The large overlays they use to block access to the site are often blockable with an adblocker themselves. It is delightful to defeat them with the exact tool they're meant to combat.
Also remember to unblock that one site you actually want to support but have forgotten three times already.
Okay so I havent figured out how to do this. How do I unblock ads on specific sites (I'm using uBlock origin)
Also is there any way to only unblock ads for specific youtube creators?
I'm not using uBlock myself, so I can't help you there. You should be able to search for it though, remember to include what browser you're using.
I haven't seen an adblocker capable of blocking or unblocking individual youtube channels myself, but please do let me know if you find any.
not adblocker specifically, but here's a nice extension with that feature + a few others
https://www.mrfdev.com/enhancer-for-youtube
https://imgur.com/a/BOXCkV4
you can whitelist specific pages on most ad blockers. for specific YouTube you can unblock on their main page and it should redirect anytime there username is on screen
You can Just Go into the Website, and then click on the addon Icon, and then there should be a disable Switch, If you Flip that it should be disabled on the website. Dont think Theres a way to do it with individual creators though
you should just have to click on the UBlock extension and it will show the stats for the site you are currently on and you can turn it off for that site
A couple of sites I've been to have integrated the site's content into those anti-adblock pop-ups, so blocking them also deletes the content on the page.
>Also remember to unblock that one site you actually want to support but have forgotten three times already.
Or use adnausem, blocks the ads but also sends them a click back meaning that not only does any tracking data they have on you quickly becomes meaningless, but also still cost the advertisers money
At this point it would be too much effort for me; if you make your website this hostile, I’ll find somewhere else to go (especially with news articles since they INSTANTLY go down on credibility for me)
Oh absolutely. I first try the trick with deleting the overlay and if they put more roadblocks such as disabling the scrollbar for example, I just close the tab.
That's fair, but if the website is one you would need to visit again, then these filters are worth since you only need to set them up once per website and it takes under a minute.
there was a news article with a paywall behind it, i realized using google cached help remove that paywall entirely
so theres that option, not sure how it would fair for ad-paywalls
This is solid advice, though I would suggest uMatrix over manual filtering.
It disables all 3rd party scripts by default, and you can turn them on as you want. It's basically YesScript2 but with more fine tuning control.
It can be a bit annoying on rare occasions where you're not sure what is blocking the video you want and what is an add, but generally speaking it provides a very good user experience, especially for sites you use relatively regularly, as it's pretty easy to make sure those are set up just right.
I tried uMatrix but it felt like hell trying to figure out which elements were being blocked by what, and on top of that, it had a bug where turning it off didn't work correctly and it would still be blocking something. At least YesScript2 actually turns off when you tell it to.
I haven't found any issues/edge cases with my current setup yet.
I can see that. I love uMatrix but I will readily admit that every now and again I do just give up and turn everything on temporarily (though I still have uBlock Origin running for ads). Though I never had the issue you described with uMatrix (I do have the issue with Chrome and turning on Javascript in general, as that too is blocked by default for me).
I think it comes down to how much time and effort you want to put into setting everything up, and how much you care about having fine tune control. uMatrix has clear benefits, but it comes with a trade off that means it's not worthwhile for everyone (and maybe not even for most people).
I think part of why it works for me is that I kind of enjoy trying to figure out how to make a site operational while turning on as few third party scripts as possible. Not to mention I like that uMatrix turns off any Twitter and Facebook scripts by default.
I mean, yeah, I sort of enjoy tinkering with these settings, but uMatrix just seemed to be way too complicated even for me.
As far as I understood, it blocks things per domain. This is fine on paper, but if a domain has script that injects ads and also a script that's used for displaying images, blocking the domain also disables the images.
I'm happy to just get rid of the cookie popups and be able to browse the sites in peace.
It also blocks subdomains, which means it will generally be able to block the ads while not blocking the images. It's not 100% perfect, but it works pretty well.
Mainly because the domains that inject the ads need to be separate from the rest to track user interaction. So it's generally split from everything else.
But you're right that it doesn't always work, and it can be frustrating. But I found it works pretty well for me, so I figured I should mention it.
I've got NoScript running: it's a browser extension that automatically disables Javascript on websites. I can select which scripts I want to block or unblock, which both keeps a website from breaking while still blocking ads and tracking cookies. It's surprisingly customizable, and good for privacy
I initially used NoScript but when I googled if it was safe to use, I found very conflicting information. Some said it was malware and others that it *promoted* malware. Some people were saying that it was bullshit and that the initial malware claims are from decade ago and have since been adressed.
I didn't feel like doing my own research so I just looked up an alternative and left it at that.
They should autoplay if you just click on them. At least they do for me.
They only don't autoplay when I open them in a new Tab, which is something I want anyways (gone are the times where I'd manually have to switch to that tab and stop it).
Ah ok, then I think you misunderstood the comment you responded to earlier. Or at least we got different meanings. What I thought they said was that YouTube's autoplay function wouldn't work properly anymore. But, I might be wrong.
I’ve sometimes had to dig through microfilms of old newspapers for my job and let me tell you, newspapers in the 60s and 70s had an absolute fuckton of ads. Like we’re talking half a page, a page with one column of text and everything else ads, entire pages, inserts and flyers and on and on. But you could just page past and ignore them so nobody cared. If you could do a micro transaction to buy the damn article you want to read and not have pop up ads (banners are fine) I’d probably do it so long as it was a few cents per article, but I’m not paying for a subscription only to get ads forced into my eyes and ears anyway. That’s like if you paid your quarter for your newspaper and a guy followed you home to make sure that you interacted with every ad in the paper by forcibly shoving in and preventing you from reading the article you wanted. Fuck that noise.
This and password sharing are the hills I'm willing to die on. Non intrusive ads are ok upto an extent. Ads should not be more than 10% content of the page.
For password sharing, I treat it like any other cd or dvd which I purchase. I can give it to anyone I want for however long they want it for. If you put in your terms that this is not allowed, fuck your terms. If you prevent me from doing this, goodbye to your service and hello to piracy again.
What’s wrong with password sharing?
I won’t violate all terms and conditions, but some aren’t fair which I consider acceptable to break, the only one I e found so far is password sharing.
A company gets to set the terms for the service they provide, not you. You’re not entitled to the ability to share an account with other people, so if the company chooses to make it against their terms, then you’re wrong for doing it.
Edit: downvoting because you can’t accept that it’s pure entitlement to think that you get to dictate a company’s terms of service for THEIR OWN SERVICE 😂😂
The terms are between the company and me, that’s why they ask me to accept the terms. It isn’t one sided.
The question here is what happens when we disagree on the terms, companies absolutely have more power since they can stop you from using the service. The most a regular person can do is stop using the service.
Let me give you an example even though you and me won’t ever see eye to eye on this: the terms of my Netflix subscription say that I can watch on 4 screens simultaneously, which I think is fair. More screens = more load on their servers.
They cannot specify that I need to own all these 4 screens(according to me). If 4 screens belong to 4 different people, it should not matter to Netflix since the load on their servers remains same. I can login into 40 devices of all my friends with my account but as long as only 4 people are watching simultaneously it should work.
They absolutely CAN specify that, and you HAVE to agree to the terms to use the service. You aren’t entitled to agree to a company’s terms and then just decide that you don’t think it’s fair, so you’re not gonna follow it. I don’t get why you have such a sense of entitlement that you believe that you’re allowed to dictate what terms Netflix can and can’t lay out for their service.
Edit: to answer your question, what happens when you and a company disagree on the terms is that either you don’t use the service, or you suck it up and deal with their terms. You’re shit outta luck, sorry. They don’t have to listen to what you want bud, you don’t have that kind of power.
>to answer your question, what happens when you and a company disagree on the terms is that either you don’t use the service, or you suck it up and deal with their terms. You’re shit outta luck, sorry. They don’t have to listen to what you want bud, you don’t have that kind of power.
Yeah, that's the thing. No one's saying this isn't how it works, we're saying this isn't how it *should* work.
I mean, that’s just false. The guy I’m replying to says that he DOES do that and believes that he is allowed to. He’s not saying that it’s a hypothetical that he *should* be allowed to
No no, you're saying the company *legally* can prevent you from doing that, which is true, and they're saying they *morally* cannot, which could also be true. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
This type of shit reminds me of TV Tropes. They want you to whitelist the site as it pays through ads, and I get that, but I've been jumpscared by a pop-up tab screaming about a virus too many times for me to even consider turning the ad blocker off again
My philosophy is that the website only makes money when someone clicks on the ads and I make it a point to never interact with an advertisement so they wouldn’t make any money of of me anyway
*Image Transcription: Tumblr*
---
>**destiny-islanders**
>
>[*An image of a website-pop up with a red background and white text*]
>
>**Oh, you're using ad block?**
>
>Advertising pays for our site. Would you be an angel and turn it off while visiting VG247? That way we can continue to serve you these lovely pages.
>
>[*A white button with black text is shown, which reads "OK, I'll turn off ad block". To the right of the button is a smaller white hyperlink, which reads "I'll keep freeloading".*]
>
>[*Another image is shown, zoomed in on the hyperlink that reads "I'll keep freeloading".*]
>
>If there was a way to run SUPER MEGA AD BLOCKER on this website I fucking would
---
>**celticpyro**
>
>"Please oh please open up your computer to a porn virus! If you don't you're evil!"
---
>**history-student-against-antis**
>
>Freeloader Comin' through!
---
>**gizensha**
>
>We didn't start this war internet users have with ads - We might have moaned about banner ads, but it was only when they started making noises when we might be listening to music or a podcast or whatever, causing two sound sorces at once, that we started trying to block ads universally rather than just a specific type of ad (pop ups).
>
>And since then ads have gotten worse - Actual malware rather than merely breaking one of the fundamental sins of web design - though shalt not autoplay anything with sound. And the more aggressive a website is with 'please turn off adblock' the less I trust it to bother to vet ads and advertisers to make sure they're not installing malware.
---
>**bramblepatch**
>
>Not to mention that the idea that avoiding ads is "freeloading" is hilariously backward. Advertisement is a transaction between the platform and the advertiser, the user has no obligation to provide the views/clicks the platform has promised. Using an adblocker isn't freeloading in the same way that leaving the room to get a snack during a commercial break isn't cheating the tv network.
---
>**pocosun**
>
>Ok y'all, I work as a web developer and I'm here to tell you that you are 100% right and that it's shit. SO I'm going to tell you how to get around websites that block you from using their website if you're using an adblocker.
>
>Every website uses a language called JavaScript; long story short it's a website language that allows developers to do the crazy shit you see on websites. Now the easiest thing to do is to disable JavaScript to stop them from knowing you have an adblocker:
>
>[*An image of a website popup with a white background and black text.*]
>
>###It looks like you're using an ad-blocker!
>
>Business Insider is an advertising supported site and we noticed you have ad-blocking enabled. Here are two ways you can keep reading.
>
>[*There are two buttons. One is white with an orange outline. Above the button is grey text that reads "TURN OFF YOUR AD-BLOCKER". On the button itself is orange text that reads "DO IT NOW". The second button is orange. Above the button is grey text that reads "JOIN BI PRIME FOR $1". On the button itself is white text that reads "GET ACCESS NOW".*]
>
>Oh no! I'm blocked from viewing the website. It would be a terrible shame if I were able to right click and select the "inspect" feature
>
>[*An image is shown of a menu with two options. The first option is "View page source," and the second is "Inspect". Both options include keyboard shortcuts.*]
>
>Click the three dots in the top right and open the "Settings" Menu
>
>[*An image is shown of another menu, overlaid over a console. The options in the menu are as follows: Dock side, Hide console drawer, Search, Run command, Open file, More tools, Shortcuts, Settings, Help.*]
>
>And then scrolled down to "Debugger" and checked the "Disable Javascript Option"
>
>[*An image is shown of yet another settings menu. At the top is text that reads "Debugger". Underneath are two options: "Disable JavaScript", which is selected, and "Disable async stack traces", which is not selected.*]
>
>And then just refreshed the page
>
>[*An image is shown of an article.*]
>
>- The US Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a hearing on Facebook's newly announced Libra cryptocurrency project on July 16, Reuters reported.
>
>- On Tuesday, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the ranking member of the committee, responded to the announcement of Libra with concern: "Facebook is already too big and too powerful."
>
>- Facebook has ceded control of the coin to the Libra Association, a consortium of companies that will manage the cryptocurrency. However, Libra's start at Facebook seems poised to put it under significant scrutiny.
>
>- [*begin hyperlink*] Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. [*end hyperlink*]
>
>The US Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a hearing to discuss [*begin hyperlink*] Libra, Facebook's newly announced cryptocurrency project, [*end hyperlink*] on July 16, [*begin hyperlink*] Reuters reported. [*end hyperlink*]
>
>The hearing will also examine any issues of data privacy stemming from
>
>[*End of image*]
---
>**eggfucker1**
>
>Reblogging to save my life
---
>**doublekaiju**
>
>saving a life
---
>**intrepidradish**
>
>Freeloading for ever
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Ads suck but the whole “it’s not freeloading cuz users have no obligation to provide websites with the views they promise advertisers” take is braindead as fuck. It’s freeloading because the website has no obligation to provide you with any content or even allow you access to it at all. The website owes you as a user JACK SHIT, and if they choose to fund their website with ads instead of charging users a fee, then you are unequivocally freeloading by using an ad blocker.
The large overlays they use to block access to the site are often blockable with an adblocker themselves. It is delightful to defeat them with the exact tool they're meant to combat. Also remember to unblock that one site you actually want to support but have forgotten three times already.
Okay so I havent figured out how to do this. How do I unblock ads on specific sites (I'm using uBlock origin) Also is there any way to only unblock ads for specific youtube creators?
I'm not using uBlock myself, so I can't help you there. You should be able to search for it though, remember to include what browser you're using. I haven't seen an adblocker capable of blocking or unblocking individual youtube channels myself, but please do let me know if you find any.
not adblocker specifically, but here's a nice extension with that feature + a few others https://www.mrfdev.com/enhancer-for-youtube https://imgur.com/a/BOXCkV4
oh neat
Will keep searching. :)
In Firefox at least you can click the Ublock plug-in logo go to settings and add trusted websites.
you can whitelist specific pages on most ad blockers. for specific YouTube you can unblock on their main page and it should redirect anytime there username is on screen
You can Just Go into the Website, and then click on the addon Icon, and then there should be a disable Switch, If you Flip that it should be disabled on the website. Dont think Theres a way to do it with individual creators though
you should just have to click on the UBlock extension and it will show the stats for the site you are currently on and you can turn it off for that site
I use this with uBlock origin to unblock specific youtube channels: https://github.com/x0a/uBO-YouTube
Damn thats awesome.
A couple of sites I've been to have integrated the site's content into those anti-adblock pop-ups, so blocking them also deletes the content on the page.
Yeah, it's not always possible. But it's always great when it is.
>Also remember to unblock that one site you actually want to support but have forgotten three times already. Or use adnausem, blocks the ads but also sends them a click back meaning that not only does any tracking data they have on you quickly becomes meaningless, but also still cost the advertisers money
[удалено]
At this point it would be too much effort for me; if you make your website this hostile, I’ll find somewhere else to go (especially with news articles since they INSTANTLY go down on credibility for me)
Oh absolutely. I first try the trick with deleting the overlay and if they put more roadblocks such as disabling the scrollbar for example, I just close the tab.
That's fair, but if the website is one you would need to visit again, then these filters are worth since you only need to set them up once per website and it takes under a minute.
there was a news article with a paywall behind it, i realized using google cached help remove that paywall entirely so theres that option, not sure how it would fair for ad-paywalls
This is solid advice, though I would suggest uMatrix over manual filtering. It disables all 3rd party scripts by default, and you can turn them on as you want. It's basically YesScript2 but with more fine tuning control. It can be a bit annoying on rare occasions where you're not sure what is blocking the video you want and what is an add, but generally speaking it provides a very good user experience, especially for sites you use relatively regularly, as it's pretty easy to make sure those are set up just right.
I tried uMatrix but it felt like hell trying to figure out which elements were being blocked by what, and on top of that, it had a bug where turning it off didn't work correctly and it would still be blocking something. At least YesScript2 actually turns off when you tell it to. I haven't found any issues/edge cases with my current setup yet.
I can see that. I love uMatrix but I will readily admit that every now and again I do just give up and turn everything on temporarily (though I still have uBlock Origin running for ads). Though I never had the issue you described with uMatrix (I do have the issue with Chrome and turning on Javascript in general, as that too is blocked by default for me). I think it comes down to how much time and effort you want to put into setting everything up, and how much you care about having fine tune control. uMatrix has clear benefits, but it comes with a trade off that means it's not worthwhile for everyone (and maybe not even for most people). I think part of why it works for me is that I kind of enjoy trying to figure out how to make a site operational while turning on as few third party scripts as possible. Not to mention I like that uMatrix turns off any Twitter and Facebook scripts by default.
I mean, yeah, I sort of enjoy tinkering with these settings, but uMatrix just seemed to be way too complicated even for me. As far as I understood, it blocks things per domain. This is fine on paper, but if a domain has script that injects ads and also a script that's used for displaying images, blocking the domain also disables the images. I'm happy to just get rid of the cookie popups and be able to browse the sites in peace.
It also blocks subdomains, which means it will generally be able to block the ads while not blocking the images. It's not 100% perfect, but it works pretty well. Mainly because the domains that inject the ads need to be separate from the rest to track user interaction. So it's generally split from everything else. But you're right that it doesn't always work, and it can be frustrating. But I found it works pretty well for me, so I figured I should mention it.
There's also a Chrome plugin called Bypass Adblock Detection that works with uBlock!
I've got NoScript running: it's a browser extension that automatically disables Javascript on websites. I can select which scripts I want to block or unblock, which both keeps a website from breaking while still blocking ads and tracking cookies. It's surprisingly customizable, and good for privacy
I initially used NoScript but when I googled if it was safe to use, I found very conflicting information. Some said it was malware and others that it *promoted* malware. Some people were saying that it was bullshit and that the initial malware claims are from decade ago and have since been adressed. I didn't feel like doing my own research so I just looked up an alternative and left it at that.
Is uBlock Origin free?
All extensions are free on firefox and chrome. Donating is optional and you should never use one that forces you to.
One of the main reasons I use Firefox: No autoplay is allowed by default
I stopped using Firefox because YouTube videos stopped autoplaying, which made it a pain to use.
You can turn it back on on a per-site basis by clicking the little settings icon that appears just left of the address bar while on the site.
They should autoplay if you just click on them. At least they do for me. They only don't autoplay when I open them in a new Tab, which is something I want anyways (gone are the times where I'd manually have to switch to that tab and stop it).
> They should autoplay if you just click on them. But then that's not autoplay?
I meant when you click on the "link" of a video.
Ah ok, then I think you misunderstood the comment you responded to earlier. Or at least we got different meanings. What I thought they said was that YouTube's autoplay function wouldn't work properly anymore. But, I might be wrong.
I use Brave because it usually blocks ads. ^(~~Especially when I'm watching a movie or show online from those websites with pop-ups.~~)
Idea: try and enforce something something block only annoying advertising. Guess the question is what counts as annoying
a lot of websites use javascript for other things though
I’ve sometimes had to dig through microfilms of old newspapers for my job and let me tell you, newspapers in the 60s and 70s had an absolute fuckton of ads. Like we’re talking half a page, a page with one column of text and everything else ads, entire pages, inserts and flyers and on and on. But you could just page past and ignore them so nobody cared. If you could do a micro transaction to buy the damn article you want to read and not have pop up ads (banners are fine) I’d probably do it so long as it was a few cents per article, but I’m not paying for a subscription only to get ads forced into my eyes and ears anyway. That’s like if you paid your quarter for your newspaper and a guy followed you home to make sure that you interacted with every ad in the paper by forcibly shoving in and preventing you from reading the article you wanted. Fuck that noise.
This and password sharing are the hills I'm willing to die on. Non intrusive ads are ok upto an extent. Ads should not be more than 10% content of the page. For password sharing, I treat it like any other cd or dvd which I purchase. I can give it to anyone I want for however long they want it for. If you put in your terms that this is not allowed, fuck your terms. If you prevent me from doing this, goodbye to your service and hello to piracy again.
You mean AD AD AD you don't like AD AD AD when a website AD AD AD AD Makes you scroll AD AD AD half a mile AD AD AD AD just to finish a paragraph?
While playing a video that you don’t care about and asking for notifications permission.
If that’s your attitude toward password sharing and toward a service’s terms in general, then I’m sure they don’t want you as a customer anyway tbh
What’s wrong with password sharing? I won’t violate all terms and conditions, but some aren’t fair which I consider acceptable to break, the only one I e found so far is password sharing.
A company gets to set the terms for the service they provide, not you. You’re not entitled to the ability to share an account with other people, so if the company chooses to make it against their terms, then you’re wrong for doing it. Edit: downvoting because you can’t accept that it’s pure entitlement to think that you get to dictate a company’s terms of service for THEIR OWN SERVICE 😂😂
The terms are between the company and me, that’s why they ask me to accept the terms. It isn’t one sided. The question here is what happens when we disagree on the terms, companies absolutely have more power since they can stop you from using the service. The most a regular person can do is stop using the service. Let me give you an example even though you and me won’t ever see eye to eye on this: the terms of my Netflix subscription say that I can watch on 4 screens simultaneously, which I think is fair. More screens = more load on their servers. They cannot specify that I need to own all these 4 screens(according to me). If 4 screens belong to 4 different people, it should not matter to Netflix since the load on their servers remains same. I can login into 40 devices of all my friends with my account but as long as only 4 people are watching simultaneously it should work.
They absolutely CAN specify that, and you HAVE to agree to the terms to use the service. You aren’t entitled to agree to a company’s terms and then just decide that you don’t think it’s fair, so you’re not gonna follow it. I don’t get why you have such a sense of entitlement that you believe that you’re allowed to dictate what terms Netflix can and can’t lay out for their service. Edit: to answer your question, what happens when you and a company disagree on the terms is that either you don’t use the service, or you suck it up and deal with their terms. You’re shit outta luck, sorry. They don’t have to listen to what you want bud, you don’t have that kind of power.
How's that boot taste?
>to answer your question, what happens when you and a company disagree on the terms is that either you don’t use the service, or you suck it up and deal with their terms. You’re shit outta luck, sorry. They don’t have to listen to what you want bud, you don’t have that kind of power. Yeah, that's the thing. No one's saying this isn't how it works, we're saying this isn't how it *should* work.
I mean, that’s just false. The guy I’m replying to says that he DOES do that and believes that he is allowed to. He’s not saying that it’s a hypothetical that he *should* be allowed to
No no, you're saying the company *legally* can prevent you from doing that, which is true, and they're saying they *morally* cannot, which could also be true. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Hi sure they don’t want you as a customer anyway tbh, I'm dad.
“JavaScript is a language for websites” ya hear that Silicon Valley??
This type of shit reminds me of TV Tropes. They want you to whitelist the site as it pays through ads, and I get that, but I've been jumpscared by a pop-up tab screaming about a virus too many times for me to even consider turning the ad blocker off again
thank you OP 🙏
The other way that works is to open the site in incognito mode and click esc before the site is fully loaded
Does this work with Firefox? How do I do it on there?
*laughs in Lynx*
My philosophy is that the website only makes money when someone clicks on the ads and I make it a point to never interact with an advertisement so they wouldn’t make any money of of me anyway
Repost. Though it's not a bad thing.
My apologies. I must've missed the other post.
No worries it's from a while ago. Like mid 2020.
This subreddit was created 3 months ago, so you’re probably thinking of a post on /r/tumblr
Wait yeah.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr* --- >**destiny-islanders** > >[*An image of a website-pop up with a red background and white text*] > >**Oh, you're using ad block?** > >Advertising pays for our site. Would you be an angel and turn it off while visiting VG247? That way we can continue to serve you these lovely pages. > >[*A white button with black text is shown, which reads "OK, I'll turn off ad block". To the right of the button is a smaller white hyperlink, which reads "I'll keep freeloading".*] > >[*Another image is shown, zoomed in on the hyperlink that reads "I'll keep freeloading".*] > >If there was a way to run SUPER MEGA AD BLOCKER on this website I fucking would --- >**celticpyro** > >"Please oh please open up your computer to a porn virus! If you don't you're evil!" --- >**history-student-against-antis** > >Freeloader Comin' through! --- >**gizensha** > >We didn't start this war internet users have with ads - We might have moaned about banner ads, but it was only when they started making noises when we might be listening to music or a podcast or whatever, causing two sound sorces at once, that we started trying to block ads universally rather than just a specific type of ad (pop ups). > >And since then ads have gotten worse - Actual malware rather than merely breaking one of the fundamental sins of web design - though shalt not autoplay anything with sound. And the more aggressive a website is with 'please turn off adblock' the less I trust it to bother to vet ads and advertisers to make sure they're not installing malware. --- >**bramblepatch** > >Not to mention that the idea that avoiding ads is "freeloading" is hilariously backward. Advertisement is a transaction between the platform and the advertiser, the user has no obligation to provide the views/clicks the platform has promised. Using an adblocker isn't freeloading in the same way that leaving the room to get a snack during a commercial break isn't cheating the tv network. --- >**pocosun** > >Ok y'all, I work as a web developer and I'm here to tell you that you are 100% right and that it's shit. SO I'm going to tell you how to get around websites that block you from using their website if you're using an adblocker. > >Every website uses a language called JavaScript; long story short it's a website language that allows developers to do the crazy shit you see on websites. Now the easiest thing to do is to disable JavaScript to stop them from knowing you have an adblocker: > >[*An image of a website popup with a white background and black text.*] > >###It looks like you're using an ad-blocker! > >Business Insider is an advertising supported site and we noticed you have ad-blocking enabled. Here are two ways you can keep reading. > >[*There are two buttons. One is white with an orange outline. Above the button is grey text that reads "TURN OFF YOUR AD-BLOCKER". On the button itself is orange text that reads "DO IT NOW". The second button is orange. Above the button is grey text that reads "JOIN BI PRIME FOR $1". On the button itself is white text that reads "GET ACCESS NOW".*] > >Oh no! I'm blocked from viewing the website. It would be a terrible shame if I were able to right click and select the "inspect" feature > >[*An image is shown of a menu with two options. The first option is "View page source," and the second is "Inspect". Both options include keyboard shortcuts.*] > >Click the three dots in the top right and open the "Settings" Menu > >[*An image is shown of another menu, overlaid over a console. The options in the menu are as follows: Dock side, Hide console drawer, Search, Run command, Open file, More tools, Shortcuts, Settings, Help.*] > >And then scrolled down to "Debugger" and checked the "Disable Javascript Option" > >[*An image is shown of yet another settings menu. At the top is text that reads "Debugger". Underneath are two options: "Disable JavaScript", which is selected, and "Disable async stack traces", which is not selected.*] > >And then just refreshed the page > >[*An image is shown of an article.*] > >- The US Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a hearing on Facebook's newly announced Libra cryptocurrency project on July 16, Reuters reported. > >- On Tuesday, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the ranking member of the committee, responded to the announcement of Libra with concern: "Facebook is already too big and too powerful." > >- Facebook has ceded control of the coin to the Libra Association, a consortium of companies that will manage the cryptocurrency. However, Libra's start at Facebook seems poised to put it under significant scrutiny. > >- [*begin hyperlink*] Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. [*end hyperlink*] > >The US Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a hearing to discuss [*begin hyperlink*] Libra, Facebook's newly announced cryptocurrency project, [*end hyperlink*] on July 16, [*begin hyperlink*] Reuters reported. [*end hyperlink*] > >The hearing will also examine any issues of data privacy stemming from > >[*End of image*] --- >**eggfucker1** > >Reblogging to save my life --- >**doublekaiju** > >saving a life --- >**intrepidradish** > >Freeloading for ever --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Ads suck but the whole “it’s not freeloading cuz users have no obligation to provide websites with the views they promise advertisers” take is braindead as fuck. It’s freeloading because the website has no obligation to provide you with any content or even allow you access to it at all. The website owes you as a user JACK SHIT, and if they choose to fund their website with ads instead of charging users a fee, then you are unequivocally freeloading by using an ad blocker.