This already exists - @soatok@furry.engineer’s blog already has a popup about not having an adblocker, although it is easy to dismiss. It’s probably a bad idea to block content based on not having one, as detecting ad blockers is a losing battle (as YouTube is learning).
ah but this is easy to deal with. Simply put the message in an ad campaign that
yeah the adblock detection doesn’t work for me
at least not in Mull with uBlock Origin on Android with AdAway (root)
It’s not a losing battle.
It’s like a lock on your front door: Anyone that really wants to bypass it will easily. It’s there to stop most people.
On Reddit/Lemmy we’re exposed to mostly people that know how to, but outside a lot of people will think Adblockers are the discovery of the century when their brother in law installs it, until they need to update it and it won’t work ever again because they can’t click an update button.
Web Environment Integrity enters the room
I love this
That’s not very pragmatic - if not for chumps without ad blockers, a lot of the free stuff I get online wouldn’t exist.
Chad
🕵️ hmmm, corpo shill has been here
Or someone who doesn’t like generic comments. You could paste half those on any comment chain. They’re the equivalent of an upvote but the commenters felt the need to say it instead. Good downvotes.
That or they’re downvoting low effort comments
Jerboa user?
yep
I’m not sure how, but you can find their username on lemmy 💀
Yeah… don’t though. It is bad practice to target people like that
They could comment though instead of just downvote and run like a coward
On kbin you just go to the comment, click on More -> Activity, and go to the ‘reduces’ tab.
Agreed
You need to be an admin on a federated instance
I would downvote that crap too. Contributes nothing to the discussion, waste of time and screen space. That’s the comment equivalent of banner ads
Hot take: I don’t want / need more people to use adblock.
Right now it is in a good position where the numbers just are not that high for advertisers to really give a hoot. Yes there is the ocasional shit like with YouTube, but the thing is - they are not really trying, they only put enough effort in to inconvenience, hoping more people will drop blocking.
However, if more people start blocking, I think they will be forced to find more concrete solutions, like the whole DRM fiasco.
If ads were just ads, then sure. But now that they serve as trackers too, and are oftentimes hijacked by malware… yeah no, screw all ads.
Ads being trackers, and especially being a vector for malware is nothing new, yes screw ads, I block them, but I really don’t give a hoot if my neighbour blocks ads. I’m certainly not gonna go out of my way to preach the gospel of adblocking.
And part of the reason is the above - more people blocking ads will probably cause ad companies to make ad blocking more inconvenient, and you will end up with the same situation - only tech literate people will block ads.
Now don’t get me wrong, that is not the reason, just a reason, mostly I just don’t give a fuck if others block ads.
However when it comes to the idea in the OP, the reason does become more salient, because someone is going out of their way to preach the gospel of adblocking.
Obviously my original point was a bit lighthearted, realistically it doesn’t matter, I doubt any dev who would do this is making products to reach masses that do not already adblock, so this shit is probably just some virtue signaling anyway.
I could be wrong but I don’t think there even is a way to fully prevent adblocking without something like the proposed web integrity API, since it’s all clientside and the browser can easily just choose not to render any ads.
Overall I do agree that less people using adblocks means less attention from corps and less adblock-blocks like youtube’s, but I’m conflicted on whether that’s a good enough reason to have most people suffer through so many ads.
Maybe not prevent entirely, but I am sure they can make it extremely inconvenient to block. Part of the reason I pay for Youtube Premium is that it would be just too much of a hassle to set up PiHole and manage it, to get that ad-free experience across all of my devices.
Wasn’t that hard to set up youtube vanced on my phone
Even with web integrity, I don’t see anti-Adblock working. We’re almost at the point that client side AI can screen capture the web page and recreate it sans-ads.
And there are probably simpler solutions to bypass anti-adblock
I barely know how any of this works, but couldn’t Google just decide to not send video content on YouTube until X number of seconds have elapsed, so having ad blockers would block ad content, but not make it faster to see the video?
They probably could, but I think the risk of directly affecting the normal user experience is too high. That would for example mean that preloading videos will be trickier, and that there is a high chance that there will be a 3 seconds of silence between the ad and the content.
Still won’t help, I would gladly wait 60s to avoid having scams and car salesmen shout at me for 10s.
People will decide what is best for them. Blocking access to websites for having ad blocker or having no ad blocker is an asshole move. I know it is intended for pun, but still.
Encouraging a safer internet is an asshole move?
Encouraging and forcing is different. Just because forcing ad blocker on people is aligned with so many people’s view doesn’t mean that it is a great move. Anything that is forced on people is an asshole move.
Okay, so I’ve been thinking of doing something like this for my neocities site (whenever I have the time and drive to work on it). The biggest problem to all of this is the fact I don’t wanna use any JavaScript and don’t know if it’s even possible without JS.
I’ve already, in the past, been experimenting on another neocities page I have access to the idea of blocking access to everyone using a chromium based or safari browser with and without JS, too. To say the least, it’s difficult for a noob like me and so far has not worked like planned. Especially since there are so many forks of chromium with different names/user-agents.
Put it in an element with a class like “ad-banner”, it should be enough for most ad blockers to block it.
I’d have to look up how to do it, but I’ll definitely have to try this to see what happens.
just a <div>Your ad block ad goes here</div>
view source because Lemmy understands html.
You can try to load an image from a subdomain like
ads., or from a filename like468x80.png(see EasyList) to catch all the common ad blockers, maybe with an id ofAd-Containerto catch css-based ad blockers.DNS based blockers that use regular expressions or wildcards will work with the subdomain approach, but most of them still rely on hardcoded list of domains which means you either need to get a throwaway (sub)domain on their lists OR serve data from an actual ad server (or just live with the occasional false positives from people who believe DNS blocking is enough [which it really isn’t if we’re being honest])
But honestly, in this case doing it with JS should be fine since disabling JS is a quite effective ad blocker anyway. Here’s how I do it for example: https://ads.d.on-t.work/ad.min.js (and you can try it out at https://w.on-t.work)
I mean, I’d imagine it’s trivial to do without js. Just try to load an image or similar with a name that’d be blocked into the background image for a div that covers the entire page. Should silently fail to load with a blocker, or shows your error image if they don’t.
Based
Ad man?
I mean, it’s totally fashionable to give people who still somehow use Microsoft Internet Explorer scare pop-ups, so why not this?
If you don’t run an ad blocker, your browser just isn’t safe. This was the security community consensus 15 years ago. Shit sure got worse since then!
And now you got the likes of google and YouTube that prevent things from working if you do run an ad blocker
They try, which ended up just making a certain adblocker much more effective.
It will be a continuous battle. But, eventually, one or the other will lose
Graham is awesome. I remember working with him 20 years ago as an ISV rep and he’s come such a long way.
This technically makes this an ad for adblockers. Which, by enabling an adblocker, will disable said ad.
Make it infinitely more obnoxious, 90’s era blinky text, gifs, auto play music… “You wouldn’t be seeing or hearing any of this bullshit if you ran an ad blocker”
Using ad-blockers is actually better for the environment too.
I mean, yes? But also this is like that stupid iPhone setting that diverts your charging to off-peak hours or something. It’s such an incredibly small difference.
If it’s worth doing at all, it’s worth doing a little bit.
I believe you’re referring to iPhone’s clean energy charging feature. Here’s my question: if you can use clean energy, why wouldn’t you? It might make very little difference to the environment, but a little difference is still a difference.
Still, using ad-blockers is really not like that iPhone feature:
- That feature relies on the grid itself, meaning it’s useless for a lot of people that have basically no clean energy where they live, while ad-blockers can be useful to anyone using the internet.
- It may be to the user’s detriment, while ad-blockers improve user experience.
- It’s device dependent, whereas ad-blockers are available to virtually everyone, not just iPhone users.
- Ad-blockers can be combined with clean energy charging.
The impact ad-blockers can have on the environment is similar to iPhone’s clean energy charging in the same way a healthy diet is similar to eating a carrot. Yes, on the surface level they do just reduce your consumption of fossil fuel-generated energy, but ad-blockers reduce your energy consumption overall, not just trade it for green energy (that still requires tons of fossil fuels to be burned).
Much love,
gonif you can use clean energy, why wouldn’t you?
Because, in this case, it can be incredibly inconvenient. It’s just another bullshit marketing ploy from Apple.
I don’t understand the rest of your comment.
Should you use ad blockers? Yes, absolutely. Is “saving the environment” a legitimate reason? I would argue no.
Sincerely,
xoxo helenslunch
Since mastodon and lemmy are federated, could one have postet the mastodon toot directly?
Think about it like this: even when you link other posts in lemmy, you link them in their home instance, because there is no way to link posts so that everyone gets one to their own instance as you can do with communities in the threadiverse. Neither can you repost it in any meaningful way, since that just means copying the content, which would make it appear as though you said it yourself.
Good luck rendering this in my Netscape navigator!!! 😄
