| ▲ | rkomorn 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
> I would not mind if a website detects my adblocker and not serving me the content either. How do you feel about ad blockers continually trying to evade detection, though? Or guides about how to avoid things that block access to users of ad blockers? I think the "you're free to block me for using an ad blocker!" argument doesn't mean much when said ad blockers do their best to not let that happen in the first place. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | freehorse 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I believe that if websites actually cared, if adblockers was a big issue for them, they would get to detect when a user uses one, eg by looking at specific parts of the webpage that are not loaded. There are some that do it. Even if it turned out to be an arm's race, it is a socially beneficial one imo, because it could reduce the appeal of the tracking-advertising model, by increasing the cost of keeping it up. But that's not what is going on here. Personally I don't just block ads, but as much of any third party js/requests I can without breaking a website. Websites do not load any third party js etc by default except from some whitelisted domains. This takes care of a big part of the most annoying things out there. If you do not want to serve me the website if I block this stuff, don't do so, I don't care. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | hananova 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
The websites are in their right to try to detect adblockers, and the adblockers are equally in their right to avoid detection. If a website really cares, they can try harder. The goal of an adblocker is not just to block ads, but to block anything that isn't the content the user wishes to see. This includes calls to action, consent banners (despite websites wishing otherwise, the default answer is still "no"), and of course "please disable your adblocker." | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||