How are you responding to online paywalls and ad blocker-blockers?

In My Humble Opinion
61

more ‘n more websites adopting fortifications … whether it’s a paywall o’ ad-block-defeaters o’ subscribe o’ e-mailers o’ cookies o’ whatever … i absolutely do not click any frame within that website window … nor do i hover the mouse-cursor in the website window. there are some websites who allow the browser’s ‘reader’ for viewing … but, more than likely, webpages are programmed to disallow the reader function.

once or twice, i’ve looked for a way to contact the admin of the website … informing them of malware might be hiding in ads that they cannot possibly control … as well as other exploits. the contact form is generally easier to penetrate than majority of their website. say denverpost.com is the website in question … the contact-form will always insist on the netizen’s email … so, i insert a fake “yomama@ denverpost.com” or something equally egregious.

my basic creed is to just close the website and look for other avenues of research.

62

I can tolerate a handful of ads. I can tolerate well-behaved ads.

I’ll even click on an ad if it’s something that I might like to buy, but to be bombarded by a litany of ads that render your browser useless for the duration? No thanks. I’m never coming back. Ever.

There is nothing I want to see so badly that I’m willing to put up with eye rape and/or having my browser rendered useless.

Unfortunately, my local paper is like this. They literally cripple your browser with ads, even if you’re reading the obituaries, which are supposed to be free to read (more proof that nothing is ever free). They bog you down with so many ads that you can’t even scroll down the page.

Sometimes, once you reach the page you wanted, you can turn the blocker back on and stop the ads while you read the content. It doesn’t always work, but it’s worth a try.

63

Agreed. I don’t mind well-behaved ads. That means ads that stay in one place, don’t make noise, don’t cover the content, and don’t create a noticeable draw on my computer’s processing. I suppose I also don’t want actual malware, but there’s no obvious way to know that when I see it.

If a site asks me to whitelist it, and I have significant interest in the site, I do so. And if the result isn’t too horrible, I leave it whitelisted. If it’s not a site I care much about, or if it has horrible ads, I turn the blocker back on and don’t return.

64

I’m not sure how to say this or how it’s going to sound, but Jeff Bezos is among the richest men in the world. He could chose to make reading the website of the Washington Post free (much as the Guardian is) or he could allow a more “leaky” paywall. (Because the newspapers where you can read articles by simply deleting a cookie or visiting via a private/incognito browser window are well aware of these hacks and simply allow them to be used. They could block these workarounds as some news sites do.) It would be nice if he did so and it would increase its influence.

65

I pretty much disable my ad-blocker for any site that insists I do so. (What’s real annoying is the site that makes you turn off your ad-blocker and then gives you only one free article anyway. :smack: )

For N.Y. Times I fire up a different browser, with Javascript disabled. Is that unethical?? Illegal???

Sometimes Ctrl-U will get you the raw text of a blocked article, especially if you’re quick on the draw with the Ctrl-U.

I have the bad habit of opening new tabs for articles I may not read for another 5 minutes … or 5 hours! (… or 5 days!!) Often these extra tabs are harmless, but open 3 or 4 tabs from Alternet.Org and their Javascripts (or whatever it is) bring my machine to a screeching halt. The only recovery then is to try to Kill Firefox from Task Manager or, if the freeze prevents even that, to reboot. So I don’t read Alternet.Org anymore, despite that it often has good leads.

Congrats; I wish I were so lucky. But I lack self-control: when the Newspapers aren’t letting me in, I just click to SDMB-Politics and get my dose of depression here. :eek: :frowning:

66

I get Amazon Prime as a Christmas present from my family, and an internet TV site for my birthday. I can’t pay for anything else, so I won’t go to sites that demand I pay for anything. If I have to disable the ad blockers, (AdBlock Plus and Opera browser), then what I am looking for had better be really important for me to continue.

What disappoints me most are the sites that are plastered with ads that make them hard to use and also have limited content and pop-ups begging me to subscribe.

67

I run Adblock Plus, Privacy Badger, and uBlock Origin by default.

If Open Link in New Private Window doesn’t work then I just don’t read the site. If I’m asked nicely by a trustworthy-looking site to turn off the ad blocker, I will usually do it and give them a chance.

68

For most sites power users can bypass their ad blocker blockers by pressing Ctrl-Shift-I to bring up the browser’s developer tools and using them to delete the overlays that are hiding the content and tweak the style tags to make the page scrollable again (look for “overflow: hidden” and change it to “overflow: auto”). There are a few sites that can’t be beaten that easily, but it works on most. If nothing else you can read the article in the raw HTML source.

69

I basically agree with DrCube, who has explained my principled objection to ads. I don’t agree on the semantics, as I think purely descriptive, non-manipulative ads are still ads, but I agree those are the exception, and I object to the others on principle. I object to the idea of trying to get people to want things they’d be perfectly happy without.

I also don’t agree about targeted advertising because I’ve never seen that not be the bad kind of ads. I’ve never seen them just inform me of something I might actually need, just attempts at getting me to want something.

The one ad I’ve actually followed in the current yeas is for Backblaze, and it was because the ads I did get did nothing but tell me about the service, including its advantages, as well as explain why someone would use it. It was also pushing a need–unlimited online data backup, and backup is what people need. At the $6 a month per PC unlimited form, I had to choose them when I finally decided to get backups. They’ll even send you a hard drive with your data then completely refund it when you send it back. And apparently they’re profitable!

That was not a targeted ad, but one of those sponsorships, which can be annoying if you don’t have SponsorBlock. But this one wasn’t annoying, as it was just someone I trust saying how it had helped him, and how much sense it made to backup your data. I knew he has integrity about the ads he runs, only ever running ads for services he uses and that he thinks would help others. It’s actually like word of mouth.

Anywyas, if all other ads were necessities with only information and vetted by people who use them and are trustworthy, and the person got paid even if you skip the ad now that you’ve already heard it, then I wouldn’t object to ada. But those are very much the exception.

I would be more likely to pay for news, but the price needs to be in line with other online content donations. And, lime with everyone I donate to on Patreon, they must actually need the money, a d not be run by a billionaire who could pay all the revenue they get in ads and still make money. Sure, more people involved means you need more money than someone who just makes entertaining videos online, but keep it reasonable.

The only news org I’ve supported online is Snopes.com, with a single donation. I did it because the lawsuit and abuse of litigation by larger companies to try and bleed Snopes dry is so horrible, and that site NEEDS to exist because it focuses on debunking rumors and fake news. They are the last defenders against a post-truth society. None of that is hyperbole. And I note I’m not saying g people need to go help, as his funds are pretty good for now.

70

I block all ads that I’m able, and otherwise do not read content locked behind a paywall or that asks to disable my adblockers. The only current exception right now is YouTube, who is just barely on the threshold of acceptance vs annoyance using the ‘skip’ button after 3 or 4 seconds of ad play.