Sites blocking people using Adblock

[Oblivion 20,282]

YES ALL OF MY YES! I mean I know why they do it it's still super annoying! 

[Rainbow Cloud 19,285]

It's not too much of a problem for me as I can ironically use one of the features of my add blocker to remove the anti-adblocker messages on most sites

Edited January 7, 2020 by Rainbow Cloud

[Splashee 28,599]

Internet is always evolving. The pop-up banners in the past have almost been extinct, thank god! We can thank the Ad-blockers for this, as well as web browsers for built in blocking such horrible things!

 

People on the Internet will always find ways to make money. I can promise you that blocking people from visiting a website, when the blocking takes away a huge amount of traffic, is a bigger waste of money, than to take other measurements. I always close a site as soon as it says they don't want me for any reason, because there is always someone who gives what I need, for a better offer.

[Tacodidra 61,709]

I always find it annoying, and either find another website or a different way to see the content. The rare occasion when I have to use a computer without an ad blocker immediately reminds me why I use one.

If online ads were just simple banners like in the early 2000s, very few people would feel the need to block them (I never did either). It's ads with sound, pop ups, flashing graphics and slowly loading videos that are the problem.

[Splashee 28,599]

1 minute ago, Tacodidra said:

slowly loading videos that are the problem.

Which reminds me, adblockers still eat up memory on your computer. My computer only has 4 GB of RAM, and after a while, it starts feeling the pain of ads. So while you don't get interrupted by ads on Youtube for example, you do get a slower computer. There is no way around this problem.

[Lucky Bolt 35,239]

I don’t know....I don’t necessarily use a computer. 

[Pentium100 2,297]

If a site requires me to disable adblocker to visit it, I probably will not do that, unless there is something I really need from it and cannot get anywhere else. Sites that do not have an easy way to disable tracking cookies join that list too. If I really need something from such a site, I will use a private window or a VM.

I remember when ads used to be static images - no tracking, no javascript, no sound (very important), no video and no hiding the entire site under an ad that I need to close first by finding the tiny X button.

But later they became too annoying for me and also a way to get infected with malware. So now I use adblock for everything and would not go back to not using it.

 

[Tacodidra 61,709]

24 minutes ago, Splashee said:

Which reminds me, adblockers still eat up memory on your computer. My computer only has 4 GB of RAM, and after a while, it starts feeling the pain of ads. So while you don't get interrupted by ads on Youtube for example, you do get a slower computer. There is no way around this problem.

I've never noticed any significant difference (though I don't have the fastest computer or connection anyway). Or more likely, the gain from not having ads more than makes up for any loss in speed.

I've been on sites with hundreds of blocked ads... I dread to think what it would be like browsing those sites without an ad blocker.

[Splashee 28,599]

29 minutes ago, Lucky Bolt said:

I don’t know....I don’t necessarily use a computer. 

@Lucky Bolt Here, let me show what you are missing. This is a recording of me using Youtube right now (no ads, no delays):

I am using something called "Adblock Plus". It is a bliss!

[EpicEnergy 23,246]

I actually don't use ad-block, I just accept that greedy companies like to bombard their customers with ads in order to get more money.

I think those sites that block people using ad-block are disgusting and greedy.

[Here No Longer 5,286]

It is a phenomenon I find utterly disgusting. Not only does it limit access to their site because of a reasonable gripe with ads being everywhere, but it also is all the more scummy because these sites generally will have ads pretty much everywhere.