not a single time has a “hey, fuck you, you’re using one of those adblockers” interstitial tried the approach of saying “we ensure our ads are unobtrusive, lightweight & malware-free, so please consider not blocking our ads,” an approach which might actually get me to consider it
the fight you’re trying to fight is *not* against the users using adblock; it’s mandatory security hygiene at this point – it’s against other advertising-supported sites and platforms which have been abusing the privilege. do better and maybe things can change
(the actual worst part about adblocking is the only people trying to create a potentially sustainable alternative (such as distributing microtransactions to websites based on yr history) are some technolibertarian bro’s pet web browser nobody’s ever actually going to want to use)
@ticky suddenly I want to make a "looks like you're not using an ad blocker, please install one before continuing"
@ticky I can't find it now, but a couple months ago there was some parody toot about how a business promised that their wasps weren't going to bother you too much, so please roll your car windows down when you drive past the business so a few wasps could get into your car.
@ticky Which is to say, telling me that I need to watch ads for the good of capitalism is the most bass awkwards thing proposition that people seem to be seriously considering.
@JordiGH I mean, when capitalism has pushed us to consider spending a dollar or two on a thing we want to make use of or read “expensive” and thus people have to scrape cents out of every view, it does sort of make sense
the whole system is absolutely busted, though, of course
@ticky As much as I'd like to see this, I have no idea how it'd actually be implemented in a cost-effective manner.
But if someone figures it, they'll be placed to make a fortune.
@mwlucas like, all an ad network should allow people to host is a string, jpeg or a gif. that’s it. no html, no js, just that. metrics delivered by ad network.
@mwlucas I mean if what the valuable part is cross-site tracking and not actually the ad views, why don’t they just ask users for raw history dumps? Be direct :P
@ticky I've had a few that have went "Hey we noticed you are blocking ads, we survive on ads and ensure they are malware free, lightweight, and unobtrusive, to continue please add us to your whitelist."
Every time I've done it and considered it I've found them to be lying. Pretty much if I can't tell if you run your own ad network I won't even consider white listing you. Sorry, not sorry.
@kusuriya yeah, I mean, due dilligence is obviously required, but I’ve yet to see one actually make that claim for its ads. “We survive on ads” yes, “our ads aren’t horrible” no
@ticky Ars Technica and wired both do it, they also say in essence "look if you just want no ads and to support us subscribe here and get a sweet gift too"
@ticky Conversely, witness the number of sites who, detecting an EU IP, just outright say "sod off", rather than perhaps *asking permission* in a simple, genuine manner (not "oh, you can opt out from this vendor by visiting this site, this vendor by going to /them/.." dozens of times), preferably assuring the prospective viewer that the data sold is minimal - or ideally, not at all.
@ticky It's hardly perfect legislation, but it's a *great* start. Sooner or later, the big sites are going to have to take notice that people use ad blockers to maintain their sanity on their sites, rather than having autoplaying video and animated ads everywhere (also chowing down tens of megs in the process), let alone the amazing extent of data harvesting going on - everyone knew cookies were used, but gods, to see Oath admit to 299 "partners".. O.o;;
@porsupah yeah, the whole industry was (is!) rife with abuse of the data being collected and distributed, and abusive of the users’ very internet connections. Legislation like GDPR should honestly be implemented everywhere. Cookie warnings I could take or leave, though. :P
@ticky I'd like to follow how that cookie warning legislation came about - feels like it might've originally been meaningful, but passed only in that rather pointless manner. If those notices had also told you how many partners they sell to, and what data's being sold, /that/ could have been interesting. Ultimately, though, it's all about consent, and how many sites abhor the concept of *asking* rather than just taking.
@porsupah ah, that makes a lot of sense. I guess its actual toothiness got lobbied out of existence?
@ticky I will never understand why ad servers have such shitty connections. It pages actually loaded with ads on them i might not mind.
Yeah, that's totally a lie, I'd still use an ad blocker, but I might feel bad about it.
@ticky The problem with this approach is nearly impossible to trust that their Ad department has any idea to actually properly screen and verify that an Ad is actually malware free and monitor that the destination when you click on an Ad hasn't been modified to point to malware.
@ticky I think this is the right kind of attitude towards adblocking, from the webcomic Scandinavia And The World.
@ticky Actually, a lot have tried it. Maybe you don't see them. Not that it matters in the long run, nor that they do good work but just to say they exist.
@ticky to my great disgust, too many sites have tried that, only to turn around and in less than 4 ad impressions deliver me something hostile.
(Usually delivered by Google, but I digress)
@ticky I've seen some really nice and genuine attempts at that from some of the sites I visit! Maybe not interstitials, but dismissable popups and filler where the ad would be.
I feel a bit sorry for the site when their ad revenue is tied to a problematic security/privacy nightmare. Wish I could help, but I'm not disabling a necessary tool for staying safe.