how do we solve the adblock block problem?

>>59039639
>copy url
>paste to archive.is
no adblock block

what problem?

>>59039639
By letting the EU block adblock checkers.

>>59039639
Greasemonkey and Reek

>>59039692
>Greasemonkey and Reek
Beat me to it
/thread

Just search "anti adblock killer"

>>59039639
>and we do not implement any annoying ads
Then why do they want you to disable your adblocker?

Block ads servers from your router ?

>>59039639
By not visiting those shitty sites in the first place

>>59039639
Block them

>>59039639
>and we do not implement any annoying ads
Ads are inherently annoying. All of them. The only amount of advertising that is unobtrusive and not annoying is "none at all"

>>59039639
get Terry Crews on the case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzpO-OkMMKY

>>59039639
How do you guys monetize your content online? It's either selling your data, in-content advertising or normal ads. The latter being the best choice for the consumer imo.

>>59040192
When they say "annoying," they probably mean it in a reasonable sense of the word that applies to people who are at least somewhat rational, as opposed to alt right professional victim speds.

>>59040250
>it's totally reasonable for us to distract you and try to deceive you into spending money!
Nah, advertising is inherently unreasonable.

Fortunately it doesn't much matter, since I can still block ads on their or any other website.

>>59040233
Websites of actual value don't needs ads to survive. Consumer Reports survives entirely off of subscriptions.

>>59040233
This. I understand being willfully ignorant on the issue, using ad-block, and pretending they don't exist out of normal human selfishness. But to actively complain about advertising as a fundamental thing is just strange. Do people believe the free content they're accessing magically popped into existence on magical servers fueled with some magic alternative to electricity? How exactly does a thinking person whine about ads while using content made possible by ads?

File: JaNcpTW.jpg (1MB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1500px

>Websites of actual value don't needs ads to survive.
Jew please

>>59040307
>of actual value

I-I only use them ironically! They have no value to me! The uniquely absurd cognitive dissonance of anti-advertising loons.

>>59040307
Almost every site in the Alexa 50 subsists entirely off ad revenue. These are the sites that people value the most. A subscription based model is not viable at all for most actually big sites. If Google for example started requiring users to pay a subscription most of its users would just move to Bing or Yahoo, which would allow them to have more accurate results which would cause even more users to move to them. I'm almost certain that the majority of sites you use and the majority of sites you value do not rely on subscriptions for revenue.

>>59040311
banners are ok.
intrusive popups, redirects, new tabs are not

The annoying ones outweight the bearable, so why bother with them at all?

>>59040307
Pathetic excuse for being a jew. If a site wasn't of "actual value" you wouldn't need to use it so you wouldn't need to block ads.

>>59040311
You seem to be making the assumption that I want these """content""" companies to make money and remain in business. I don't. I would very much like to see 90% of these websites go bankrupt by having advertising become a non-viable business model.

Companies that actually have a business other than ads (e.g., they actually sell something on their site) will be fine. As will some places that produce content good enough to be worth paying for. But the Buzzfeeds and Gawkers of the world will close up shop, and it'll be a good thing for the web and the world. It's why I install uBlock Origin whenever I work on a normie's computer.

>>59040335
>>59040366
That means the content is so close to worthless that it's not worth paying for.

>>59040396
>hurr durr everyone on both sides is a jew

do you neo nazi shills ever give this shit a rest? kill yourself simpleton

>how dare you decline to pull our ads
ur a bad goy

>>59040414
I'd expect retarded logic like that to come from someone working in IT. You wanna know what would happen if advertising became a non-viable business model? You'd start to see sponsored content. These site's gotta pay the hosting bills somehow and nobody's gonna be willing to pay for them. So you'll start to see a lot more heavily biased articles disguised as actual news. I don't want this. And what about sites like Google that have undeniably provided significant value to people? Do you want them to die too? I honestly think you have this edgy cynical little retarded mindset to justify your jewishness.

>>59040511
>So you'll start to see a lot more heavily biased articles disguised as actual news.
You mean like we already have?

>>59040366
>A subscription based model is not viable at all for most actually big sites.
Then those sites do not deserve to survive.

>>59040366
>google
>bing
>yahoo
Use DuckDuckGo you sweaty idiots

>>59040523
>a lot more

Keywords there.

>>59040541
That's genuinely retarded.

>>59040549
why would I use a search engine that rarely gives the results I'm searching for?

>>59040511
>These site's gotta pay the hosting bills somehow
No. They can fold.
Websites aren't owed a living by the public.

>>59039639
>what is a host file

websites existed before ads
they were more efficient to get information from too

>>59040570
>rarely gives the results
I dont have that problem

No botnet
No ads
No tracking

>>59039724
This,
Rethink if you really need that site, moet likely not.

>>59040511
When it comes to news, advertising based models will always be shit because they rely on clickbait headlines. You have to pay if you want meaningful content.

>>59040588
What age are you? It was a lot harder to find information on the internet before search engines and social networks became big.

>>59040366
If Google's search results were of actual value, then people would pay for it if Google asked.

>>59040648
if anything that means that "sponsored content" on free sites will be a good thing. Some won't be able to survive on it and will go out of business. What remains will be so obviously shilling that it will teach the masses not to trust it. And once they no longer do, the sponsored-content companies will follow the conventional advertising companies into bankruptcy.

And we won't have a "fake news" problem anymore.

>>59040686
Search engines and social networks can and still do exist without using ads.

>>59040724
build sponsored content in a way that is still informative and enjoyable and follows the formats of unsponsored content. it requires effort, but you could do this and avoid banner ads altogether.

>>59040734
No that's retarded.

dont browse shit websites

>>59040686
It -was- more difficult in the beginning, but I think, the point is, that the internet was never created with the idea of ad monetization as an inherent right. And that's the idea that today's hosts are trying to foster - that the public is somehow breaking the "law" (at least the intended spirit, in their eyes) when they choose to block ads on their devices.

>>59040785
No you're retarded. Look up Searx and GNU Social.

>>59039639
Boycott.

>>59040818
They're trying to foster the idea that if you want to use ad-supported content you should unblock ads. Pretty simple and also perfectly reasonable.

>>59039639
Isn't Ad Nauseam supposed to get around the anti-adblock problem? It loads all the ads and internally clicks on them, right? So doesn't that fool them into thinking that you've seen the ad?

Use an Adblock Block Block.

File: _86368619_86368598[1].jpg (27KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 624x351px

>hey
>hey am I annoying you yet
>if you give me a dollar I'll stop annoying you
>alright cool thanks I'll be back next month to annoy you again

>>59039639
Why are redditors so triggered by ads (even based banner ads)?

>>59040965
That's literally the only solution to the ad problem. You either adopt a subscription model or you have ads.

>>59040617
>>No botnet
>No ads
>No tracking
until you land on a site that uses google analytics (hint: everything) and you're back to square one

>>59040988
>buzzwords
>am I fitting in yet?

>>59041014
>umatrix
>noscript

>>59041003
I guess but it just really rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather just watch the ads than bend over for that shit

>>59039639
>locate Internet backbone for your country
>:() {:|:&};:

Problem solved

>>59041108
dont do this it makes mustard gas

>>59040862
I get that, sure.

Okay, here is what I would like. Maybe it can already be done?

I want the ability to blacklist from my google searches those sites that try to use anti-adblockers.

I do not want a search result, then follow that link, only to find some message that says, "Gee anon, you're crushing our hopes and dreams by not allowing our ads!" I want these sites to not get any more of my clicks (Forbes, I'm looking at you!)

>>59039639
umatrix and ublock fugs this shit up.

>>59041148
.. *to blacklist any returns to my google search results ..

Maybe this can even be a new helpful metric for hosts. To see how many people are blocking their click-bait results from even showing up on a search return.

>>59040587
This, most anti-adblockers I run into only check your extensions but if you use a host file it works fine. Only one website infact I use regularly throws a fuss from host file blocking

File: why dont we have both.jpg (8KB, 262x192px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 262x192px

>>59041272

>>59041356
I do use both that's how I noticed

>>59041148
> I want the ability to blacklist from my google searches those sites that try to use anti-adblockers.
You want to make your browser load these sites to inspect them (as if you had clicked then) to then block them?

Clever.

File: minix3_mmosaic.png (96KB, 1081x723px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1081x723px

>>59039639
Maybe try a real webbrowser on a proper microkernel multiserver OS

>>59039639
By using a proper adblocker with proper subscriptions. That means opening the settings, anon. I know it's hard for you, but you should try.

>>59039639
>windows tutorial site
>can't find another that welcomes adblock users

>>59040250
>only the alt-right dislike advertisements!
wtf is going on

>>59039639
I just turn the blocker off and then selectively block the shit until just the thing I was looking for remains on the page.

File: 2017-02-20-21-27-24.png (8KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 640x480px

>>59039639
what adblock block problem

>>59041030
>noscript
I'm gonna assume you're memeing

Why don't they just place a banner ad in this message as well? Those who know anti anti adblock will filter out anything and those like OP who don't know shit will be forced to view an ad anyways.

>>59040250
Not sure if bait or cognitive-dissonance.
God what happened to humanity.

1. Ad Nauseum or uBlock Origin
2. Anti Adblock Killer
3. Regular updates (think of your ad blocker like a virus scanner, you still occasionally can get fucked by zero days)
4. Occasionally manually blocking the div tag that's blocking your access to the content.

>>59040414
This.

>>59040511
No, I'd rather not use a website at all than using it with ads and other aggressive javascript code that spy on me. People need to collaborate and make sure this business model dies.

How we expect them to make money? Thats the whole point - we don't. Either find another business model or don't be a business at all.

>So you'll start to see a lot more heavily biased articles disguised as actual news.
This is completely independent from ads and already happens (unfortunately, as always).

>And what about sites like Google that have undeniably provided significant value to people? Do you want them to die too?
Holy shit, you have no idea how much I want Google to die. Google and Facebook crafted the biggest spying apparatus to ever exist and destroyed the independent web from the 90s/00s. I'd be happy if they died and free (as in freedom), decentralized alternatives came to be.

>I honestly think you have this edgy cynical little retarded mindset to justify your jewishness.
No, its you who have been brainwashed into thinking that blocking ads = stealing/something wrong anyhow.

>>59042223
holy shit lol so tcp/ip was developed huh?

>>59040414
Beautifully put. These faggots love the idea of working at home texting those top ten articles and winning money while at it. I used to have a site screen filled with content without any ad. I survived because... I have a real job.

By killing the people who actually click on ads, think about it, when was the last time you actually saw a good advertisement that you clicked on?

The worst part is that the CLICK HERE FOR BIG PENIS still somehow exists today

Adblock block block?

>>59042653
I saw ads for starbucks a few days ago and I there is no starbucks in my country nor neighboring countries.
I used to think the ads I see are based on my location but I guess not.

>>59039639
>websites that think ad block is a problem block the access to the ad block users
>they see people no longer browse their websites
>since they weren't that useful no one will give a fuck they disappeared

>a few websites will ask you to have a premium account or permit donations
>the websites worth something will survive

>a few of them are going to spy on its users as they always did

>>59040570
>lying on the internet
ddg give me better results than google. Not even joking.
The unique case where google is better is if I need to do a search on a particular forum post I'm looking for

>>59041043
>I'd rather just watch the ads than bend over for that shit
you are cucking yourself, why waste your "valuable" time watching an ad instead of paying a small fee. If the cost of the fee isn't worth it to you, that the website really isn't worth it desu.
Once websites start moving away from ads to subscription models, you'll find out where you truely want to be.

>>59039639
Adblockblockblock.

>site tells me to turn off adblock
I never go there again

the problem solves itself

>>59040366

Google, Bing, and Yahoo rely a lot on Wikipedia, which itself runs on a grant and donation funding model. (Wiki itself relies a lot on government-funded research).

>>59039639
Ignore it and move on. It's obvious they don't want you there so why spend your time there?

>>59043441
>If the cost of the fee isn't worth it to you, that the website really isn't worth it desu.
Youtube is worth a dollar a month to me, but that's not what the offer is

Every time a site does this, I just click off. 99.9% of the time I don't give a single shit. Serious business and research websites don't do this.

>>59040366
>A subscription based model is not viable at all for most actually big sites.
It is not my responsibility to subsidize an existing business model. If a business model does not work because there is no market demand for it, then that business should fail. It's very simple. This bullshit circular logic you kikes employ does not affect me whatsoever.
>b-but it would go out of business if-
good.

File: adblock_killer.jpg (106KB, 504x308px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 504x308px

>>59039701
Some websites (like 8muses) can detect it even with Anti Adblock Killer. Every 3rd or 4th time I load that website it will hit me with the "Stop using adblock" page. It's annoying.

>>59041003
Or you use an adblocker until they provide you with a reasonable business model.

I'll go with option C. Present me with ads in a reasonable way or I will simply block them entirely and give you no revenue while using your services.

>>59040511
I remember a time when people ran websites as a hobby instead of using them as their career. Businesses can survive if they have something worth paying for, and hobbyists always survive.

aaklist

>>59039701
It's starting to fail more and more often tho.

>>59043837
>>59046221
That's why it has custom filters my dudes!

>>59041443

Doesnt work fag, i already have every ublock subscription.

>>59040192
i think static jaypegs <100KiB in size are fine

File: shinjo.jpg (275KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1280x720px

I actually don't block ads.

I just block javascript, which blocks 99% of ads.

When I see a banner, I actually click on it, as a thanks for just showing an ad-ass ad as opposed to some tracking malware vector shit.

>>59039639
install it by default on all browsers with all filter lists enabled

>>59039639
stop letting every website cuck you by running its non-free javascript on your machine.

If you need it, archive.is
If you don't, don't fucking browse

If they become sofucking annoying that someone will eventually want to do something about it, they may inflate the number of ad clicks/views and make their revenue-per-impression go down the shitter, cue the arms race with the advertiser to get more intrusive ads at higher rates, until those, too go down the shitter

>>59039709
>annoying
But the normal adblock user 'sperg thinks that all ads are annoying.

File: Capture.png (26KB, 803x494px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 803x494px

How do I circumvent this? Ublock+Reek doesn't work.
http://www.allmusic.com/

File: Selection_20170221_13:41:07.png (9KB, 455x110px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 455x110px

>>59047325

>>59043837
Did you install uBlock-Extra?

>>59048151

your filtered now fag enjoy you're filtering;

>>59040414
I agree. Maybe these people don't remember when the Internet was ad-less because users where simply passionate about sharing their creations and were not expecting a revenue. It all went to shit when the Internet became profitable. I'd be very happy to live without YouTube, Google, or other worthless websites.

>>59039639
by making actually good content

File: Replay_2017.02.21-16.08.webm (1011KB, 1036x910px) Image search: [Google]

1011KB, 1036x910px

>>59047787
That´s an interesting one.
They block right clicks via java script, but if you´re quick enough you can right click after a page refresh and create a cosmetic filter.
The page reloads after a few seconds and the block is back. Hmmm haven´t seen that before. I wonder how they do it, since it´s the same object with the same id that appears after the page reloads

>>59049801
i tried that too

wasn't there an anti-right click blocker extension somewhere? did noscript have that option?

>>59049863
>anti-right click blocker extension
yeah, but that´s not necessary, you could find the object to block with the web inspector tool in firefox.

What´s really confusing to me is that the same object I blocked reappears, not another object with a new id, but the exact same thing that was blocked.

>. hosts file

Need i say more?

>>59039639
If a site ever does this shit it just means I'm never visiting it again.

Not like there's any must use site. They all have alternatives.

>>59049904
>the same object I blocked reappears
No, it's a different one. THe first numbers are just the same.

And it reloads if you block the message.

>>59049989
ah, yeah you´re correct
blocked ##d1487690831673 and after reload got
##d1487690854367
that´s a clever way of circumventing cosmetic filters

>>59047787
>>59049801
This cosmetic filter always matches:

##*:matches-css(z-index:2147483647)

When applies first, the site will reload. And then, the message will still appear. Although if you add the very same cosmetic filter again, it will be hidden and site reloads again.

>>59050425
So in other words, it should work, but doesn't. Message still appears although it should be blocked. I have the feeling that even if it was, the site would reload every 5 seconds anyway.

>>59050434
>the site would reload every 5 seconds anyway
good point. There´s really nothing that can be done through an adblocker, other than blocking js for the whole site, which makes it useless.

FuckFuckAdblock
uMatrix
uBlock Origin
also we must remind advertisers that the internet is a pull medium not a push medium, and we request only want we want from it

>>59043837
Isn't 8muses an ancient website that hosts western /co/ porn

>nag banner at the top of the page - I don't care
>we won't show you content until you enable ads - instant ctrl-w

There isn't a site on the internet that is the only source of whatever I'm looking for.

>>59039639
use pihole

>>59040617
>DDG
>No tracking
Haha, that's a good one.

Give them a beer
>>59042223
>>59047463

You know what's sad? That ads alone don't generate enough if any revenue anymore. The fact that so many sites including 4chan and even big name sites like yahoo and forbes have malicious ads shows the true intent of advertisements: to run malicious scripts, installing adware or stealing user data and by stealing, I don't mean tracking you with a cookie but much more sinister.

I am yet to see a website that receives more than a thousand views a week function with harmless ads. Sometimes I bootup my VM and browse the internet without my routers blocklist and the internet looks almost "retro" with all these ads, it reminds me of the earlier days when all you seen was "YOU WON $5,000! CLICK HERE TO COLLECT".

>>59039639
I close the tab and go somewhere else.

>>59049801
>They block right clicks via java script
At least in Firefox there's an about:config preference for "stop JS from being able to hook right-click events". (idk about chromium) Turn that on and you'll have an easier time inspecting elements.

File: YANDEX.png (211KB, 788x326px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 788x326px

>>59043837

what do they mean by this?

>>59040326
we are clc go

>>59039639
Stop visit sites that employ anti adblock techniques.
All those entitled dirty kikes should fucking run out of business already.

>>59040366
Why these big websites need to make money at this point? They are all big and everybody actually knows them. So why continue with this greedy attitude?

>>59040511
I don't want that they die. They don't need to die. The actual model of adversiting is insustainable but why not maintain these services for free and with donations? I would like to donate for Google like I do on Wikipedia.

>>59040734
THIS.

File: serveimage.jpg (183KB, 374x578px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 374x578px

>>59041003
>You either adopt a subscription model or you have ads.

Yeah. Like Cable TV, right?

Fuck off.

>>59040862
>if you want to use ad-supported content you should unblock ads

I don't want to "use" the content, I just want to read/ play it.

So what? People can't share some content because of copyright laws, now this propaganda about the immorality of anti-adblocking. I bought my computer, I pay my ISP and have the right to deny shitty companies trying to waste my bandwich with malware and annoying ads.

I wrote a scraper for every website that matters to me. It brings me new stuff automatically and bypasses every single pathetic countermeasure they try. Their bullshit makes my job easier sometimes. For example, if they rely on some obscure javascript to load content, it's invariably from some API endpoint and I just fetch that directly instead.

These fools simply don't understand a thing. They send me the data I want and rely on MY computer to stop me from seeing it unless I look at their stupid ads. These people are as stupid as game developers.

>>59039692

It's always behind these faggots who write anti ab scripts.

>you buy a TV
>it has subversive functionality such as mute and change channel
>what do you mean people can just leave the room to pee in the commercial?? I'LL RAISE THE VOLUME!!!
>what do you mean people can mute the audio?? They watched the programming now they MUST view my ads!!!
>what do you mean people can change the channel?? They watched the programming now they MUST view my ads!!!
>broadcasting company lobbies for regulation on TVs
>standard control commands are introduced in the cable/satellite feed
>they can selectively disable functions of your TV during the commercial
>due to DMCA you can't legally circumvent this
>black market TVs are superior because they have more functions
>people make DVRs which automatically strip ads from recorded footage
>fucking broadcast companies whine endlessly about their technological ineptitude

This is how retarded anti-adblock people sound.

>>59039639
they hired one programmer to detect the adblock program and adblock it, it can't be that hard to write a program to circumvent the script.

File: samdung_ads.jpg (150KB, 952x737px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 952x737px

>>59053847
>Implying you won't be unable to ignore TV ads in the future
Advertising is where the money is. And they will find ways,

>>59051644
>blocking right-click.
>blocking copy paste
>showing an obnoxious popup informing me of their copyright as if I cared

Hope these faggot developers die in a fire.

I make a pastebin of their content every time this happens.

>>59053940
>implying I'll be watching TV in the future

I have access to the entire torrent collection of PTP and BTN and I will use it to its fullest extent to wipe the miserable smile off of the face of these companies, mark my fucking words

File: .jpg (112KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1440x1080px

>>59039639
Small not-annoying ads are fine.
Pity they are used only on a very few sites I visit.
They, however, do not bother me at all, I do not even bother to block them.

The worst thing in ad blocker blockers is that they even block people who don't want to be traced by javascript like noscript users like me. With my setup I'm still able to see unintrusive ads so I think it's pretty reasoneable. But they don't want you to see ads, they want you to join the botnet.

>>59040366
Google makes money off selling information to advertising companies and selling advertising. They don't make significant money off advertising itself, which is why they haven't implemented anything to block adblocking.

>>59054097
Block their blockers too. AAK does the job for 99% of sites you're likely to view.

First we need to kill JavaScript.

This is my computer.
This is my monitor.
These are MY eyes.

You do not have a right to run code on my computer.

You do not have a right to display content on my monitor.

AND YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE ME TO SEE ADS.

This usually wins the argument.

>>59054299
>This usually wins the argument
Except you are using THEIR services / websites which they have the right to put on what they want and lock out people that try to block parts off.

I hate web ads / tracking too but what you are arguing is pretty much "I´m in someones house. these are MY shoes, how dare the house owner ask me to take them off while inside"

>>59039673
How is this thread still alive? This is literally the answer.

>>59055651
... Except the web page is in the user's computer.

Getting angsty about how people peruse your content AFTER it has left your server is just idiotic. Usability research shows people gradually become blind to ads anyway. They silently ignore anything that looks like banner ads, even actual interface elemments. This has led to even more annoying ads that are inserted in the middle of some text in the same font to make it impossible to distinguish between content and ads.

You people are basically flogging yourselves over the fact an unworkable business model is blowing up in your faces

>>59039639
be fast enough to press f8 and pause JavaScript

>>59040233
The latter is most certainly not the most consumer friendly choice.
Normal ads = malware, viruses, and insecurity
For fucks sake data mining is even better for the consumer. The best is in content advertising.

>>59055651
Yes. That is your right.

The argument I was making there is against people that think ad block should not be allowed, and people should be forced to view the ads. Which is what this thread seems to be about.

File: 1441690127801.jpg (88KB, 483x591px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 483x591px

>>59039639
Nothing. Adblockers are going to continue to bring down their favorite websites financially until they can no longer visit them. Only then do they learn.

Adguard blocks whatever script allmusic is using. I'm using the program, so I'm not sure if the browser extension also blocks it.

>>59042021
this
right-click>block this ad
werks pretty much every time

>>59040570
i use duckduckgo
my secret technique to get good results is appending "!g" to every search
try it

>>59055834
To much work , fampai

>>59042528
personally i'm totally fine with ad-supported businesses being mainstream as long as I can continue blocking it

if i can browse comfortably with adblock while the unwashed tech-illiterate masses still see ads (and thus keep the website profitable), I'm happy

>>59054046
I use ublock origin but I still run the "evil" ABP acceptable ads whitelist
everything in it is just static non-shitty images

>>59057736
ublock origin is an exception. It can only hide but not block ads.

>>59057493
if only there were a nifty rclick shortcut for it

>>59039639
Block the blocker. Continue reading the site.

>>59040988
I don't think any of us mind a banner ad. The problem is at some point, the ads started tracking us across multiple websites, and in many cases served malware. They can't be trusted.

>>59047368
I agree, with the additional caveat that they at least make some effort to blend the advertising space organically with the design, and without going full on propaganda and making it unclear it's an ad.

>>59056297
Podcasts really have it made for comfy advertising. The good ones figured out that if you just have the hosts do the ad in a basically sincere manner that's unique every time and not super long, less people with bother skipping it.

Johnny Carson had it right.

>>59040335
>>59040421
Yeah, how hard is it to believe there are some things that are only worth doing for free? Hell, if I valued even my time slightly more I wouldn't be in this heap of shit.

>>59039639
LMAO IT'S SO EASY to avoid this problem, just stop undermining the free internet so you can avoid seeing a banner image in your periphery!

Just develop an Adblock blocker blocker

>>59061104
we have those already anon
next, the websites need to make adblock blocker blocker blockers, and the users will then create adblock blocker blocker blocker blockers

>>59039639
By inventing a way for websites to make money without brainwashing or spying on their visitors

>>59047586
>>59040311
Every ad(all of them) is designed to get under your mental skin with psychology and manipulate you, and serving it typically involves your browser running arbitrary third party content from an untrusted source. Neither of these things are ethical or safe. "BUT IT'S FREE STOP COMPLAINING WHY DO YOU WANT THEM TO STARVE?!" is not and has never been a valid argument in any context.

Stop blaming users and blame the cancerous ad industry for failing to provide a way of monetizing content that isn't a security and mental health risk.

This is an easy problem to solve. If you get something that says you need to whitelist them then I just don't visit the site. I haven't visited forbes in like 4 years. Hopefully they eventually die off.

>>59039639
Block element

FUCK CAPITALISM LET IT ALL BURN

>>59053940
>in the future
But I'm not watching television now. I haven't in years and have no intention of picking the habit up again.

>>59040233
Static self-hosted image ads that are at least somewhat relevant to your website topic

>>59049801
>>59051644
In Firefox, shift+rclick to circumvent the right click block.

Everyone should install AdNauseam to bankrupt ad companies.

File: shake_love.jpg (295KB, 621x853px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 621x853px

>>59040233

>How do you guys monetize your content online?

I dont want $$$$ by click-bait and facebook pages "click Like button for save this kid of cancer".

>>59039639

All those "internet ads" are useless for me, most are "Canadian pharmacy" and "Take this survey and win a iphone"; and when disable Adblock it´s always Canadian pharmacy and iphone surveys again and again.

>>59064144
Yes, it's just statistics. One person's data is worthless. Thousand's - much more.

>>59039639
>right click on offending thing
>remove element
>if site still doesn't work, close tab and never go back

>>59039639
Whitelist sites with non-shit ads. I only use adblock on my porn sites. If you're looking for porn and they want you to disable your adblocker then just go somewhere else.