Websites that reject ad-blocker readers don't deserve your clicks

[starbuck]

Anti-ad blocker sites put reader security at risk, and fall foul of privacy laws.

Ad-blockers are controversial, but are just as much a fact of life as ads are.

 

But now some sites are preventing users with active ad-blockers from accessing their content -- a controversial practice not least because of the security implications, but also as it falls foul of privacy laws for an entire continent.

 

Elephant in the room: ads keep websites free for everyone to access, but they also keep writers and content creators in business because ads are the driving force behind our wages.

(Sites like ZDNet and sister-site CNET are both ad-driven communities, for example.)

 

But these users have long been accused of taking online content for free without giving anything back.

 

When the ads go, there's no way for the site to make money.

 

Enough was enough for some sites, including Forbes and Wired, which are on-and-off experimenting with not letting people through the door until they turn off or disable their ad-blockers.

 

Suffice to say, it's been some time since I've been to Forbes.

 

Millions use ad-blockers to scrub pages of flashy, garish, and memory-consuming ads for aesthetic reasons. But ad-blockers are a vital defense in preventing malware and ransomware -- yes, ads can serve up malware, and more often than you think.

 

So cue the "surprise reaction" when some Forbes readers complied and turned off their ad-blocker, only to be immediately served a stream of malware-ridden ads that were designed to trick users into installing what they think is legitimate software.

 

Thought it was a one-off? A few weeks later, almost exactly the same thing happened with the BBC, The New York Times, and AOL sites.

 

These kinds of deceptive ads have become so much of a problem, Google is now warning users when a website is found to serving malicious ads.

 

Anti-ad blocking techniques are controversial. But they might not last that long, if Europe has anything to do with it.

 

According to a letter sent by the European Commission to privacy campaigner Alexander Hanff, who later posted it on Twitter, the browser scripts that detect ad-blocker plugins need permission to run before they can act. That's because of a 2011 cookie law, which mandates that websites ask for consent before they put tracking cookies on your computer.

 

That's bad news for anti-ad blockers in Europe, but means little to the rest of us.

 

News readers bring nothing but the power of their click. And the handful of sites that continue to push profits over the security of their readers don't deserve the clicks in the first place.

 

 

Source:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/websites-that-reject-ad-blocker-readers-do-not-deserve-your-clicks/#ftag=RSSbaffb68

 

 

--------

 

Have to say, If I ever come across a site asking me to disable my adblocker, I just leave.

I refuse to surf without an adblocker running.

[allheart55 Cindy E]

I was trying to access a site yesterday (Forbes) for an article reprint.

The site refused entry to me unless I disabled my ad-blocker.

I browsed to a different site.

[Mommalina]

Same here. If the subject of the title seems interesting, I Google

it to find another site for the information.

So cue the "surprise reaction" when some Forbes readers complied

and turned off their ad-blocker, only to be immediately served a

stream of malware-ridden ads that were designed to trick users into

installing what they think is legitimate software.

 

Ideally, sites should be mandated to "beta-test" all ads before allowing

them on their sites, guarantee they are malware-free, and be civilly

and criminally liable for any malware they miss. Dream on ..... :(

[starbuck]

guarantee they are malware-free, and be civilly

and criminally liable for any malware they miss.

Yep, it should be about 'accountability'.

If they accept the ad, then they should be help accountable for any problem arising from it.

Sounds simple..... but like you say, it'll never happen.

[Digerati]

I have to admit I have mixed feelings about this. To be sure, I hate most ads so I use an adblocker (AdBlockPlus for IE). But I also like and want sites to be free and I accept that these sites need revenue to keep running, and the site owners and support personnel need to feed and shelter their families.

 

It is the same feelings I have for the developers of free software (which IMO, is often the best out there). I don't mind if CCleaner, for example, wants to install a toolbar AS LONG AS I am given an easy and readily apparent method to opt-out of any extra stuff I don't want "foisted" on my system. For this reason, I always recommend users always select the custom install option when installing any software, free or otherwise.

 

When it comes to ad-blockers, I prefer to not notice anything when ads are encountered. That is, I like it when the space the ad would normally take up is just gone and other site content moves in its place. But more and more recently I've been seeing (for lack of a better term) "place-holders" where in place of the ad, there is a box or banner saying something to the effect, "We see you are using an ad-blocker, please disable it on this site so we can remain free".

 

While I understand and appreciate the sentiment, I find that almost as irritating as the ad itself. Part of the problem with ads is they take up display space - that is, they are obstacles in the way of the information I am seeking! :mad: And for some folks, these ads (or placeholders) are consuming bandwidth and end up costing the consumers in their monthly data usage. That's just not cool!

 

Lastly, I don't like that fact these sites can tell I am using an ad-blocker in the first place! :mad::mad: To be sure, I am not a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. I don't believe Microsoft, for example, is big brother, or spying on us for evil intent. And unlike many, and especially many Microsoft and W10 bashers, I fully understand the difference between privacy and security. But I feel these sites who are checking to see if I am using an ad-blocker are not only invading my privacy, but possibly threatening my security too. I may be demonstrating my programming ignorance there (I'm a hardware technician, not a coder), but that's how I feel, and I don't like the feeling that sites know what add-ons I am using.

 

As far as sites that actually block access if I am using an adblocker, I say "great!" as now I know what sites will NEVER get my business - so, IMO, their loss, not mine. Now I just wish AdBlockerPlus (or another add-on) would alert me about those sites before I visit them so I don't waste my time.

[DSTM]

I refuse to uninstall my ad blockers for any site as ads often contain malware.

Finding more and more sites blocking access completely, and like Cindy says I look for alternative information. I agree them knowing I am using ad blockers I feel as others do it is invading my privacy.

Good software manufacturers make their money from paid versions of their software.

Soon I feel we will be blocked from accessing Videos on YouTube and other video sites as well.

They all seem to be jumping on the bandwagon, and it can only get worse.

[Bill M.]

I find WOT does a pretty good job of alerting me to potentially dangerous sites. I have also switched to U Block Origin from Ad-Blocker Plus and it seems it does a better job in not telling sites I am using it.

[Digerati]

Good software manufacturers make their money from paid versions of their software.

Well, true, but that does not mean free versions are of lessor quality. CCleaner is a good example. So is MBAM and EaseUS Partition Master - which is free for home, non-commercial use.

 

As far as ads may contain malware, that also is true. But the vast majority of these sites are totally legitimate and safe. And malware can be imbedded anywhere, not just in ads. Just as legitimate sites can be hacked. But to that, malware is why we keep Windows updated and use decent security software - regardless the object that contains the malware. So ads are more a privacy issue, not a security issue - and to a greater extent, IMO, an annoyance issue.

 

Again, there is a HUGE difference between privacy and security. Privacy issues just want to learn what you are doing so they can (1) like Microsoft, improve their services or (2) like Newegg and Google, target you with ads for things you might like. Security issues are real threats with the intention of stealing our passwords to our bank accounts, opening accounts in our names, compromising our computers for various nefarious deeds, steal our contacts, or perpetrate physical harm on us or our families.

 

Frankly, I am more afraid of my cell phone provider than Microsoft. Microsoft only knows the physical location of my PoP (point of presence) - where my ISP connects me to the Internet backbone. In my case, that is 10 miles over in the next town. My cell phone carrier, on the other hand, knows, to within a couple meters!!! :eek: where I am standing, where I've been, and the direction I am heading. They may even know which aisle in the store I am standing in so they can target me with ads for something I am standing next too! Now that is scary.

[allheart55 Cindy E]

Lastly, I don't like that fact these sites can tell I am using an ad-blocker in the first place! :mad::mad: To be sure, I am not a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. I don't believe Microsoft, for example, is big brother, or spying on us for evil intent. And unlike many, and especially many Microsoft and W10 bashers, I fully understand the difference between privacy and security. But I feel these sites who are checking to see if I am using an ad-blocker are not only invading my privacy, but possibly threatening my security too. I may be demonstrating my programming ignorance there (I'm a hardware technician, not a coder), but that's how I feel, and I don't like the feeling that sites know what add-ons I am using.

It is not only an ad blocker that web sites can determine you are using.

Most sites today identify much more than this.

They can see what operating system you are using as well as your current browser.

Many can also determine the hardware in use.

 

I don't really see it as a threat to my security or my privacy.

It has become the norm.

I am also careful where I browse and I won't patronize a site that demands that I disable my ad blocking software.

[Digerati]

Yeah, your browser and OS are something they've long been able to detect. Not sure about hardware, however. I guess the plug-in/add-on goes along with the browser.

 

I agree and for me, I don't feel my security is threatened, or my privacy either. But I do think it is sad it has become the norm. And I guess that is what irritates me. People used to respect other's privacy. Now it seems they feel no one is entitled to any - even in their own homes. :(

 

I am also careful where I browse

I think that is key as the user is always the weakest link in security. Plus, the most prolific method for distributing malware is through socially engineered methods - that is, through professionally designed scams and cons that trick the user to click on unsolicited links, downloads and attachments. So always being careful and aware is key.

[starbuck]

Not quite sure why the comment about the free versions not being of lessor quality.... the original statement wasn't about free versions.

But all of those free versions do have paid versions.

Of course they offer a free version...... it gets you hooked.

At the end of the day, all this comes down to money!! ... nothing else.

 

It's the same for ads......

Sites will say that they point ads to you based on what you may be interested in.

They are not bothered about what you are interested in...... they are only interested in getting money from an ad that they push to you.

 

As I have already stated ( and others have here) I would never disable my adblocker for any site.

 

I accept that these sites need revenue to keep running, and the site owners and support personnel need to feed and shelter their families.

To me... that is their problem not mine.

I didn't ask them to start the site.

If pushing ads is the only way they can make money... then they're short sighted and as I said earlier...... they're only in it for the money.

 

Take facebook as an example:

Started as a student social media site, until Zuckerberg got greedy ..... now look what it's worth!

and nearly all of that comes from ads.

Facebook doesn't care what you post as long as the ad money keeps coming in.

 

So like many others, I'll keep ads off my browser pages for as long as I can.

[Digerati]

To me... that is their problem not mine.

I didn't ask them to start the site.

If pushing ads is the only way they can make money... then they're short sighted and as I said earlier...... they're only in it for the money.

Short sighted? So how is a site like PC Help Forum supposed to survive without revenue? How are the site owners supposed to pay for the site software and hosting services? They either need ads, need paid membership, or need ads - or they need to rely on the charity of others.

 

I don't see how sites like Forbes can stay afloat (even as a non-profit) with out ads or subscriptions.

 

No doubt many sites and site operators are only in it for the money. But many are in it because they want to provide a needed service, but they need money to make it happen. Providing a site like PC Help Forum is often completely as a hobby - not as a source of income to shelter, educate and feed their families. But for those who do run these sites as their job, isn't it fair they should earn a comfortable income too?

 

This is why I have mixed feelings here. I don't like ads either but I also feel to provide a quality product, these providers deserve decent compensation for their many hours of work to make it happen - not to mention their overhead expenses too, rather than expect them to pay for out of their own pockets.

 

What I find really frustrating is paying for something and I still get ads. I pay through the nose every month for cable TV and still all my shows are full of commercials. :( Yeah, I can record them then skip the commercials, but I have to pay $12.99 extra per month for the darn DVR service, plus more for the box!!! :( But I digress now.

 

Anyway, I don't know what the solution is but I agree with you. I am not disabling my adblocker either.

[AWS]

For the record there are no ads here and if I ever do decide to run them they will only be visible to guests.

 

If I visit a site that tells me to turn off my adblocker to view content I leave and never return. With the wealth of information freely available I am sure what I was looking for on that site will be found on another that is less intrusive. I didn't use to feel this way. I used to turn off the adblocker on those sites. However I have bought subscriptions to a few of these sites and in the last couple months the ads also appear to us paying customers. If that is how they want to play it they lose my money and me. As I said the same content can be found on thousands of news sites.

[Digerati]

For the record there are no ads here and if I ever do decide to run them they will only be visible to guests.

Sorry - bad choice of example on my part. But it suggests one thing, you are NOT in it "only for the money!" :) But rather, simply want to provide a venue where folks can get help.