Next, give warnings that Chrome and Edge are not supported browsers.
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
2023 points (99.1% liked)
me_irl
5449 readers
1 users here now
Selfies for the soul.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
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"
π΅οΈ hmmm, corpo shill has been here
That or they're downvoting low effort comments
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.
I'm not sure how, but you can find their username on lemmy π
Yeah... don't though. It is bad practice to target people like that
Agreed
load more comments
(3 replies)
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
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
load more comments
(2 replies)
Hot take: I donβt 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.
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.
Even with web integrity, I donβt see anti-Adblock working. Weβre 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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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).
i donβt really know what im talking about, but wouldnβt it be a bit easier in this case since the goal isnβt to evade the ad blocker? rather than try to detect the ad blocker, wouldnβt it be possible to design the pop up so that itβs easily detected by ad blockers (or annoyance blockers)?
If you're not serving data from a popular ad server like google/doubleclick there will always be a false positive or two, especially with things like hosts-based ad blockers that are extremely rudimentary but work ~60-70% of the time.
And if you manage to serve data from doubleclick then either you're working for them or something has gone horribly wrong. In either case just putting up a script to say "please use an ad blocker" is the least of your concerns.
Yeah, I use this one and got served with the popup as expected
Not all ad blockers remove elements from web pages, and if they acted that predictably you could detect the ad blocker by detecting whether an expected element is hidden.
I have not looked through an ad blocker's code, but I don't believe it is that simple.
Looking at this blogpost for a wordpress blocking plugin, it basically is just adding a bunch of css classes commonly used by ads to a div and some workarounds to support ad blockers that work by blocking files.
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.
yeah the adblock detection doesn't work for me
at least not in Mull with uBlock Origin on Android with AdAway (root)
Just put class="facebook ad" to your div and 99% of adblockers will hide it, really simple.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Not joking, every time a website asks me to turn off my adblocker, I leave and put it on my blocklist so it never shows up again. Then I simply use their competition instead.
i generally go into noscript, poke in the console, or look for a bypass extension, just to spite them.
like sites that disable right click, i scrape them on principle...
It's ok.
Now come and check out your 1 out of 3 free blogpost of the month!
load more comments
(1 replies)
ublock origin support his motion
I love this
Good old Cluley, he also has an award winning podcast, Smashin' Security. It's a light hearted take on recent security events. Its usually 30 - 45 minutes long.
One of my favourites
Uno reverse π
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.
well now I know what's going into my side bar
GET ON MY LEVEL
Graham is awesome. I remember working with him 20 years ago as an ISV rep and he's come such a long way.
Adblock users optimise their adblockers to be invisible to adblock-checking code. If your site works well, and is worth visiting, the only change in behaviour you can inspire is people nerfing their own adblockers.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next βΊ