• spudwart@spudwart.comEnglish
    45·
    1 year ago

    This technically makes this an ad for adblockers. Which, by enabling an adblocker, will disable said ad.

  • TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    39·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • TheKingBee@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      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…

  • KiranWells@pawb.social
    29·
    1 year ago

    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).

  • shortly2139@lemmy.world
    26·
    1 year ago

    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

  • DrRatso@lemmy.ml
    316·
    1 year ago

    Hot take: I don’t 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.

    • ashe@lemmy.starless.one
      202·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • persolb@lemmy.ml
        12·
        1 year ago

        Even with web integrity, I don’t see anti-Adblock working. We’re 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

        • AbeilleVegane@beehaw.org
          4·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • kugiyasan@lemmy.one
            51·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
            41·
            1 year ago

            Still won’t help, I would gladly wait 60s to avoid having scams and car salesmen shout at me for 10s.

      • DrRatso@lemmy.ml
        1·
        1 year ago

        Maybe not prevent entirely, but I am sure they can make it extremely inconvenient to block. Part of the reason I pay for Youtube Premium is that it would be just too much of a hassle to set up PiHole and manage it, to get that ad-free experience across all of my devices.

  • umbraroze@kbin.social
    14·
    1 year ago

    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!

  • Magnetar@feddit.de
    11·
    1 year ago

    Since mastodon and lemmy are federated, could one have postet the mastodon toot directly?

    • Masimatutu@lemm.eeOP
      7·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
    61·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • nik0@lemm.ee
      2·
      1 year ago

      how is that possible because I’d like to know how to do that in general?

      • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
        2·
        1 year ago

        Step one is you don’t refuse files from the server, and try to answer as if you have them when asked in js. But the current actual methods and arms race is happening by comparing computed results, how your page is rendered according to your own browser when probed, vs how the detection code expects it rendered. Adblockers do things like lie, or inject things that can look close enough to ads that you pass the tests. You can see how detection works and try to sidestep what it does by looking at libraries like these https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock

        This one in particular will probably just not run in uBlock out of the box so this one’s pretty easy to sidestep. But you can stuff code like this obscured in your site and another piece of code that checks that it hasn’t been removed. It’s pretty difficult for website develops to win this fight, since ultimately they’re letting us download and render their pages with fairly transparent technology.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        2·
        1 year ago

        In uBlock Origin, you can add filters.

        Either those you download from the internet, or you can go add items yourself by clicking the uBlock Origin icon and selecting the “item picker”.

        Then just click on the item you want to block.

        There are more advanced ways to block stuff, like based upon content. I used this to block all the “suggested for you” posts on Facebook.

    • araozu@lemm.ee
      2·
      1 year ago

      Do they? I remember not long ago I just had to have an ads.js file, and if the user had an adblocker this file wouldn’t load.

      So I just had a

      var ads_enabled = true;

      And I could check if the user had an adblock.

      I think most people just install ublock/others and leave it default. When I tried to customize ublock all those lists and regex pushed me away, never tried again since.

      • gon [he]@lemm.eeEnglish
        52·
        1 year ago

        If it’s worth doing at all, it’s worth doing a little bit.

        I believe you’re referring to iPhone’s clean energy charging feature. Here’s my question: if you can use clean energy, why wouldn’t you? It might make very little difference to the environment, but a little difference is still a difference.

        Still, using ad-blockers is really not like that iPhone feature:

        1. That feature relies on the grid itself, meaning it’s useless for a lot of people that have basically no clean energy where they live, while ad-blockers can be useful to anyone using the internet.
        2. It may be to the user’s detriment, while ad-blockers improve user experience.
        3. It’s device dependent, whereas ad-blockers are available to virtually everyone, not just iPhone users.
        4. Ad-blockers can be combined with clean energy charging.

        The impact ad-blockers can have on the environment is similar to iPhone’s clean energy charging in the same way a healthy diet is similar to eating a carrot. Yes, on the surface level they do just reduce your consumption of fossil fuel-generated energy, but ad-blockers reduce your energy consumption overall, not just trade it for green energy (that still requires tons of fossil fuels to be burned).

        Much love,
        gon

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.eeEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • kopper [they/them]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      You can try to load an image from a subdomain like ads., or from a filename like 468x80.png (see EasyList) to catch all the common ad blockers, maybe with an id of Ad-Container to catch css-based ad blockers.

      DNS based blockers that use regular expressions or wildcards will work with the subdomain approach, but most of them still rely on hardcoded list of domains which means you either need to get a throwaway (sub)domain on their lists OR serve data from an actual ad server (or just live with the occasional false positives from people who believe DNS blocking is enough [which it really isn’t if we’re being honest])

      But honestly, in this case doing it with JS should be fine since disabling JS is a quite effective ad blocker anyway. Here’s how I do it for example: https://ads.d.on-t.work/ad.min.js (and you can try it out at https://w.on-t.work)