# Why don't websites simply refuse to serve ad-blocking users? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 10, 2014, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946 "2014-02-10T03:41:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Infovore](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/infovore/32/420_2.png) [@Infovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Infovore)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/21 "2014-02-10T20:54:05Z")
What I wish could be done (and maybe it can–I never really checked) is to selectively block ads. I don’t mind static ads that just appear and mind their own business. I don’t like animated ads, popup or popunder ads (which still sometimes get past NoScript, at least on my machine), those horrible things that skate all over the page and don’t display their “Close” button until several seconds later…basically _annoying_ ads. Just show me the damn ad on the page. If you want to animate it, give me the option to click something to see the animated version (which I might even do if it’s a product I’m interested in). Otherwise, leave me the hell alone and act like a polite ad, and I won’t block you. Deal? Oh, how I wish. My local newspaper (San Jose Mercury News) has gotten so annoying with its “innovative” (read: annoying as hell) ad formats that I’ve almost given up even looking at it anymore. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/22 "2014-02-10T21:01:39Z")
Even if you block the ads on the page, maybe you’ll send the page to someone else or post it on your social media. Those other people who view the page may end up viewing the ads. The problem I have with internet ads is that they are so intrusive. If they were static pictures, I wouldn’t mind. But instead they have audio, movement, take over the whole screen, pop under, etc. Also, sometimes they can be vectors for installing viruses on your system. If they went back to just being simple images, fewer people would use ad blockers. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/23 "2014-02-10T21:14:12Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Ads can only be blocked if they are served from a third-party source Not that it matters, but I’m not sure that’s true. Adblock hides my own, site-hosted ads on my website (maybe it’s just picking up on a substring of the URL). ETA: I just checked this and it’s a URL based rule, but it’s in EasyList. > [@](#): > > meaning the site owner has willingly given up control of his user content. Visitors owe neither party a damned thing. If the content is so valuable as to require payment, then be truly “honest” and put it behind a paywall. I agree - as both consumer and producer of web content. If I really believed my content granted me an inviolable right to income, I should be explicitly charging for it. Ads are not guaranteed to be seen, or to pay, and we should not expect them to. Blocking ads on websites is not morally very different to skipping the ads on a PVR-recorded TV show - or, for that matter, leaving the room to make a cup of tea during the ad break in a real time broadcast. ---
**Author:** ![Quimby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/22d042/32.png) [@Quimby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quimby)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/24 "2014-02-10T21:21:39Z")
I saw on one site that played videos, if it detected ad blocker it would make you sit through a 30 second countdown so skipping the ad didn’t really save you anything. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/25 "2014-02-10T21:36:13Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > A problem with merely hiding ads is that you effectively are lying. The browser is telling the server that an ad was served when it wasn’t. This then gives money to the main website. In a way, you can see that as fraud, similar to click fraud where you click on an ad with no intention to buy anything. Advertisers tend to include in their service contracts that there is no intent to defraud the system. You know what? Fuck 'em. My old computer was basically trashed by malware and I don’t really don’t care to take the risk of infecting my new one. It happened after visiting ONE website. ONE. Screw that, I care more about my property than some douchebags making a few cents. My view is that you should NEVER browse the web without an ad blocker, and if that’s somehow “lying” or “immoral”, so be it. If you want to risk your computer, that’s your business. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. ---
**Author:** ![epbrown01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@epbrown01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epbrown01)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/26 "2014-02-10T21:44:19Z")
> [@Quimby](#): > > I saw on one site that played videos, if it detected ad blocker it would make you sit through a 30 second countdown so skipping the ad didn’t really save you anything. It saved having to sit through the ad - I’d take that deal. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/27 "2014-02-10T22:59:27Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Ads can only be blocked if they are served from a third-party source… > [@Mangetout](#): > > Not that it matters, but I’m not sure that’s true. Adblock hides my own, site-hosted ads on my website (maybe it’s just picking up on a substring of the URL). ETA: I just checked this and it’s a URL based rule, but it’s in EasyList. I’ll concede the detail, but it’s still from a source outside the main site, making it easy to detect and add to filter lists. Nearly all ad detection is looking for content pulled from some other source, which is very rarely used in legitimate content management. (I’m sure there are cases where complex integrative sites do, but there are other hallmarks of third-party, unrelated content… ads.) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/28 "2014-02-10T23:34:18Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I’ll concede the detail, but it’s still from a source outside the main site, making it easy to detect and add to filter lists. Nope, it’s ads on my site, served entirely from the site itself (they are free ad spaces that I offer to charities - I produce and host the ad banners and link code within my own content) - adblock was just just blocking it because the banner images were in a folder structure named /gfx/ads. It’s a subfolder that only contains ad images, but other actual subfolders alongside it (e.g. /gfx/thumbs) contain normal site content. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/29 "2014-02-10T23:40:20Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Nope, it’s ads on my site, served entirely from the site itself (they are free ad spaces that I offer to charities - I produce and host the ad banners and link code within my own content) - adblock was just just blocking it because the banner images were in a folder structure named /gfx/ads. > > It’s a subfolder that only contains ad images, but other actual subfolders alongside it (e.g. /gfx/thumbs) contain normal site content. Oh, misunderstood from your first description. I’d suspect either clever bot analysis or URL keyword detection. Put them in /gfx/nudes instead. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/30 "2014-02-11T00:40:43Z")
> [@Infovore](#): > > What I wish could be done (and maybe it can–I never really checked) is to selectively block ads. With AdBlock you can right click an image and choose to block it. I suppose you could start with zero subscriptions in your blocking list and just add to it as things annoy you. I actually use the ability to select things to block as a value-added feature on some sites and forums where people have obnoxious avatars, post annoying images, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/31 "2014-02-11T01:03:35Z")
> [@Infovore](#): > > What I wish could be done (and maybe it can–I never really checked) is to selectively block ads. I don’t mind static ads that just appear and mind their own business. I don’t like animated ads, popup or popunder ads (which still sometimes get past NoScript, at least on my machine), those horrible things that skate all over the page and don’t display their “Close” button until several seconds later…basically _annoying_ ads. Just show me the damn ad on the page. If you want to animate it, give me the option to click something to see the animated version (which I might even do if it’s a product I’m interested in). They still do that ? I haven’t seen the all-dancing kinds for five years. Admittedly I use linux, but that’s only minor as a defense against website displays — although great in stopping gifts from such sites. I have AdBlock Plus, AdvertBan, NoScript and Ghostery. I don’t mind a few adverts — few being the operative word, as the modern world since the mid-nineteenth century is saturated with non-stop advertising — and for sites I trust I do selectively disable defenses. AdBlock Plus and AdvertBan can both be instantly stopped for selected sites; NoScript and Ghostery both have Whitelists one may add sites to. My primary purpose is to save bandwidth ( although this becomes less needed as internet speed improves, and unlimited is standard ) and more important to stop unneeded processes running on my machine. If adverts were less vulgar I could ignore their display. And of course there is the fact that I am rarely going to click on an ad, and it is almost impossible that an advert would induce me to purchase anything… ---
**Author:** ![TBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@TBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBG)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/32 "2014-02-12T00:32:16Z")
> [@epbrown01](#): > > It saved having to sit through the ad - I’d take that deal. I agree completely. Given the choice between watching an annoying commercial for 30sec and a blank box for 30sec, I’ll take the blank box. ---
**Author:** ![FalconFinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@FalconFinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FalconFinder)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/33 "2014-02-12T03:45:08Z")
The CBS web site won’t let me watch a silly interview (probably a few minutes long) because it detects that I have ad blocking software on. So, someone figured out how to block it. I tried accessing a video link just about an hour ago and there seemed to be no way around it. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/34 "2014-02-12T07:58:18Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Oh, misunderstood from your first description. I’d suspect either clever bot analysis or URL keyword detection. Put them in /gfx/nudes instead. 😃 I did that (well, something like that - not ‘nudes’) and it worked - they are not filtered any more. It will be interesting to see if, in time, the new path for the images turns up again in the filter list. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/35 "2014-02-12T14:19:40Z")
Honestly, I wouldn’t use an ad-blocker if ads weren’t the largest attack vector for malware on the internet. I would love to support some dinky little webcomics that I read by viewing their ads, but I am not going to risk my computer’s safety. ---
**Author:** ![grama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@grama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grama)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/36 "2014-02-12T16:10:24Z")
Another alternative to using an adblocker is to modify your hosts file so you block access to the most common ad-sites. When some site has asked me to turn off adblock I do it, but still see no ads (most of the time). ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/37 "2014-02-12T17:26:12Z")
> [@TBG](#): > > I agree completely. Given the choice between watching an annoying commercial for 30sec and a blank box for 30sec, I’ll take the blank box. I just open another tab and read something else until the sound of the video starts up, letting me know the (blank) ad is over. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/38 "2014-02-12T17:35:56Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > I just open another tab and read something else until the sound of the video starts up, letting me know the (blank) ad is over. I just go to another site while bitching under my breath about how video is replacing three-sentence news, how-to and information bites. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/39 "2014-03-06T20:15:05Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > You know what? Fuck 'em. My old computer was basically trashed by malware and I don’t really don’t care to take the risk of infecting my new one. It happened after visiting ONE website. ONE. Screw that, I care more about my property than some douchebags making a few cents. > > My view is that you should NEVER browse the web without an ad blocker, and if that’s somehow “lying” or “immoral”, so be it. If you want to risk your computer, that’s your business. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Your computer would be just as full of malware if you downloaded the ads. And I didn’t bring the lying problem for your ethics. I brought them up to explain why hiding adblockers are not more popular. There’s a lack of legitimacy to them that is not present in actually blocking that ads. It’s hard enough for adblockers to not get pummeled by the ad brokers who hate them. Giving them a way to detect their use helps them not be sued into nonexistence. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_is\_the\_new\_Analog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e4f/32.png) [@Digital\_is\_the\_new\_Analog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_is_the_new_Analog)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946/40 "2014-03-08T04:15:22Z")
I noticed the other day at the web cam at Port Everglades refuses to stream video if my ad blocker is active. So apparently they are doing exactly this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-websites-simply-refuse-to-serve-ad-blocking-users/680946.md?page=1)