reasonably do to people to enable that kind of faggotry

>>55849946
>The war against adblockers cannot be won. The more annoying those scripts get, the more people will start blocking javascript in turn, which will result in better adblocking utilities that also block annoying scripts.

They don't really care if they eradicated ad blocking from this earth - but they don't like the trend where even Internet Explorer comes pre-packaged with an ad blocking feature.

Basically - if most of the plebs get ads shown, everything is perfect again.

>>55849117
Any site that uses this i won't use. They already have sites that won't display material or let you proceed until you disable adblock. I don't use those sites anymore. Advertising is unethical

>>55849927
>The way I see it I'm allowed to pick and choose what elements of a webpage to load. They didn't load the website as a completed published document, it comes in pieces and you dont need all of them. simple as that.

automatic ad blocking is not the same thing since you use subsciptions that automatically disable certain elements without the user ever choosing anything

>>55855766
But you as a user chose to install the adblocker and use those subscriptions.

>>55854923
i used to disagree with the bandwidth argument (have bw for the site, but not for ads?). Nowadays im 100% on your side. The advertisers can blame only themselves for it, because they stuff their sites like a drug lord stuffes mules.

blockblockadblock.com

>>55855929
>inb4 blockblockblockadblock.com

>>55849462
>people who visit site with adblock: 20% tops
>people who know how to get around this: less than 1%

If someone only gives a shit about money, loading ads for a majority of those with adblock is a big win.

Am I supposed to be outraged websites are trying to protect their revenue?

>>55856082
if it is at the expence of your security i'd say yes

File: =^).png (236KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1600x900px

>>55849117
Fix'd.

I would much rather see a site I love and use daily wiped off the internet than to allow any ads to display in my browser. Advertisement is corruption and pollution. Just look at what it's done to television, radio, landlines, snail mail, etc. Enough is enough. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and here on the internet, at least for now, we can fight back.

>>55856098
>I want to run software that benefits me at your expense for convenience, Justify with the very minimal chance harm to my computer and I will be outraged if after years of this software growing popularly you might want to do something about it.

Ok. Lets just expect the status quo of us blocking ads and them doing nothing about it will never be disturbed.
Im not defending this, But Im not going to be outraged if people are going to protect their bottom lime if its just as easy as using a service or software or whatever.

>>55849117
They do some dodgy shit, obfuscating the connections to a bunch of ad domains to test if you have adblocking enabled. For those who don't have adblocking enabled those connections could deliver malware. For any site running blockadblock the script could be maliciously modified to connect specifically to malware domains while remaining obfuscated (it will be harder for people to notice that obfuscated code has been changed).

It's basically shit.

>>55856264

|YWRzYXR0LmFiY25ld3Muc3RhcndhdmUuY29t|YWRzYXR0LmVzcG4uc3RhcndhdmUuY29t|YWRzLnp5bmdhLmNvbQ|aW5zLmFkc2J5Z29vZ2xl|YWRzLnlhaG9vLmNvbQ|YXMuaW5ib3guY29t|NDY4eDYwLmpwZw|MTM2N19hZC1jbGllbnRJRDI0NjQuanBn|YWRjbGllbnQtMDAyMTQ3LWhvc3QxLWJhbm5lci1hZC5qcGc|c2t5c2NyYXBlci5qcGc|NzIweDkwLmpwZw|setInterval|cHJvbW90ZS5wYWlyLmNvbQ||

This section here specifically are the list of ad domains it will randomly pick from to attempt to connect to in order to test for adblocking, pipe separated, base64 encoded without the trailing ==.

>>55856404
Well, actually it's not quite as simple as that, but there are a few of the domains in there, probably a few more spaced throughout the code. I deobfuscated it a few months ago but I don't have that output anymore. It's simple as fuck to deobfuscate, just take the output of the eval and put it into a variable.

File: 1456928070280.png (40KB, 485x359px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 485x359px

>>55849117
blocked

>>55849946
>The more annoying those scripts get, the more people will start blocking javascript in turn
Fucking awesome. Can't wait for an internet without 10 MiB of javascript bullshit per page.

The kind of advertising that everybody blocks actually makes far, far less money for content creators than, say, sponsored content and partnerships.

If you use AdBlock on the sort of large website that requires it, you aren't even robbing them of that much money. Also, I refused to download AdBlock for years, and in so doing, Facebook, Google, YouTube, and many other normie websites that I visit grew into mighty media empires that are worth literal GDP-tier money. I've done my time. I've suffered for their profits. I have paid enough that I should never have to pay again, with my time, with my attention, or with my comfort. I've done my bit, and it's time to stop paying, so that's what I've done.

>>55849117

A reasonable compromise is to offer two options: ad-based revenue for the casual visitor, and a (usually inexpensive) subscription.

I'm happy paying for things that I like, and the ad-based model gives me the chance to preview before buying in.

Unfortunately malware-laden ads still exist, even on reputable sites, but if you aren't blocking most JavaScript already then you're probably a lost cause.

Surely someone will com up with a server side way to detect addblockers, ie they test the browser for certain behaviour, and only then load the page if it "passes".

File: youcantmakethisshitup.png (391KB, 1711x915px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1711x915px

looking at his twitter and found this

>>55858923
Really makes you think

File: 1465752971537.jpg (13KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 225x225px

>>55858923
>>55858950

He must be right because what he said really made me think

>>55858950
his twitter is full of click bait shit kind of reminds me of facebook

>>55849147
I don't see anything

File: kekeros.png (477KB, 710x793px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 710x793px

>>55858973
>>55858950
more gold for you

>>55849133
I'm already running that desu

>>55849189
>>55849366
>>55853308
>>55858999
:^)

>>55855247
this is a good idea desu

File: ablock.png (13KB, 551x165px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 551x165px

>>55858923
kek

>>55849142
>losing leeches hurts you
How does that work?

File: 1212437253490.png (17KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x400px

>>55855280
>Those ads that would open more if you tried to close them
>Those adds that would continuously ask you if you meant to close them
>Those adds that would bounce around the screen so you couldn't close them
>Those sites who would pop up so many ads that your computer would crash

I had forgotten how dark those days were

to the people who keked at him for saying it illegal to use ablockers because of DMCA heres the blog where he talks about it
>inb4 shill
iam not defending him iam just looking for stuff to dump so you dont have to

http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating-the-dmca/

>>55849117
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.

http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/when-adblock-blocks-your-entire-blog/

bait to the next level

>>55849117
>>55849117
We wouldn''t be in such an absurd situation if ads hadn't become so annoying and insiduous in the first place.

There needs to be a standard for non-intrusive, clearly defined ads that websites can opt to respect. Then, it could be optional to block such ads and people who would block them would just be dicks.

>>55852501
Revolution when?

>>55855261
Maintaining a website implies costs.

>>55859194
https://archive.is/CD1xe
How will they block archive sites?

>>55859179
Remove your trip you dumbfuck. No one is talking about your shitty site.

Why can't they just embed the ad directly in the source code?

>>55859214
But maintaining a website does not imply profit. Get it yet?

File: centralized-decentralized-distributed.jpg (38KB, 600x380px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x380px

>>55859214
Not that Anon but, I can't wait for projects like IPFS to be finished so that these costs can be reduced to your monthly internet and electric bill costs as it should be. You should be able to host a website out of your home and actually have it be feasible.

https://blog.neocities.org/its-time-for-the-permanent-web.html

>>55859274
Capitalism ho.

>>55859274
I know dumbass. My point is that some websites run ads simply to cover the costs of maintaining the website. How many chromosomes do you have? Shit.

>>55859302
>My point is that some websites run ads simply to cover the costs of maintaining the website.
Those sites should be very angry with the other sites that allow malware-ads. Those other sites are the reason we block ads. Hopefully, the "nice" sites can come up with a good solution. Until then, we block ALL ads.

>>55855261
>>55859214
>>55859274
I miss the times when people made websites out of passion and didn't expect people to pay for their hobby for them. Now everybody just makes websites trying to make money or get attention, all this chaff makes finding good content such a chore. Everyone is so competitive too, stealing content or trying to be first, I miss the times when sites had "links" pages that were just links to other cool sites the owner liked or for projects of the same type, etc.

>>55859330
Remove your trip you dumbfuck. No one is talking about your shitty site.

>>55859293
Survival of the fittest, if a site isn't good enough it won't be supported, if they can't support themselves they will die.

>>55859302
Your post didn't have any point. It was an asinine statement.

>How many chromosomes do you have?
Probably in the millions

>>55859288
IPFS sounds like a terrible idea.

1. You should be able to distribute your content in a way that makes it feasible to delete the source if you choose to.
2. Web 2.0 requires instantaneous updating, not permanence.

IPFS sounds great to build knowledge bases over the internet (a long-forgotten intend purpose for it) but for personal servers? I don't think so. If I run a website, I want clients to see the website that I made. I can't stand the fact that what people would see could depend on cached versions on thousands of computers all over the world.

>>55859330
There is no easy solution to that, short of forcing every website in existence to hire a ton of developers to create their own unique advertising platform, and hire a ton of salespeople to manage advertisers in lieu of simply signing up for an advertising service and being done with it.

>>55859333
Websites like these still exist, no?

I mean I haven't visited one in a while, but uh... right?

People have figured out how to make money on the internet, so it became a thing. But that doesn't make non-profit websites non-existent.

Since people tend to want "Web 2.0" and to gather on the same big websites instead of many small ones, it's hard to make a relelvent website that doesn't cost a fuckton for hardware and bandwith.

>>55859143
Punishing your product isn't smart. Leeches talk and bring in more people who will both leech and not leech.

>>55859350
>Inconvenient facts are just asinine statements

Ok.

>>55859390
Google "potionomics"

>>55859274
Maintaining implies breaking even, at the very least, or the website's days are numbered. I get people who need to run an ad to cover some upkeep costs and are upfront about it.

>>55859374
>There is no easy solution to that
There is. Adblock.

Internet used to be similar to newspapers. You buy a newspaper for very cheap, or you got it for free. Who paid? Adverts. You read the news, and you read the ads... if you wanted to. Or you could skip the ads.

If a newspaper had ads that could get you fired from work, ads that could actually harm you, ads with heat-activate-glue-ink that forced you to look at the ads for 30 seconds before looking away... no one would get the newspaper.

Why do sites think that people are willing to put up with being annoyed, when there is a simple solution that gives peace of mind?

>How dare you try to get away from my annoying ads? This will not stand!
Your style of advertising is dying. Ablock-block is just an attempt at chemo for a terminally ill cancer patient.

>>55859359
>1.
It's not like people can't and don't archive modern web content today anyway. Either way I disagree so I have a bias, I can't argue for or against this as a result.
>2.
IPNS and IPLD exist for these reasons, IPFS is just the filesystem part of a full system, IPNS is the "name system" to act like a dns replacement, all it does is point to an IPFS hash, as long as people visit your IPNS like they do your domain now they'll receive the latest version as soon as it's published, you can even use IPFS with DNS to acheive the same result using existing systems and domains. IPFS is just a way to store and distribute blocks of data, there's much more to the system overall.

>>55859437
Remove your trip you dumbfuck. No one is talking about your shitty site.

>>55850045
I'm guessing you haven't seen the prizepool for this year's International

(19mil+, 8.4mil+ for first place)

> Implying I will ever turn off adblock to view some shitty website

>>55859545
This. If a website actually includes this, I will just turn around and look through the 1,000+ other websites that can offer me the exact or similar service. Inconveniencing me because I choose to block cancerous ads is a great way to make me never visit that website again.

>>55859159
>Those ads that would open more if you tried to close them
The stuff of nightmare.
>close 1 ad
>3 more popup
I've been using adblock since forever and have no intention of turning it off.

>>55859437
your guides are bad and you should feel bad

>>55859288
>IPFS
doesn't zeronet already do all of this?

>>55859941
For the topic of this thread it's probably good enough to host your own website. If I had to choose I'd personally pick IPFS, from all I've seen of it the project looks like it stands a real chance of some widespread adoption when it's actually completed, it's pretty useful even in it's current state. I think it has other technical merits too but the potential for adoption is kind of important is you want people to browse your site. Really though if ease of use isn't a big deal zeronet, freenet, etc. are all good choices, anything that makes self hosting feasable is great and distributed p2p systems help out with that a lot.

>>55859941
>>55860535
>In March 2016 it operated with a max-filesize per website of 10 megabytes, suitable for blogs, forums, and smaller torrent-sites.
I didn't see this before posting, that seems like kind of a big deal actually if you want to do anything with video content etc.
IPFS doesn't have limitations like this so if you want to host big content you can.

>>55849130
>>55849117

Your business model is not my problem.

Web advertising is the most common vector for malware. Including "legit" sites like Ars Technica. This goes unfixed in any systemic way because the incentives are wrong: both ad networks and the actual websites themselves *profit* from malware campaigns, whether they admit it or not.

Advertising encourages companies to effectively stalk people in order to target ads. This can have damaging effect when (not if) this information leaks, but even if it doesn't, analytics inherently violate the rights of the subject.

It also has a negative effect on the actual content, because it encourages clickbait rather than real journalism.


Web advertising is obnoxious, anti-social, and it should not be welcome in the 21st century.

If your content has a value, put it behind a paywall. advertising is an deprecated form of income

>>55860773
This.

i'd rather buy a book than read stuff online, they should just let the ads industry die and move onto publishing ebooks.

>>55860889
>tips fedora

>>55860990

>>55849133
kek, this

>>55859214
Costs can be covered in hundreds of ways other than ads,
as the pre-ad Internet proves.
One of them is having a job.

File: fuck you.jpg (82KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 500x500px

>>55849117
Ad-Aware Ad Block - addon
>its the solution

>>55849117
How can you loose something,
when you didn't have it in the first place...

>>55860773
It's not quite violating when the user chooses the site they wish to I indulge in. Much like choosing a restaurant to eat at, you only have so many choices at each. If you decide to visit, shall I say, shady sites versus news or shopping sites; it was by choice.

I agree that malware can be tiresome but all of the negativities of the net is only experiences by user choice. The content was free to the user to see and in turn they could be subjected to malicious ads or data. That's about all.

>>55849117
BlockBlockAdBlock and BlockBlockBlockAdBlock when?

The only people who really care about adblocking are "news" site faggots. The lowest turd licking bottom of the barrel "content creator" type on the Internet.
Retarded trash who can't find a real job and want to scheme themselves into a lazy chair job of writing blog posts, opinion pieces, copy pasting articles and reformulating them to look original, that can be done from the cozy home, and then pass themselves as "socially important" to justify their desperate need for lazy income.

Also the most replaceable and redundant "content creator" on the Internet.
If WIRED and such died, nothing would happen.
Nothing would change, nothing of value would have been lost, there would be no impact on society or the Internet.
Meanwhile, all other content creators type websites, due to their nature, have people with jobs running them or people who don't need ads and have a donation/service system which keeps them up perfectly (see book translation sites for example).

Hell, even that animpron or whatever 3D porn creating guy who releases Tomb Raider horse beastiality porn gets over 20k a month on his Patreon, a figure that has increase by now i assume.
Take that for a hint.

>>55849117
Ads would've been good, but then they started putting malware in it. They only have themselves to blame.

The only site I've ever allowed ads on was this site.

But then Hiro started putting up malware ads on both NSFW and SFW boards and I complained on /qa/ and proceeded to blacklist 4chan.

So everything is blocked.

>>55849117
Fuck these adblock kiddies. I saw FUCK EM UP and make these ungrateful kids PAY FOR WHAT THEY TAKE FROM ME

Get fucked millenial shitbags

>>55860773
>Your business model is not my problem.

It is now nigger

>at the grocery store
>store is offering free samples of wine
>some of the cups of wine samples obviously contain antifreeze
>employee hands me a cup of wine and a cup of antifreeze
>i drink the wine and throw out the antifreeze
>"HOLD IT ANON, YOU HAVE TO CONSUME WHAT I GIVE YOU, YOU DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHICH BITS OF THE FREE THING I GAVE YOU YOU WANT TO DRINK"

>try to load a website or news article
>page is completely blank; must load scripts to see content
>close tab; content must not have been important
>move on

There is no such thing as ‘ad blocking’. The web is a pull medium, not a push medium. I merely decline to request ads.

>>55864880
Hm, really well said.

>>55851414
>if i dont run their code on my computer i am violating the DMCA
>i legally have to become part of the botnet now

serve ads as static images from your own domain if you want my money

>>55849390
Nexus is fucking gay for doing videos on every mod page. Can't they see I'm trying to open up 10 tabs of crap to sift through without my browser dying?

>>55849117
Everyone can do with their sites what they like, but if you block adblock then I'll just visit a different site that offers the same service as yours but allows it.

>>55859333
made a weebly site just for this.

>>55859388
> hard to make a relelvent website that doesn't cost a fuckton for hardware and bandwith
Almost everyone can afford a tiny website that can handle several hundred visitors per day.

>>55859545

Or just use userscripts to get past adblock detection.

Really useful for ddl piracy sites.

Question: does using a browser like Lynx, that only renders text, count as ad-blocking?

>>55865135

Webdevs already consider not executing javascript as adblocking.

If we calculated how much time and money was wasted in uncompensated damages done by malicious, fraudulent and intrusive ads, I think we'd come to the conclusion that advertisers owe us a lot more in lost revenues than we owe them.

File: blovkitall.png (19KB, 390x416px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 390x416px

>>55849117
come at me bro

>>55863912
Nope, there's a third choice. Install an ad blocker. And install an analytics blocker like Ghostery.

And no, aggressive advertising and malware are not limited to porn sites or torrent trackers.

File: 1463653554767.jpg (124KB, 337x367px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 337x367px

>>55849117
>you have no right to refuse anything we send to your computer
only a cuck would obey this shit

>>55866844
Nah, only a cuckolder would say it. A cuckoldee wouldn't have the confidence.

>>55866844
>>55866905
Whoops, read "obey" as "say."

guys halp
i've updated ublock, running 1.7.6, and i've added the adblock warning removal list, but the site still blocks me out after a few seconds, and the "includes" filter someone posted above doesn't work for me

how do i fuck the man???

>>55864880
good food analogy

>>55849117
>I've haven't had a single virus since i've stopped downloading .exe files
Not that you know of

>>55849117
Ha, what a fucking cuck.

How about shit sites stop having malware ridden ads and host them on their own servers?

No? Well they can fuck themselves.

>>55849143
>>55849138
This.
Take postpone pulling this shit because they knew they could not win.
Taking the geeks on with this shit is a calculated yet desperate move and I don't suppose that they expect to win in the end.

Completely justified. Visiting a website is a privilege, and if users aren't willing to agree to the terms the webmaster offers in exchange for allowing the visit, for example viewing ads, then they can't complain when the webmasters deny them access.

>>55866936

>>55853080
change the blockadblock.com part to whatever website you're on if you see this on it.

>>55863912
>If you decide to visit, shall I say, shady sites versus news or shopping sites; it was by choice.

Are you fucking retarded? Shops have even more incentive to track you so they can "feature" products (ie. first-party advertisement), and most of them also display third-party ads.

>>55860773
>analytics inherently violate the rights of the subject.

Completely agree with you about what you say otherwise, but this is wrong. That's not a legally defined right of privacy. It should be, but it isn't.

>>55851826
it's a job but not a career
Unless you're in the top .1% of streamers or pro players you will barely make above minimum wage

I know people who make it their job, they live with their parents despite having hundreds of subs and I make over double what they do at an entry level office job

That's like putting a cactus in your vagina to avoid getting raped.

>>55849117

>paint yourself into a corner with pop-up ads, autoplaying videos, cross site scripts, redirects, and overlaid ads
>STOP BLOCKING OUR ADS!!!

So instead of skimming through some '2016 top 10 anime deaths of all time' click bait article I'll just have to find something more productive to do? What a shame.

Ad blockers are the natural response after the dark ages of Internet advertising, and the logical conclusion of years of intrusive, obnoxious, loud, malicious and ridiculously annoying, aggressive advertising. Advertisers have no one to blame but themselves for their shortsightednes and unwillingness to make adds unobtrusive and not bloated with malicious shit.

>television networks get buttmad people are recording the shows without looking at ads
>take the companies making the recording hardware to court
>get buttfucked by the courts
it's almost like we haven't seen analogous situations to adblockers before

>>55867382
>Visiting a website is a privilege. If users don't want to agree to me giving them malware, and tracking their every movement then they shouldn't have stumbled upon my site.

>>55867512
You freely visit their page, they can put content out there that they pay for.

>>55855280
heh

The other day I tried browsing the Internet for 10 minutes with no adblock. I am actually shocked by my experience. It's hilarious how intrusive and annoying all of the ads are.

I don't give a fuck anti adblock is justified or not but I sure as hell ain't gonna turn of adblock myself. There is zero website that is indispensable, including google and facebook and whatever the fuck these guys are. If they want to drive off users it's their choice.

File: 01469884802713.jpg (19KB, 261x159px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 261x159px

What's your guys opinion on analytics on sites? Do you mind if a site, for example, uses Google Analytics to better understand their user base so they can make a better site or do you find it intrusive?

100% okay and better than a lot of other potentially scummy tactics.

>>55849117
>Losing billions

>>55870679
>Front page has a poll asking what you want on the site
>only users who want to contribute have to

>Use spyware to track everything the user does and try guess what they want based on that

There is litterally no reason to use analytics unless you plan on selling it to advertising firms. The "but it helps us implement what you want!" argument is fucked.

>>55853080
Works for all browsers:
blockadblock.com##script:inject(noeval.js)

File: 1467631844980.gif (945KB, 500x278px) Image search: [Google]

945KB, 500x278px

>>55870748
Billions of what? Zimbabwean dollars?

>>55849117
makes sense, using adblock was fine a decade ago, when it was a weird thing firefox nerds used. Today is major problem for the free web

>>55851414
So it's non free javascript?

>>55870836
That's a good idea, I see your point. Some sites honestly do use it to better the site, but it has unwanted consequences. So, I agree with your idea.

I don't know why sites don't just do that. Guess it really is to sell your information.

I'm not gonna download what I don't wanna download

>>55859421
I think you're missing the point. If I block their ads but like their site, I'll suggest it to my friends, who may visit the site WITHOUT using adblock. Whereas if the website becomes known for taking a stand against freedom, it may lose reputation and drive away even those users who don't use adblock. Of course, it could still go either way, but blockadblock is not a guaranteed win for the website.

>>55870887
Poe's law.

>>55864908
Pretty much this.
>try to view a video on some news website
>there are more than 20 blocked third party domains i have to find the video host amongst
>leave instead
The slight inconvenience of some sites not working properly is far outweighed by the protection.

File: 1468730634652.jpg (60KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 480x480px

>>55849117
>obfuscated output

Non-free html? No thanks!

Iirc it's based on fuckadblock. Look up fuckfuckadblock

>>55855728
You know that you can right click on those "disable adblock" elements and disable them, right? Them you continue browsing

I use adblockers on my browser but to be honest, if I was running a website which was funded by advertisements, I would certainly use this. I see no problems here really.

It's not even just ads anymore. I can't visit a news site without having to hide a CSS full screen takeover nag for their retarded email harvesting campaign("newsletter"), a sidebar larger than the area devoted to the content full of irrelevant clickbait crap, three blobs inserted into the middle of the article that are tertiary or irrelevant shit, an auto-playing video and a static header

>>55860773
>analytics inherently violate the rights of the subject
agree with you on everything except this. anonymous analytics absolutely do not violate individual rights. unfortunately, a lot of times it's not anonymous.

>>55867512
>That's not a legally defined right of privacy. It should be, but it isn't.
it's not and it shouldn't be. the law should be that collection for analytics can only be done anonymously. they should also outlaw greedy collection with the obvious intent of uniquely identifying individuals like browser fingerprints.

it's all pretty damn idealistic though. this shit's never be anything but bad while there's money to be made from doing things the shitty way.

>>55867512
>That's not a legally defined right of privacy. It should be, but it isn't.
I believe in natural rights. There are rights that exist regardless of what the law says.