>open web page >'Hi there! We noticed you're

>open web page
>'Hi there! We noticed you're using an Ad Blocker, our content relies on...'
>right click
>block element

>open web page
>"Hi there! We noticed you're using an Ad Blocker, our content relies on...'
>open umatrix
>explicit block all scripts
>reload

Websites that just replace where the ad would be with 'hey you're using an ad-blocker, please disable it if you like the site' are completely tolerable.
It's the ones that try to deny access to content that should be executed.

>>59179640
Doggo looks like he is going to fucking rape that guy's ass ayy.

ITT entitled millennial

>>59179660
>>59179684
Why tho

Anyone who uses adblockers know how to bypass these stupid walls.
The point is that websites that rely on cheap tactics like this should just be left to rot. I've yet to see a single website that implements this AND has content that is worth my time.

>>59179883
>nobody asked for anything
>they just immediately implemented a solution

>entitled
I don't think you know what that word means.

>>59179703
>Trying to prevent people from stealing from you is an executable crime.
Lel

>>59179968
I know, but sometimes you're just this desperate to find the content you're looking for.

No one who uses ad-blockers actually use these websites, but you should always be ready for a backup plan

>>59179640
>open web page
>"Hi there! We noticed you're not using an Ad Blocker. Advertising domains are a common vehicle for malware delivery and they divorce themselves of responsibility for infecting millions of devices every year.
>Here are some Ad Blockers you can use to help secure your device against these threats.
This is what my website will have one day soon.

>>59179993
>provide open access to a site
>call it stealing when people access it without viewing your ads

>>59180191
Access isn't free though, your payment is viewing ads.
Complaining about content being blocked because you've blocked their ads is worse than illegals protesting Trump.

>>59179640
>getting bullied by a webpage
I bet you leave threads when anons tell you to.

>>59180214
Access is free though, if there is no account sign up.
If you can just wget the page then it is open access. It's not my fault they want to make my browser request other things. I can turn off that ability in the browser itself if I want so it doesn't make what I am doing in any way morally wrong. I am just using abilities that have been available in browsers since before their websites even existed.

>>59179968
Not everyone, though. Half of my pals that use adblocker don't know they can block any element, or don't know how exactly. And most of them are compu scis.

>>59180309
This is true. A lot of people picked up content blocking when iOS introduced it and are completely lost on anything that isn't done for them.

And these are mostly targeted at them.

>>59179993
>stealing
>implying it is possible to steal something that doesn't exist in the first place
What are they stealing? Your nerves?
KEK

File: 1454323804877.jpg (8KB, 209x233px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 209x233px

>open page
>it's blank when uMatrix blocks all the spyware

>>59180227
i do when i make a fool of myself and feel ashamed

>>59179703
Only lace iv. aeeh this is pornhub and it's on top aide of the screen followed by a little X button with a pop up that says "at least we tried" when you close it.
It's a shame more people don't do something like that instead of having all those bullshit content restrictions..

File: 1157059806541.jpg (10KB, 284x222px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 284x222px

>OY VEY, THOSE VISITORS TO MY OPEN SITE ARE STEALING MY IMAGINARY MONEY THAT NEVER EXISTED IN MY BANK ACCOUNT IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT WHICH I CONJURE OUT OF THIN AIR BY PROCLAIMING IT INTO EXISTENCE
>THE INHUMANITY!

Why don't all these websites complaining about loosing money just make their websites use less resources and therefore make them run on cheaper servers?

>>59180695
>complaining about loosing money
>loosing
loose = opposite of tight
you mean 'losing', as in lose, the opposite of win

>>59180386

>What are they stealing?

Information

>>59180257
Do you understand that websites need to pay maintenance and upkeep?

The two main ways are asking for donations or having ads, when neither of those work the website which might have provided good content is now gone.

It being legal to wget a page and bypassing the ads is in no way an argument for the moral stance of consuming content without helping pay for it's upkeep or continuation.

>>59180700
Jesus fucking christ is this ironic?

>>59179883
>angry youtuber detected post discarded

Anyone use "brave"?

>>59179703
Well then, I guess they should lock the site if they don't want anyone to see it, password-protect that mofo

>>59180838
>The two main ways are asking for donations or having ads
Actually, those are the two secondary ways.
The one primary way since the start of the Internet was having a job and paying for upkeep yourself.

Ads and donations are only considered "main" by people who have come late to the Internet and don't understand what the Internet is.
The Internet is a communication medium, first and foremost, which may be used for monetary gain but that is not its purpose nor a right.
It is a privilege, and a privilege in the hands of the userbases.

>when neither of those work the website which might have provided good content is now gone.
>might have provided good content
Assumptions aren't an argument, nor do they convince anyone of anything. Sites with good content tend to have external finance to provide content quality beyond the grasp of the average website owner and unattainable by ad/donation systems.
Sites with good content on the lower class scale, your average website owner, tend to have good content because an owner selflessly invested themselves in it not for the sake of getting revenue, but for the sake of just doing something as a hobby and doing it good.

Those who create a website as their only job, the ones you are arguing for, are bound for failure, are self-absorbed idiots with an unwarranted sense of self-importance, and think that arguing that users are entitled for not giving them money is a good PR move when it only alienates the userbase even more and now you are even emptier for it.
Whiners always lose. Nobody likes whiners.
That's why defending ad revenue systems is a lost argument from the get-go.

>>59180838
>the website which might have provided good content is now gone.
So?
The idea of a perpetual website is as stupid as the idea of everlasting life.
People die, and so do websites.
People should die after a certain age, and so should websites.

Your expectations are unrealistic.
When people have unrealistic expectations, they tend to do and say stupid shit, and that shit tends to backfire on them because the surroundings are looking at them as if they are fools.

>>59179743
What do you think the article it's taken from is about? There is a reason why he is bent over like a bitch in heat.

File: nigger INVENTS a computer out of commercially available parts.jpg (100KB, 923x923px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 923x923px

>>59179968
I think you're underestimating how many normies use adblock nowadays. See >>59180309.
Also pic semi-related.

>>59179883
Tbh, they pretty much called it upon themselves for their shitty invading ads.

>>59180214
>Access isn't free though, your payment is viewing ads.
No, that's not right you fucking faggot. There's no payment when transferring data. You pay when you pay your ISP, everything else is voluntary. I fucking hate you redditards.

File: 1442669343702.jpg (96KB, 792x558px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 792x558px

>>59180700
>Every time you block an ad, what you're really blocking is food from entering a child's mouth.

>open web page
>'Hi there! We noticed you're reading our website would like to subscr...'
>immidiately close page

>>59180175
damn I'd do that too.

>>59179640
>open web page
>'Hi there! We noticed you're using an Ad Blocker, our content relies on...'
>archive.org the page
>only share the archive links as not to bother anyone else with the begging

>>59181323
>We noticed you're reading our website
They sure are observant

>>59180462

You too?

>>59179968
99% of the time I don't care enough and the second result has the same or similar information

>>59179883
>if you don't prop up a failing business model you are entitled
what kind of postmodern communist boomer bullshit is this?

>>59184376
Are you literally retarded? It's not a failing business model because the sympathetic begging gets a higher percentage of people not to block and that's working. According to your idiot logic the entire video games and film industry is a failing business model.

>>59184441
>declining profits
>getting more and more difficult
>a few years ago it was "lol adblock users are too few in number to affect anything"
>now they have to resort to annoying adblock users
>HURR R U STUPID EVERYTHING IS FINE
ok retard
I bet you believe cable TV networks are doing just fine as well
Hell, Blockbuster did just fine right up until they closed their doors amirite :^)
>slow decline isn't failure! IT'S NOT! REEEEE
autist pls go