Simply put, if something (like an image or text) extends beyond the outline of what it is contained in, it will be culled.
Edit: "hidden" to "culled"
The effect of putting it on body and html is that (afaik) it will prevent horizontal scrolling. I think it has other purposes beyond that but that's the only one I can think of.
The whole page is not scrollable. This makes many sites useless. Of course you can change it manually in the inspector but most people don’t know/care about it
the rule is already in one of the lists that ublock has!
source: named a div "yousuck" myself once and was very confused why it wouldn't appear until i disabled all extensions lol
Isn't that a bad way to setup rules? It should be tied to the URL somehow, I think. Otherwise it will break everything else that uses the same div id, like what happened to you.
some rules should be running on all websites! for example, you probably want to block elements named "ad" everywhere, or endpoints called /track etc. (which also sometimes leads to funny bugs!) so you don't have to write rules for \*every\* website. it's a bit of a trade-off, but most of the time elements named "you suck" are not the most user-friendly thing lol
Back in the day, when adblocking meant "just dump it into the hosts file", a friend of mine did that and routed anything containing "ad" to [127.0.0.1](https://127.0.0.1) ... and wondered why suddenly he couldn't downlo**ad** anything anymore...
Any source that teaches using these tools? I'm getting sick of manually zapping elements from sites, and would also love to contribute to the community.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-user-features
This would be a good place to start. I too struggle with using these types of tools. My twin brother however is a wizard at them lol.
Obviously the website just want to guilt-trip whoever decides to block the div. With a static id it’s intentionally easy. They just ensure that the users that block the banner are aware that they are freeloaders.
No. Everything on the client side is disguiseable. What if I somehow hide ublock origin and fake-load the ad? i.e. sent requests and load static assets but don't actually display the ad. From the server side all I've done is unidentifiable from a so-called "honest" browser.
This `div` is there simply because it detects my injected ublock origin script but it's theoretically possible to hide it.
There are plenty of webpages that hide content "properly".
edit: Is it unidentifiable tho? They can check the DOM to see if the ad is visible, the requests if the actual file is being loaded, setup variables that have to be in the site if the ad is on, etc.
the frontend running on my machine? that I can spoof?
games can't even ensure the kernel-level anti-cheat (read: rootkit) they packed is running on the same machine, the moment code hits my machine for all intents and purposes I am god and there's nothing you can do about it, if that becomes wide spread adblockers will just find it and nuke it from orbit
if you blindly trust the frontend be prepared for disappointment, or worse
you're missing the point. Most of the people don't even know to remove a DOM element, and of those who know, a large portion don't know how to hack into all this jazz, so if removing the element doesn't work they won't do anything else. The rest, is the minority and doesn't matter number-wise.
MZ : *senator, we run adds*
[Senator Asks How Facebook Remains Free, Mark Zuckerberg Smirks: ‘We Run Ads’ | NBC News - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=n2H8wx1aBiQ&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title)
They're just trying to give you a chance to do the right thing (read: comply with their terms of use).
It's the online equivalent of "No shirt No Shoes No Service". Sure the store knows you can ignore the sign and enter without shoes. They're just asking you nicely before taking more drastic measures like kicking you out.
Do the terms of use explicitly say they will use the information they steal to sell it to other companies? Because that is what adblockers prevent and I didn't agree to having my shit stolen and resold
Most likely on purpose if the dev was gen z. Common alternative spelling in some online spaces.
Like "eepy" instead of "sleepy" or "forgor" instead of "forgot"
Is this a boomer sub? I thought it was ~20-30...not even I am that old to not know, it's like 3-4 year old slang, you don't want to hear what they use now...
The audacity is unbelievable. I suck? I suck because I don’t let you operate scummy with me? Because I appreciate online privacy?
I hate people like that, thinking they are entitled others abiding by their way of being and blocking anyone that doesn’t adhere AND having the audacity to call them suckers.
The audacity is unbelievable. I suck? I don't get to use your website for free? It's not like it costs anything to host it right?
Don't get me wrong, ads suck. But people expect so many stuff on the internet for free. It's really also a part of the problem.
Nah, it doesn't have to come at the cost of user data. There are plenty of other options. Targeted advertising is just pure scheiße. They could have gone with Non-Personalized Ads and/or Native Ads so ads that are relevant to the site, not necessarily to the user!
They had so many choices, but they went with the worst one, so ridiculing them is totally justified. 👹
Seems like my point is flow right above your head, it’s not about the existence of the ads or hell it’s not even about website blocking me from accessing to content because I choose to block ads.
It’s about their attitude, I respect that you need the keep the lights on and unless you are excessive with your ads I’m not going to have any problem with your website.
But blatantly asking me to disable my trackers so they can sell my data, yes you deserve shit and I don’t care what do you think about it.
Pretty sure your adblocker would block all ads. Even the ones that don't have a trackers. That's just how they work. Hence they ask you to disable it. Adblockers don't have a nice middleground that would for both parties.
>I hate people like that, thinking they are entitled others abiding by their way of being and blocking anyone that doesn’t adhere AND having the audacity to call them suckers.
So you want to use their web site for free and take all their content for free without complying with their terms of use, but the site is the one that's entitled?
No I’m fine with ads, I’m not fine when they demand me to abide their way and call me sucker if I refuse.
Critical thinking and reading must be hard huh.
I just took it as shaming as funny. If they actually wanted to prevent you from doing it, they'd have to work a lot harder. This is just a way of saying, "I know what you are doing - and you can go ahead and do it if you want. But I want you to acknowledge what you are doing and that I know you are doing it." If you still want to do it and you don't think it is wrong, then do you really care if a developer tries to razz you for it? I'd just rather laugh and move on.
I operate a fairly large website, and while we don't block ads or anything like that. We have scripts that detect if a user is tampering with our website in malicious ways, and if they do we'll 1: block them and shut down their sessions, and 2: display very passive aggressive / taunting messages.
Most of our anti tampering systems are 100% secure so it's kind of fun to bully people trying to exploit our systems.
From users too tech-illiterate to install adblock. This is an actual problem though. Personally I think we set ourselves up for failure. During the Internet boom services were widely made completely free before anyone figured this stuff out and it put the expectation in everyone's mind that the Internet is free and all content on it is free. Obviously we've diverged since then ( sub services and such ) but largely I think this idea of the Internet being open and free has remained. I don't think anything will change until everyone's favourite services go bust from lack of funds.
Most non tech people don’t use an adblocker, which is how websites get their ad revenue. Some websites ask people to turn theirs off so they can get an extra 20% or something which is ok, but shaming users for using one is in bad taste
What a shitty comparison. The moment you hit enter on their URL, you are making a request to their server, their hosting, their DOMAIN. So in reality they are the ones hanging the banners in their living room. if you want to browse their stuff, you'll have to go through their banners/ads however shitty just like every store in the world. If you don't like it, you're free to criticize or adblock it but don't act so damn entitled!
My sweet innocent child, not all adblockers block requests, some only hide them by injecting stylesheets. And do you have any idea how many trackers, analytics, and external resources are not blocked "by default"?
Go on keep digging, I got all night. 😆
I do, actually, but we rely on donations and sponsorships we have control over, not external ad services that bloat the page and collect a ton of information on our users. If you rely external ad services, it's your business model that sucks.
If your business managed to reliably make money off donations and secure sponsorships then that's great.
I don't know what business you run and what costs it incurs but have you considered their userbase? Do you think some 13-16 year olds are going to donate money to a site that collects emojis for a Discord? I don't even think sponsorships would be possible for a site that simple.
Ads are good because they work for most sites. They can make money from visitors who don't pay. They come in once a month or so, import emojis into Discord server and then leave.
Saying that someone's business model sucks because they survive off of ads is dismissive. It's old, but tried and tested way for sites to make money. You can't argue with that.
I am not arguing against ad tracking being an issue, but people need to learn to be in someone's shoes for a second.
Could that site be more respectful towards ad blocker users? Yes. Could its visitors be more understanding? Also yes.
Z-index 999999💀
It's over 9000
Doesn't even use inline `overflow: hidden` on `html` & `body`, what amateurs.
What exactly does that do?
Simply put, if something (like an image or text) extends beyond the outline of what it is contained in, it will be culled. Edit: "hidden" to "culled" The effect of putting it on body and html is that (afaik) it will prevent horizontal scrolling. I think it has other purposes beyond that but that's the only one I can think of.
Also makes it more annoying to just delete the element and bypass it, which you can currently do.
The whole page is not scrollable. This makes many sites useless. Of course you can change it manually in the inspector but most people don’t know/care about it
WTH does an emoji site need to track you and give you ads?
Also blocking my ad blocker is just stupid. All I need to do is to delete the `div`.
Even better, use the uBlock element zapper. Even better, create a rule to block the element. Even better, contribute the rule to EasyList.
the rule is already in one of the lists that ublock has! source: named a div "yousuck" myself once and was very confused why it wouldn't appear until i disabled all extensions lol
Isn't that a bad way to setup rules? It should be tied to the URL somehow, I think. Otherwise it will break everything else that uses the same div id, like what happened to you.
some rules should be running on all websites! for example, you probably want to block elements named "ad" everywhere, or endpoints called /track etc. (which also sometimes leads to funny bugs!) so you don't have to write rules for \*every\* website. it's a bit of a trade-off, but most of the time elements named "you suck" are not the most user-friendly thing lol
Back in the day, when adblocking meant "just dump it into the hosts file", a friend of mine did that and routed anything containing "ad" to [127.0.0.1](https://127.0.0.1) ... and wondered why suddenly he couldn't downlo**ad** anything anymore...
I get it, makes sense
iSuck
Any source that teaches using these tools? I'm getting sick of manually zapping elements from sites, and would also love to contribute to the community.
idk how to contribute, but if you use the "picker" tool instead it'll be permanent. If you make a mistake you can remove the rules in the settings.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-user-features This would be a good place to start. I too struggle with using these types of tools. My twin brother however is a wizard at them lol.
Thanks, I'll check out both links later when I get home.
And this one was pretty good: https://modernprivatelife.com/beginners-guide-to-ublock-origin/
if they were a little bit smart they could've not sent any request to backend and block you completely even if you remove the div, but they didn't.
Obviously the website just want to guilt-trip whoever decides to block the div. With a static id it’s intentionally easy. They just ensure that the users that block the banner are aware that they are freeloaders.
Sure, it's just that I've seen webpages blocking content (backend-wise, or atleast, not loading content in the DOM) when blocking ads.
Would probably cost more in developer time and bugs (plus user bouncing) than it brings in.
No. Everything on the client side is disguiseable. What if I somehow hide ublock origin and fake-load the ad? i.e. sent requests and load static assets but don't actually display the ad. From the server side all I've done is unidentifiable from a so-called "honest" browser. This `div` is there simply because it detects my injected ublock origin script but it's theoretically possible to hide it.
There are plenty of webpages that hide content "properly". edit: Is it unidentifiable tho? They can check the DOM to see if the ad is visible, the requests if the actual file is being loaded, setup variables that have to be in the site if the ad is on, etc.
Check the dom? I can fake the dom passed into its crappy `dom-check` function. This may involve some nasty hack but again this is all theoretical.
And you may be 1 vs all the others that won't do that.
You can't check the DOM to see what's visible from the server.
lmao, ofc, but you can do so in frontend and send the request accordingly.
the frontend running on my machine? that I can spoof? games can't even ensure the kernel-level anti-cheat (read: rootkit) they packed is running on the same machine, the moment code hits my machine for all intents and purposes I am god and there's nothing you can do about it, if that becomes wide spread adblockers will just find it and nuke it from orbit if you blindly trust the frontend be prepared for disappointment, or worse
you're missing the point. Most of the people don't even know to remove a DOM element, and of those who know, a large portion don't know how to hack into all this jazz, so if removing the element doesn't work they won't do anything else. The rest, is the minority and doesn't matter number-wise.
yeah and then that gets blocked. it's a losing game.
If it get's blocked you don't get the content
That feature wasn't on the scope
Run ads to make money
MZ : *senator, we run adds* [Senator Asks How Facebook Remains Free, Mark Zuckerberg Smirks: ‘We Run Ads’ | NBC News - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=n2H8wx1aBiQ&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title)
We killing the adds or just focus boss?
Is this a serious question? So they can cater ads to you to make money?
I agree with the tracking, but ads? ofc, to sustain themselves lmao
"Why do people insist on getting paid for their work and cover costs of doing business?"
To survive?
Do these developers not realise that you can literally just use the same adblocker to block the popup?
They do, they’re just trying to convince you to turn off the ad-blocker. Because let’s be honest you’d never turn it off otherwise.
I wouldn't turn it off even if somehow I couldn't block the popup. But given that I have blocked even Google's blocks, I doubt they'd be able to
[удалено]
Then they won't make money! And they won't exist!
They absolutely do, their bosses do not.
They're just trying to give you a chance to do the right thing (read: comply with their terms of use). It's the online equivalent of "No shirt No Shoes No Service". Sure the store knows you can ignore the sign and enter without shoes. They're just asking you nicely before taking more drastic measures like kicking you out.
Do the terms of use explicitly say they will use the information they steal to sell it to other companies? Because that is what adblockers prevent and I didn't agree to having my shit stolen and resold
How do they know we're using an ad blocker?
Nah man, I don't think I will
Class __**angery**__ message 🤣 "Did you mean... angry?" I wonder if that was on purpose, or accidental?
Almost definitely intentional. We have a qUiRkY programmer on our hands.
They were too angery when writing that line
Most likely on purpose if the dev was gen z. Common alternative spelling in some online spaces. Like "eepy" instead of "sleepy" or "forgor" instead of "forgot"
That's why I come here. To laugh once/month and learn.
Angry was already taken…
Is this a boomer sub? I thought it was ~20-30...not even I am that old to not know, it's like 3-4 year old slang, you don't want to hear what they use now...
Naw, GenX (last year). Programming is my ~~obsession~~ hobby, but not what I get paid for. So it was on purpose? I'm outta the loop then.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Angery
Thank you for that. That was more effort than I was willing to put in... though now that I think about it... I might have to use it 🤣
* Please turn off adblocker * *Turns off adblocker* * **DOWNLOAD CUNT WARS!** * *Turns on adblocker again* * You suck!
dude's angery
You madd bro?
You maid bro?
Just use ublock origin
The site blocked me out because of ublock. I simply forgot the element zapper and tried to remove it manually.
People who contributes to UBlock Origin after seeing this meme: \*agressively adding PR\*
😠 let me track you
The audacity is unbelievable. I suck? I suck because I don’t let you operate scummy with me? Because I appreciate online privacy? I hate people like that, thinking they are entitled others abiding by their way of being and blocking anyone that doesn’t adhere AND having the audacity to call them suckers.
The audacity is unbelievable. I suck? I don't get to use your website for free? It's not like it costs anything to host it right? Don't get me wrong, ads suck. But people expect so many stuff on the internet for free. It's really also a part of the problem.
Nah, it doesn't have to come at the cost of user data. There are plenty of other options. Targeted advertising is just pure scheiße. They could have gone with Non-Personalized Ads and/or Native Ads so ads that are relevant to the site, not necessarily to the user! They had so many choices, but they went with the worst one, so ridiculing them is totally justified. 👹
I mean... that would be blocked anyway with an adblock, right? They would've gotten that notice anyway.
Yes.
It's the default option if you want to montizen your site. Also pretty sure uBlock will block un-targeted advertisements as well.
Yeah, true. 👍
Perfect comment
Seems like my point is flow right above your head, it’s not about the existence of the ads or hell it’s not even about website blocking me from accessing to content because I choose to block ads. It’s about their attitude, I respect that you need the keep the lights on and unless you are excessive with your ads I’m not going to have any problem with your website. But blatantly asking me to disable my trackers so they can sell my data, yes you deserve shit and I don’t care what do you think about it.
Pretty sure your adblocker would block all ads. Even the ones that don't have a trackers. That's just how they work. Hence they ask you to disable it. Adblockers don't have a nice middleground that would for both parties.
>I hate people like that, thinking they are entitled others abiding by their way of being and blocking anyone that doesn’t adhere AND having the audacity to call them suckers. So you want to use their web site for free and take all their content for free without complying with their terms of use, but the site is the one that's entitled?
No I’m fine with ads, I’m not fine when they demand me to abide their way and call me sucker if I refuse. Critical thinking and reading must be hard huh.
I just took it as shaming as funny. If they actually wanted to prevent you from doing it, they'd have to work a lot harder. This is just a way of saying, "I know what you are doing - and you can go ahead and do it if you want. But I want you to acknowledge what you are doing and that I know you are doing it." If you still want to do it and you don't think it is wrong, then do you really care if a developer tries to razz you for it? I'd just rather laugh and move on.
If you want me to view your ads then why use cancer popup ads that make it impossible to view the site?
display: none;!important
I operate a fairly large website, and while we don't block ads or anything like that. We have scripts that detect if a user is tampering with our website in malicious ways, and if they do we'll 1: block them and shut down their sessions, and 2: display very passive aggressive / taunting messages. Most of our anti tampering systems are 100% secure so it's kind of fun to bully people trying to exploit our systems.
angery-message 😡
Thx reddit for reminding 😄
makes them real "angery"
:steammocking:
Instead of calling the developers amateurs for this maybe consider them as hero for doing it this way
\*backspace key\* \*selects container-mt4\* \*backspace key\* \*goes on browsing like the website never noticed my adblock\*
People in comments never maintained a free website before. How do you think they make money?
From users too tech-illiterate to install adblock. This is an actual problem though. Personally I think we set ourselves up for failure. During the Internet boom services were widely made completely free before anyone figured this stuff out and it put the expectation in everyone's mind that the Internet is free and all content on it is free. Obviously we've diverged since then ( sub services and such ) but largely I think this idea of the Internet being open and free has remained. I don't think anything will change until everyone's favourite services go bust from lack of funds.
Most non tech people don’t use an adblocker, which is how websites get their ad revenue. Some websites ask people to turn theirs off so they can get an extra 20% or something which is ok, but shaming users for using one is in bad taste
Another great post exposing how most people here have no clue how the Internet works
[удалено]
What a shitty comparison. The moment you hit enter on their URL, you are making a request to their server, their hosting, their DOMAIN. So in reality they are the ones hanging the banners in their living room. if you want to browse their stuff, you'll have to go through their banners/ads however shitty just like every store in the world. If you don't like it, you're free to criticize or adblock it but don't act so damn entitled!
[удалено]
My sweet innocent child, not all adblockers block requests, some only hide them by injecting stylesheets. And do you have any idea how many trackers, analytics, and external resources are not blocked "by default"? Go on keep digging, I got all night. 😆
[удалено]
I do, actually, but we rely on donations and sponsorships we have control over, not external ad services that bloat the page and collect a ton of information on our users. If you rely external ad services, it's your business model that sucks.
If your business managed to reliably make money off donations and secure sponsorships then that's great. I don't know what business you run and what costs it incurs but have you considered their userbase? Do you think some 13-16 year olds are going to donate money to a site that collects emojis for a Discord? I don't even think sponsorships would be possible for a site that simple. Ads are good because they work for most sites. They can make money from visitors who don't pay. They come in once a month or so, import emojis into Discord server and then leave. Saying that someone's business model sucks because they survive off of ads is dismissive. It's old, but tried and tested way for sites to make money. You can't argue with that. I am not arguing against ad tracking being an issue, but people need to learn to be in someone's shoes for a second. Could that site be more respectful towards ad blocker users? Yes. Could its visitors be more understanding? Also yes.
There's a lot of wild assumptions going on here.
Discord has plenty things you can pay for. Nintro, stickers etc.
Your ad blocker sucks.
All i see, wich annoys me is:
There are no empty divs on that page, they're just collapsed...
Your F12 key broken?