Websites that Detect Adblockers

We just need an adblocking blocker blocker.

Most of them can be blocked with NoScript.

Not using those shitty clickbait websites.

>>56524997

Stop visiting those sites. If I like a website, and it won't slam me with ads and possibly malware, I'll gladly whitelist it.

>>56524997
Theres anti-adblock-blockers

Disable JavaScript, problem solved.

Also if a website is shitty enough to counterblock adblocking users, then it just makes me far more likely to never visit that site again.

This is why adblocker blocker blockers exist, anon.

>>56524997
I get that they want to make a living.

What I don't like is that ads have become beyond fucked up. Ads have all kinds of nasty malware.

>>56524997
Ublock with Reek + FuckFuckAdblock.js

Use your hosts file. I haven't found a site that detects that yet.

>>56525115
the auto-play video ones with enabled sounds are what piss me off. they also activate on my phone which has limited bandwidth per month.

Now they're distributing adware claiming to support sites.

Check out supportfreecontent.com
>4. What does the extension do?
>The SFC browser extension will trigger a sponsored search page at certain points in your normal browsing experience. The search functions exactly the same as a normal search, but by searching through the sponsored window, the search engines provide compensation which is then shared with the publisher.

>>56524997
>websites that detect Adblocking scripts
Download umatrix and block those scripts. There's no way to stop someone from preventing clientside code from executing.

Once you do that, who the fuck cares.

>>56524997
I'm supporting the website if I use the Ad blocker dumbass. It increases the traffic if I enter and it will reflect with google search engine.

> What's your opinion on websites that detect Adblocking scripts?

Simple, fight the webkike head on.

https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer

It's a bit messy atm, as you need to merge rules from pullreqs manually (reek seems to be awol for a while, so the master list is lacking a bit).

>>56524997
I didn't want to go to forbes anyway

I don't visit those sites. Or I don't notice them because ublock has a list to deal with the scripts.

>>56524997
Check these on uBlock
>Adblock Warning Removal List
>Anti-Adblock Killer | Reek

>>56525189
yey. I can open many illegal site as I want!!!

>>56525187
it also increases server costs. If a large enough portion of their viewers don't view ads, then they'll go bankrupt.

>>56525131
This makes me shit in rage.

Also, since I forced my family to use ad blockers, they haven't called me with no el worko calls in over a year now.

>>56524997
>What's your opinion on websites that detect Adblocking scripts?
I have no opinion because any good ablocker can circumvent them

>>56525242
It has exactly zero effect on server costs. I has a negative affect on ad revenue is what you mean.

>>56525254
same, its been years since I've had to care about this so I'm pretty out of the loop. Just a basic ad-block plugin seems to keep viruses off most of my families computers.

>>56525242
>2016
>believing that server/bandwidth is costsly like in the 90s meme

It sucks for people who produce and life off OC. It's pretty much for certain that only models like patreon will survive - there's a strong hint already when youtubers simply shown google the finger with their new monetization policies.

i hate having to disable my ad/popup-blockers while watching horses fuck chicks on pornfay.. however.. i dare say that is a small sacrifice to dodge premium bestiality on my visa.

>>56525288
While you are not wrong, he is referring to the act of visiting the site with an adblocker, compared to not visiting at all.

No visit means no ad revenue, but it also means no hit on the server.

>>56525288
>people using your bandwidth and CPU time has zero effect on server costs
I think you might have had some floating point rounding error there.

>>56525316
Server costs are pretty severe if you have a popular website. The guy who hosts the EEV Blog's forum said he spends $1000 per month to keep it up.

>>56525357
>>people using your bandwidth and CPU time has zero effect on server costs
People who allow ads and people who block ads should use roughly the same amount of bandwidth. The users who block ads might actually use less bandwidth because they can block scripts and images that are not relevant.

Are there really people stupid enough to use an ad blocker that can be detected by this, and at the same time can only block ads in a small range of browsers?

>>56525357
They might take a tad less server stress from script-blocking users vs. the average user.

Since they pull videos and images from a 3rd party maybe not by much. Bloated memory eating scripts tend to be client-side too... still. It's also my understanding websites eat up as much meta data from their visitors too and try to sell that information.

If you self-curate your ads and host the images yourself, they probably won't make it into the public ad lists and will still be shown to people with adblocker.

bandwidth is fucking cheap these days, i get 5 TB of traffic for $10 a month

and demanding $1 a week to view your shitty tech blog is preposterous, it should be $1 a month at most

>>56525393
looking into it, some ad-block detector software is trying to catch people by determining if a script, video, or image was loaded or not. others just mess around with some file names to try and circumvent shitty blockers that just look for static words like "ads"

There has never been "content" I've been so desperate to view that I'd unblock ads. When I see a message like that, I just hit the back key. I had the misfortune of using an old iPad without an adblocker for a week and I remembered why I turned this shit off in the first place.

The word "content" itself is just a euphemism for regurgitated bullshit. If the peddlers of this Jewish garbage all go out of business because we're blocking their ads, then that's an extra win.

>>56525357
>Hosts vids on YT

It's a small site. If you chipped in to "muh bandwidth costs" donation drive, you got scammed lad. At best he spends $1000 on his crackwhore habit.

Bandwidth is about 1000x cheaper than in the 90s. $1000 is about the bw cost of site size of 4chan.

Yes, I do operate a fairly large (>1M UU) site.

>>56525383
They might use less bandwidth (though I think ads are usually received from a 3rd party server), but they obviously don't cost you 0. If 100% of your userbase is blocking ads, you're going to go bankrupt.

>>56525414
>>56525429
That's surprisingly low. Maybe EEVBlog's costs are just high because he lives in Australia. It's like the 90s for the internet there.

>>56525447
Streaming videos to many viewers is more pricey, but that's when you use a 3rd party site who works in that area.

>>56525427
>others just mess around with some file names to try and circumvent shitty blockers that just look for static words like "ads"
Isn't this illegal?
The FCC mandates that all ads need to identify themselves as such somewhere.

>>56525494
if you're not in the US the FCC can't touch you, so those zoophilia websites you love are probably doing this.

>>56525494
>>56525503
I think the FCC regulation is about paid articles - those must be clearly _visually_ distinguished from actual content. Which of course most ads do.

There's no requirements regarding technicalities how ad delivery is implemented, especially for the purposes of filtering.

It's all wild west now basically.

>>56525494
I briefly skimmed an article about the legality of that, and the response was "not really".

But maybe my phrasing was poor -- they mess around with their file names in the websites code. So if a simple adblock software looked for a directory called "ads" it would probably block it. They remame some of their stuff, or pull from a file that's named differently.

As for ads clearly needing to identify themselves, this has never been something any website or ad company has followed. Think of the fake "download now" buttons. I think the ad company calls those "native advertising" which is when they try to blend an ad into the website so people will accidentally click it.

>>56524997
why do you fags hate the idea of people making money? Do you expect sites just to employ people to write and serve their content for free? Sure, let's increase security standards and hold shitty ad networks accountable for any malware that gets served through their platform. Fuck em. And don't browse sites that are infested with wall to wall ad unit coverage (the target audience for these kinds of monetized sites is literally sub-70 IQ individuals anyway). Hell, even block your ads - as a performance advertiser I am trying to target stay at home moms and 40 year old survivalists anyway, not you faggots. But all you pseudo-intillectuals touting the latest "(((adblocker)))" script are probably just going to get shilled out to an even bigger jew in due time, thanks to how fucking lucrative all of these adblocker companies realize it is to just slip a few impressions in here and there.

>>56525531
Misleading advertising (Download now -> exe) is usually illegal, for multitude of reasons.

But do you think pirate sites are bothered with such minutae? Now when semi-reputable site tries to pull that shit (cnet,sf), people were threatening class action as that was actual suable entity, and it quickly stopped.

As for how adblock busters work, just consult AAK source code. It's pretty much all out war of cat and mouse, misleading URLs was just first shots like 8 years ago.

>>56525131
y-you know you can just use the Firefox app which supports ad-blocking extensions right?

>>56524997
>What's your opinion on websites that detect Adblocking scripts?

I dont use them and I filter them from my google searches. fuck you forbes fuck youuuu, you are not special I can find everything in other websites.

>>56525316
>>2016
>>believing that server/bandwidth is costsly like in the 90s meme
Except server/bandwidth costs are actually pretty severe, made worse if you live in a prehistoric dialup shithole like Canada or somewhere.

Fuck man, m00t even made a blog post about how he was proud of shaving however many kb off loading pages -- which on a big site like 4chan amounted to a lot of saved bandwidth.

>>56525586
I remember download now buttons being on "legitimate" software websites mostly, actually. Some of the well known freeware websites were the worst for it. When it comes to technology enforcement is pretty much non-existent. Who audits a webpage? There are certainly no police patrolling their countries web pages making sure they follow all the set bylaws.

Think of Youtubes automated guilty until we decide your innocent system when it comes to complaints on a video. Lots of stuff falls under American laws for satire but gets taken down anyways.

>>56525613
I-I have a blackberry and I'm too lazy to install extra apps on it.

>>56524997
I tried to browse Wired once, recently.
After whitelisting due to this, I found it fucking impossible to keep my attention on the article. Not only were the ads obtrusive as all hell, but beyond that, the fucking "sharing menu" and other useless things clutter up the screen. By the time I got a script working, the space with the article on it couldn't've been half of the total.

>>56525586
>Misleading advertising (Download now -> exe) is usually illegal, for multitude of reasons.
ha you are misinformed. that's not what misleading advertising is. there is nothing "misleading" about an ad that simply says "download". also the FTC is the 3 letter agency that you want to pay attention to not FCC

>>56525624
I wonder how g00k is handling things now. From what I get the 4chan pass system was helping things break more even regularly since ads were never really figured out here.

>>56525624
Please tell me more about my job. Yes, bw costs were nontrivial back then, but not now.

$50/1TB in 2009
$20/1TB in 2014
$5/1TB in 2016

>>56524997
That is the most smarmy pop up I've ever received. I would never ever disable my adblock for them simply because of their wording.

Never use websites that do that. They should never be whitelisted nor forgiven. Forbes is the largest offender. They're all pretentious faggots anyway.

>>56525709
it reminds me a bit of the pop ups that claim your computer is infected with a virus, and a simple payment will get you software to fix your issues

>>56525694

>$5/1TB in 2016

Jesus Christ this is fucking criminal. What prevents me from hosting my site on a Raspberry Pi from my room instead?

>>56524997
>WIRED

reminder that ad blocking is theft

is it possible to bypass hulu's bullshit?

>>56525800
reminder that helping the slaves reach canada was theft.

law and morality are not the same. kys chief.

>>56525827
yes, pirate their content like it deserves to be

>>56524997
>OMG No Man's sky would take infinite amount of time to see completely and that's okay says our writer durrrr.
>Reply with "Sure, impossible by definition, but how many samey copy-pasted planets do you really need to see?"
>You have been blocked.
>Baww we need to keep the lights on.

Any company who thinks 'journalism' (and I use the term loosely in this case) is about muting oposition deserves to be snuffed out.

>>56525772
Your ISP, enough traffic, even without a data cap and they'll threaten to cut you off if you don't pay for business internet. I've tried it

>>56525866
>he thinks being a teen whose brain shat out an opinion makes him "the opposition."

>>56525866
comment sections on most websites are heavily moderated cancer or spam-bot filled cancer

most news sites in my country don't even allow comments on articles anymore

>>56525890
>teen
What would that have to do with anything even if it was true?
>Opinion which opposes the one presented isn't an opposing opinion.
Would you get triggered less if I said criticism? Or do you simply go around sperging out on every comment you see?

>forbes

who cares

any others and I stop visiting them too

>>56524997
Sites that whine the most are coincidentally the shittiest ones. It has been proven numerous times that such measures decrease site popularity and, thus, revenue, so just stop visiting such sites and let them die

>>56525919
>be edgy teen
>wonder why nobody cares to listen to your predictable edgelord opinions
>create elaborate delusion that it's because you're, "The One."

>>56525903
Ofcourse they have to get moderated, they produce garbage, garbage doesn't generate meaningful content.

Just look at Forbes. There's a particular contributor on the site called Paul Tassi. He's like a go to source for retards without any legitimate citations. He basically posts opinionated drivel and just flat out lies, then people take those articles when they need to support a claim by saying "Forbes says", basically using Forbes' record of legitimacy (One that quickly got tarnished when they turned into an online publication that relies mostly on contributor content) to give validity to their absurd claims.

The online publications and blogs have basically become the most widespread purveyor of confirmation bias on the planet. And since government regulation of media is not allowed, things will just keep getting worse as ADD mediums like Twitter become more integrated into society.

>>56525957
Like I said, you're welcome to form a coherent argument at any point.

How do I bypass shit like this with ublock origin?

>>56525964
>I obsessively target people, pouncing on invented flaws to try to make me feel better about myself

So you're a known retard.

Injecting "native" ads onto other people's content is theft.

How do I prevent my isp from doing this to my mobile devices?

>>56525021
it's called an adblocker

Is there a link to the technical explanation of the new style ads (shitbook was pushing for a while) that were capable of dodging adblockers?

Wasn't it something like serving ads directly from the site's webserver?

>>56524997
>Is there an easier way to deal with these things besides live deleting code from the page?
Holy SHIT, /g/ude! An Ad-Blocker-Detector-Blocker!!
>If this becomes a fucking thing, we know we've jumped into the deepest pits of Digital Hell, because it'll all just spiral back-and-forth from there until sites are completely unusable; they'll load nothing much various scripts to kill ads, kill adblockers, kill adblocker-detectors, kill adblocker-detector-blockers, until we are forced to upgrade CPU's to thousands of times their current power to attempt to extract the page in between an internal war between these technologies.

We will have the most advanced information technology in the galaxy, but never have gotten anywhere, because it takes that technology JUST to see some fan-subbed anime on an offhand site.

From that day forward, Humanity will bury itself deep in the Earth, where wires have flooded the streets and Wi-Fi has literally gotten to the point of cancer. Trucks driving by to hack your router to deliver you ads. Trucks driving by trucks to anti-hack their signals...

And the aliens are sitting there, pissing themselves laughing as AIs take over the world to view the porn their neural networks have developed a fetish for, having been originally developed by individuals and companies to combat these various combative ad-related technologies...

What a fucking world.

File: 1471865456841.png (93KB, 467x496px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 467x496px

>>56526071
thanks for the hearty keke m8

>>56525991
look at some of the recommendations in the thread, the anti ad blocker killer thing worked for me.

>>56524997
>What's your opinion on websites that detect Adblocking scripts
It depends on how effective it is, and moreover WHY they're using it (more on this later*)

>specifically ones that use companies like AdLatch to put their site behind a paywall like pic related if they find out you're using one.
Same as above (*)

>They're getting almost as annoying as the auto-play video ads/ fake buttons their pages are covered in
Those type of sites are disgusting


See, the simplest solution to this is: Show ads that...
fucking WAIT FOR IT!..
...

...

DON'T ANNOY THE FUCK OUTTA USERS!

OMG, what a concept!
>Drop the video ads
>Drop the audio ads
>If certain animated ads are pissing people off, review them
>Stick with mostly text/pic or text+pic
>And don't have like 50 of them per page!
Now, most people really won't care that much!
And I'll unblock you, too, m80.
See, now everyone's happy!

*So, what do I mean by that?
Well, let's look at the facts: If your ads don't DEVOUR my fucking processor AND they don't make any noise AND they do not INTERRUPT videos... I couldn't care less about them.
I really couldn't.
Several sites I use are marked as whitelist items on my AdBlock. SOME of them use Adblocker detection.
The ones that do, DO NOT contain video ads, AND the Adblcoker detectors do NOT cover up content on the site (they just leave the current ad space with a message asking to unblock, and I normally do).

Now, sites like Crunchyroll have VIDEO ads IN-STREAM. So does YouTube!
I purposely select to NOT use the skippable video ads/whatever on MY videos. I only use cards, overlays, and those default things that go to the side or whatever.

>>>TL;DR coming

>>56526228
The issue that I see with ads is that they waste bandwidth and introduce a security risk. At the very least it drastically increases your possible area for exploits.

>>56526228
So, TL;DR:
>Do I hate ads?
Not particularly
>Do you have a right to make money on your site, including by using ads?
Absolutely
>Will I block your site's ads if they contain:
>>TONS of ads?
>>Video ads?
>>In-stream video ads (ads that block playback)?
>>Ads that take up a TON of page space?
>>Ads containing any kind of audio?
>>Popup ads?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes; Also, usually
>What about if you detect my Adblocker and then block me from seeing your content?
Then, I won't use your site at all, and I'll shit on it whenever anyone asks

>What if your ads are limited and only contain text and/or pics?
Whitelisted
>What if when you detect my Adblocker, you leave a message asking me to turn it off?
Whitelisted, and refreshed

>What if your detector gives me popups/alert boxes?
Fuck you. Blocked and/or won't use

So, again, the short solution is:
>No video ads
>Nothing that pauses playback of videos
>Nothing that makes noise
>Nothing that takes up a fuckton of space
>Nothing that uses popups
>Nothing that will lag my machine
If you can do THAT, I will whitelist you and never look back.

Why hasn't someone made a website or list yet of websites implementing anti-adblock measures? So we can blacklist and filter these sites from searches

>>56526228
Consider TV ads and how horrible they are. Also TV is a service you pay for and they still bombard you with loud (it's actually an ad technique to make your ad louder than the show on purpose) obnoxious ads. The industry was like that for decades. They have no intention to change.

I've whitelisted sites that are more selective about ads, and even complained when they get some annoying ones which get removed. Companies just don't want to accept they need to make an effort to not scare off potential customers by making their businesses atmosphere miserable. It's easier and cheaper to do nothing, and when ads are 3rd party they can deny liability.

>>56526293
you can look at the feature of the browser scripts that circumvent that feature of those sites

I'm sure there's a list because someone has to implement the code to go around known ones

>>56526293
it's about building a list. most websites don't have aggressive tactics, or do anything at all yet.

if it becomes more common (i'm sure startups with anti-adblock software will do their best to push their product and fabricate lost revenue numbers) then we might see a larger attempt to snub offending sites.

>>56526270
>they waste bandwidth
Well, it's only a waste if it doesn't help anyone.
It's USUALLY in the company's best interest to use limited size ads, b/c it uses THEIR bandwidth, too, and if they devour their OWN bandwidth, they'll be unable to make money off the ads due to higher hosting

>introduce a security risk
Depends on the type of ads.
If you don't have advertiser-generated scripts, it's completely safe (unless YOU put something in it, or THEIR site is hacked or something). And if you use one of the ad pools from like AdSense or Ad Choices or something, it's PROBABLY safe, like VASTLY more often than not. Especially AdSense

>At the very least it drastically increases your possible area for exploits.
Again, that really depends how the ads were made and who made them.

>>56526311
>Also TV is a service you pay for and they still bombard you with loud (it's actually an ad technique to make your ad louder than the show on purpose) obnoxious ads
Yeah, TV is cancer. I don't even watch TV anymore. Almost ever.

If we switched COMPLETELY to Internet-based entertainment, I probably wouldn't even realize my parents threw out the television.
>Where the fuck did we get all this room from all of a sudden?

>Companies just don't want to accept they need to make an effort to not scare off potential customers by making their businesses atmosphere miserable
I would never do that when I launch my website. I mean, I'd HAVE to start with AdSense, b/c I don't have the necessary backing otherwise.
But, I plan to implement a second system later on in, maybe within the first year or 2, that would completely refuse any of the shit ads. And I WOULD have people to look at them and delete obtrusive and obnoxious ads

>It's easier and cheaper to do nothing, and when ads are 3rd party they can deny liability.
I think there's actually a way, with AdSense, at least, to limit certain types of ads... so, they have no excuse regarding liability

>>56525021
ublock origin got a list for that

>>56526395
>TV is cancer
I know, my point is just that advertisers in general have a very cancerous attitude. The people who did advertising in television, or annoying advertising anywhere, would have also brought their cancerous (annoy/ force people to acknowledge your ad by whatever means necessary) attitude to the internet.

And the internet has many more options in terms of being invasive. People mute or change the channel on their TV when commercials show up. I've read that some advertisers have tried lobbying to make not watching ads illegal, and many have brought that mentality to their ads online. Who cares if they're annoying and potentially carry malicious script? Watch them!

>I'd HAVE to start with AdSense
I understand why websites do it. They want the ad revenue. I just don't understand why they make their website a difficult to navigate clusterfuck with bandwidth wasting videos trying to sell me diarrhea medicine while I'm reading about video games. Instead of getting pissy your visitors don't want to be annoyed with flashing images, maybe complain to your ad provider about the lack of professionalism with their service. These industries have a blame the customer attitude which seems like a poor way to run a business.

I dont use anti-adblocker on my website because I dont give a fuck.
But if I could block adblocking users that complain about content creators I would gladly block them.

>>56526395
>Well, it's only a waste if it doesn't help anyone.
I treat ads as white noise... so that's a total waste

>it uses THEIR bandwidth
Isn't the actual content of ads usually provided by the advertiser's server?

>Depends on the type of ads
There probably wouldn't be much of an issue, provided they have no scripts, HTML, images, videos or any other content that has a large codebase dedicated to decoding it.

just look at some of these libpng exploits:
>The png_convert_to_rfc1123 function in png.c in libpng 1.0.x before 1.0.64, 1.2.x before 1.2.54, and 1.4.x before 1.4.17 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive process memory information via crafted tIME chunk data in an image file, which triggers an out-of-bounds read.
>Heap-based buffer overflow in the png_combine_row function in libpng before 1.5.21 and 1.6.x before 1.6.16, when running on 64-bit systems, might allow context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via a "very wide interlaced" PNG image.
>Off-by-one error in the png_formatted_warning function in pngerror.c in libpng 1.5.4 through 1.5.7 might allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors, which trigger a stack-based buffer overflow.
>pngrtran.c in libpng 1.5.x before 1.5.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted palette-based PNG image that triggers a buffer overflow, related to the png_do_expand_palette function, the png_do_rgb_to_gray function, and an integer underflow. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information

>>56525800
Oy vey!

>>56526461
Doesn't work all the time.

Usually the sites that nag about it aren't worth visiting a second time.

>>56526016
By using the https version of the website.

>>56526016
is that actually a thing? sounds extremely cancerous

>>56525060
This.
Ads are shit on site, because no matter where they come from they always pop up and install some fucking malware and play audio and annoy the fuck out of me.

>Disable adblocker
>Full screen popup to subscribe to their spam list I mean newsletter
>Like what you see? Why not share it on social media?
>Giant blinking banner ad for the chance to win a lifetime supply of dragon dildos
>Side ad with a big tittied anime girl advertising a free to play game
>Large mid paragraph ad for the xbone
>Another side ad about learning Russian to date Russian women
>Bottom banner ad with download now button and a free sticker stamped on it
>Article is split into 8 pages
>Click next
>A brief word from our sponsors
>10 second timer with an ad for laundry detergent and how it tastes better than competing brands
>Timer finishes
>Audio starts autoplaying about car insurance being more important than life insurance
>Repeat process for each page
I can't fathom why someone would want to block this quality content.

File: poop.png (89KB, 636x2442px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 636x2442px

>>56524997
I find another source for my information.

File: this options in ublock.png (7KB, 329x49px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 329x49px

nobody?

>>56526736
i haven't had any problems lately that i can remember (except that forbes gets stuck on the quote of the day the first time i load it), maybe because it's actually illegal in the EU for websites to block adblockers, but it's good to know that those options are there

they're free to do whatever they want, and i'm free to do whatever i want (all of this, within reason; i can't go copy their content and then host it from a different server - that's copyright infringement).

if i want to block ads, i can do that. if they want to block me when they see that i'm blocking ads, they can do that too.

my response as a user is proportionate to the hazards of many of the worst offenders in advertising: malware being served, tracking data, heinous load time increases, etc... all make the web a much much worse place.

they're similarly proportionate in their response to call me out for blocking their ads. if they want to make the case that they A) need ads and B) are circumspect in their application of ads (that is, not doing anything shady, not making the page obnoxiously laid out or slow to load, etc...) then i'll disable ad blocking on that page.

i'm not one of those nutcases who sees advertising and decries it without any nuance whatsoever. those people remind me of that crazy feminist maniac who said that just the act of sex subjugated women. in some contexts, sure, but not necessarily all.

>>56525021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw3G80bplTg

>>56525429
Depends on how you host your stuff. If you fell for the cloud™ maymay it could very well cost that much. It doesen't mean they would be any more entitled to the money of course.

>>56525875
Depends on where you live i suppose. Ive sometimes burned at 95-100% usage for months downloading and hosting shit and never got any issues. However hosting stuff from your home really doesent work beyond your hobby project and is suspect to all kinds of malicious activity these server companies are equipped to handle.

>>56526604
Also illegal, however some companies in murica still do this because its more profitable than the bills they have tp pay for it every once in a while.

Is there a way to add to the list of the adblocker blocker, because I installed all the adblockers blockers for in this thread and sites like hulkusc.com still give me the message that I have ad blocker on.

>>56525875
If you live in a nigger country.

Over here there's no bandwidth caps on wired Internets for home users. One ISP even offers free VPN to all its users.

>>56526958
Just start whitelisting scripts. It might sound more demanding that it really is, but usually its really easy to recognise what is needed and what is not, after that you never even have to bother with the site again just enjoy. and addons like noscript and umatrix make it a breeze.

File: a9f3b85ebe61540ccd69e858e82c5025.png (2MB, 916x863px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 916x863px

>hur dur if a website tries to prevent and adblocking I won't visit it
wow I'm sure they're mourning over the loss of the 0 revenue you bring them anyway

>>56527115 (know) (You) (are) (A) (faggot)
And why did you have to post, exactly?

>>56527134
nice arguments friend

>>56527115
this is a pretty myopic point to make.

>>56527115
wow i'm sure i give a fuck about them when i visit their competitors site which has the same or better quality content

>>56527134
Not. An. Argument.

>>56525414
I pay $7/month for a 50GB monthly transfer.

>>56528144
until their competitors add an adblocker blocker

>>56524997
it never happened to me, care sharing an url ?

I have JS disabled by default, so it's of no concern to me.

A question regarding blocking rules for Adblock/Ublock, though:
Is there a way to block an element based on the presence of a certain sub-element?

>>56525060
Pretty much this.

I used to use anti adblock blocker but frankly if I see some sort of active adblock wall I will just close the tab and read the information on another website.

>>56525128
because it's inferior to adblocking software

On the Android AdAway with the webserver activated is pretty good at fooling dumb sites like Forbes.
On the home router I use an rpi with pihole which is just as good against this shit.

>>56526879
>If you fell for the cloud™ maymay
hosting from home seems retarded

They have every right to block people.

But the issue is, most adblocker blocker sites are clickbait sites anyway.
So stop going to them.

Only support sites that do honest advertising and no shitty flashy attention-grabbing, plugin-requiring, audio/video playing ads.

>>56525357
>The guy who hosts the EEV Blog's forum said he spends $1000 per month to keep it up.
>180,000+ electronics nerds views every month,
That's a few TB of traffic, which is nothing. I would assume with a good software setup(varnish/squid)
https://www.hetzner.de/ot/hosting/produkte_rootserver/ex51
should suffice. 30 TB/month traffic included, 1.17€/TB if you exceed that.

>>56525624
Yeah but moot was a fucking idiot.
Even the current sites source could be cut down considerably.
There is bloat all over the HTML, CSS and JS.

Same applies to many large websites.
They have a shitfest of ID and CSS bloat all over the place.
They need to learn how to properly use CSS selectors instead of using shitty direct CSS rules.

Hell, if your site is JS-based (game, dynamic site, etc), you can forego using CSS entirely and write it in JS and save considerably more space because you can use templating.
Of course, you'll piss off a few neckbears that hate hate HATE JS even when they knowingly went to a JS-run site on purpose just to whine like the cunts they are.

Although, I do agree that a large percentage of JS needs to be deleted or forked in to another spec.
Basic JS for doing dynamic content, form validation and such should not be in the same spec as the rest of the advanced stuff. It simply shouldn't for security reasons and simplicities sake.
We already have a sub-spec of JS for web-workers, it has already been done before.

>>56527036
your ISP can usually kick you out if they decide they don't like you. It's rather uncommon though, as you're a paying customer regardless.

File: image.png (230KB, 478x644px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 478x644px

>>56524997
Why is it always these insincere as fuck, passive aggressive messages?

We're not fucking buddies, I just want to get onto your site. If you're going to be a prick just write 'Turn off your Adblock', I don't need this cringeworthy, beta male screed about why I should care about the ad industry and makin more shekels for Mr Goldberg

Fucking Hell

>>56529174
IKEA has been pulling this crap for years

>>56525046
this

some websites are just unusable without an ad blocker

>>56529174
Hi.

You don't like ads, we get it; we don't like them either. Unfortunately, our site relies on the ad revenue to bring you the awesome content you love. Please turn off your adblocker when using this site.

Thanks,
Greg

>>56529174
web devs are literal faggots

>>56524997

I fucking hate how friendly they want to be.
Dude, I don't know you, I don't like your piece of shit site and I probably wouldn't like you.

Shut the fuck up and die.

File: Screenshot from 2016-09-10 13:33:40.png (92KB, 1228x974px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1228x974px

>>56524997
What I do when that kind of shit appears

File: smh fam tbh.png (721KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 1280x738px

>>56524997
They really don't fucking get it, do they?

As long as these ads increase the risk of my PC getting infected with malware, I'm not going to stop blocking them.

>hurr please compromise your safety so we can make more money

>>56526532
Learn to add your own rules.
You can even block scripts based on content, which is perfect for most of the modern adblock detection.

>>56529397
But on wired the script deletes all the content on the page when it runs.

Hiding the message does nothing. So your "solution" is pretty hilarious.

I give them one chance, if the ads are shit, back onto the blacklist.

>>56529458
for me it worked

wired.com loads fine for me with ublock origin, probably because of that EU privacy law

>>56524997
I don't use them. That is, I wouldn't use them if I ever encountered a webpage that does it.

I'm already paying for the access to the internet so I have the right to choose what content I want to see and what content I don't want to see, it's my bandwidth. If I visit a news site, I want to see the news, not be spammed with a thousand flashing ads about weight loss or whatever. I do not consent to connecting to foreign ad company servers, having my details collected and my activity being tracked.

If they're forcing me to either see ads or pay up then I simply choose to not visit them any longer, I couldn't care less if I'm destroying their unsustainable business model by blocking ads. If they paywall entirely then I'll just find another source.

I don't watch tv because of the constant ad stream either and I don't listen to the radio because of ads playing every 3 minutes, but I'd sooner pay for cable than be nickel and dimed to get ad-free access to 100 different sites and giving them all my personal information that they can then store on their shitty servers just waiting for some niggers to steal all of it and put it up for sale on darkweb.