Websites blocking out adblock-users by detecting with a script may be illegal(thedrum.com)
thedrum.com
Websites blocking out adblock-users by detecting with a script may be illegal
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/04/18/publishers-snooping-ad-blockers-are-breaking-law-claims-privacy-consultant
5 comments
> You aren't entitled to their content.
I am entitled to whatever their server sends my browser when I make a request. I am also entitled to alter that content in the browser in any way I see fit, including blocking their advertising. They may want to be compensated for their content and server costs through advertising, but unfortunately for them the web has been designed in such a way as to allow the rest of the world not to care about what they want.
The advertising model on the web is just fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure. It's essentially an honor system, but as long as people can block ads and still get content, they will. Trying to detect that is an understandable reaction on the part of businesses, but the ad blockers will only be redesigned to compensate, and people would probably much rather go elsewhere than even be slightly annoyed by advertising.
Companies need to accept that the ability to block ads is an intrinsic part of the web, just as the ability to turn the channel is an intrinsic part of a television. They just can't make us look at their ads if we don't want to.
I am entitled to whatever their server sends my browser when I make a request. I am also entitled to alter that content in the browser in any way I see fit, including blocking their advertising. They may want to be compensated for their content and server costs through advertising, but unfortunately for them the web has been designed in such a way as to allow the rest of the world not to care about what they want.
The advertising model on the web is just fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure. It's essentially an honor system, but as long as people can block ads and still get content, they will. Trying to detect that is an understandable reaction on the part of businesses, but the ad blockers will only be redesigned to compensate, and people would probably much rather go elsewhere than even be slightly annoyed by advertising.
Companies need to accept that the ability to block ads is an intrinsic part of the web, just as the ability to turn the channel is an intrinsic part of a television. They just can't make us look at their ads if we don't want to.
Trying to argue that clicking a link creates a contract that obligated me to cede control of my machine to you is laughable and harmful.
More importantly you aren't entitled to run software I don't approve of by virtue of putting up an openly accessible site.
Don't like it charge money. Can't make money that way go sell shoes.
More importantly you aren't entitled to run software I don't approve of by virtue of putting up an openly accessible site.
Don't like it charge money. Can't make money that way go sell shoes.
> but a ridiculous attempt to use a legal loophole
Which is funny because my mental default is that publishers try to use legal arguments to fight adblockers. It somehow feels like turning evil to me that one might use the same means to enforce an adblock positive position. It appears to me to be morally wrong in both cases.
Which is funny because my mental default is that publishers try to use legal arguments to fight adblockers. It somehow feels like turning evil to me that one might use the same means to enforce an adblock positive position. It appears to me to be morally wrong in both cases.
Seems like a lot of work to stop users who will probably simply not view the site anyways. It would be interesting to know if having these anti-adblocker techniques makes people turn off their adblockers to use the site.
It would be interesting, it could probably be done with browser fingerprinting. I would wager that some of the larger companies have done this.
Personally, it's a question of what the content is. If it's a summary of objective facts, I'm not disabling my blocker. I can probably find the same facts elsewhere that doesn't require me to disable my blocker. If it's an intriguing analysis by someone respected, it's higher value content to me and I likely won't be able to find the same content elsewhere unless it's been stolen.
Personally, it's a question of what the content is. If it's a summary of objective facts, I'm not disabling my blocker. I can probably find the same facts elsewhere that doesn't require me to disable my blocker. If it's an intriguing analysis by someone respected, it's higher value content to me and I likely won't be able to find the same content elsewhere unless it's been stolen.
Personally, I just abandon the site. I'll have a quick look to see if the page I'm interested in is in archive.is or can be archived, if it is/can all good, if not then no big deal.
I cannot read with animation & distracting colours next to text - so, for me, adverts are equivalent to blocking a site.
Non distracting ads are fine, reddit ads for instance.
Bad ads are not acceptable.
Executives who punish fans seem shortsighted.
Non distracting ads are fine, reddit ads for instance.
Bad ads are not acceptable.
Executives who punish fans seem shortsighted.
Sniffing for ad-blockers fits the description of malware.
Don't you have to agree to the website's terms to use that website in the first place? If you're already breaking those terms by blocking their ads (and thus their revenue), do you really have a legal leg to stand on here?
Isn't saying "whether or not you use an ad-blocker" is private information like saying you should be able to stand on a street corner in a bright pink shirt and people shouldn't look at you because it's your business what color shirt you wear?
I can't see this as anything but a ridiculous attempt to use a legal loophole.
If you want to see their content, enable their ads. If you really don't want to see their ads, don't use their site. It's not really that hard. You aren't entitled to their content.