Ad Blocker

[bob213]

I'm running Windows 10, Chrome Browser, AdBlock+ and use MSN as my home page. For the last week or two I have been getting a message that says the page is having difficulty working with my Ad Blocker. Is this just a ploy to get me to de-activate my ad blocker or do I need to find a new ad blocker? Any suggestions for a good ad blocker?

[drsteve]

T18skyguy wrote:
I understand that ads pay the bills, but I often wonder how effective are those ads? When's the last time any of us bought something because we saw an internet ad? I haven't that I can remember.

Same here, but someone is responding. Just like the junk snail
mail that fills our mailboxes. If all those offers for credit cards and extended warranties didn't pay off, they'd find another way.

[T18skyguy]

drsteve wrote:

delwhjr wrote:

T18skyguy wrote:
Adblock plus is now in bed with the advertisers(bought off). The best one out there is Ublock Origin.

If your talking about the Acceptable Ads Initiative, Ublock subscribes to it also.
This movement was created to hopefully prevent an all out restriction on sites if you use ad blockers. As has been noted previously on this thread, many sites will now prevent use of the site if you have an active ad blocker. The ads, whether you like it or not, is what keeps most of the web free and open. The initiative is a list of rules and guidelines about ads which is supposed to control the abusive practices that gave rise to the need for blockers. As with any voluntary program it doesn't always work the way we like.
It is a fact that ads are here to stay unless the web goes to pay for play everywhere. Which will be worse?

Advertisers pay when ads are viewed and/or clicked on, and they know how many times their ads are served, and they know when an ad blocker prevents it. If their ads are not seen or clicked, they don't pay.

I don't get how anyone thought wholesale ad blocking was going to continue being allowed, given that advertising pays for the content, the servers, and the bandwidth, among other things.

I understand that ads pay the bills, but I often wonder how effective are those ads? When's the last time any of us bought something because we saw an internet ad? I haven't that I can remember. I have also heard of companies slashing their advertising budget because it's just not effective. I'm more apt to buy from word of mouth from guys like you, or not buy from word of mouth. If someone has a good product, it sells itself in a lot of ways. On a related note, Google was in the process of employing code to detect and defeat ad blockers on Chrome, but they backed out of it, cause you can block everything you want on Firefox. Google doesn't want to lose any market share.

[STBRetired]

What I find extremely annoying is that I subscribe to several sites and they STILL bury me in pop-ups and videos if I don't run my adblocker on that site. I thought that the subscription money, which goes up every year, was supposed to support the site so that the ads were not needed.

[drsteve]

delwhjr wrote:

T18skyguy wrote:
Adblock plus is now in bed with the advertisers(bought off). The best one out there is Ublock Origin.

If your talking about the Acceptable Ads Initiative, Ublock subscribes to it also.
This movement was created to hopefully prevent an all out restriction on sites if you use ad blockers. As has been noted previously on this thread, many sites will now prevent use of the site if you have an active ad blocker. The ads, whether you like it or not, is what keeps most of the web free and open. The initiative is a list of rules and guidelines about ads which is supposed to control the abusive practices that gave rise to the need for blockers. As with any voluntary program it doesn't always work the way we like.
It is a fact that ads are here to stay unless the web goes to pay for play everywhere. Which will be worse?

Advertisers pay when ads are viewed and/or clicked on, and they know how many times their ads are served, and they know when an ad blocker prevents it. If their ads are not seen or clicked, they don't pay.

I don't get how anyone thought wholesale ad blocking was going to continue being allowed, given that advertising pays for the content, the servers, and the bandwidth, among other things.

[delwhjr]

T18skyguy wrote:
Adblock plus is now in bed with the advertisers(bought off). The best one out there is Ublock Origin.

If your talking about the Acceptable Ads Initiative, Ublock subscribes to it also.
This movement was created to hopefully prevent an all out restriction on sites if you use ad blockers. As has been noted previously on this thread, many sites will now prevent use of the site if you have an active ad blocker. The ads, whether you like it or not, is what keeps most of the web free and open. The initiative is a list of rules and guidelines about ads which is supposed to control the abusive practices that gave rise to the need for blockers. As with any voluntary program it doesn't always work the way we like.
It is a fact that ads are here to stay unless the web goes to pay for play everywhere. Which will be worse?

[T18skyguy]

Adblock plus is now in bed with the advertisers(bought off). The best one out there is Ublock Origin.

[drsteve]

Many (but not all) sites have abandoned the flashing pop up windows and auto-start videos that drove so many people to use ad blockers in the first place. Most also compress the ads so they don't hog all your bandwidth.

[Second_Chance]

AsheGuy wrote:

bob213 wrote:
Thanks delwhjr. That was my suspicion. I haven't noticed any problems with the way things work.

I use AdBlock+ also and you are lucky because an increasing number of websites are now blocking your view of the page if you do not agree to disable your ad blocker for that site. So it's up to the user to decide if the site content is worth putting up with ads. If the site offers a digital subscription, that is the alternative to ads for sites you want to have access to.

X2^^. CNN.com and NBCNews.com both recently added ad-blocker detectors to their sites. I can kinda see their side of it. If they can generate revenue - from either ads or subscriptions - they can't continue to operate the business. Your choice.

Rob

[delwhjr]

Adblock+ has the ability to disable many of those page blocks using the block element feature. You manually select the element you want to block and add it to the list of things they block. Unfortunately, some sites will freeze if you do it.

[AsheGuy]

delwhjr wrote:
Adblock+ is one of the best. The message is a ploy on many sites to get people to turn off ad blockers so they can make money from the ad push.

There is no free lunch, somebody has to pay and it's up to you to decide if what they offer is worth paying for through ads.

[AsheGuy]

bob213 wrote:
Thanks delwhjr. That was my suspicion. I haven't noticed any problems with the way things work.

I use AdBlock+ also and you are lucky because an increasing number of websites are now blocking your view of the page if you do not agree to disable your ad blocker for that site. So it's up to the user to decide if the site content is worth putting up with ads. If the site offers a digital subscription, that is the alternative to ads for sites you want to have access to.

[bob213]

Thanks delwhjr. That was my suspicion. I haven't noticed any problems with the way things work.

[delwhjr]

Adblock+ is one of the best. The message is a ploy on many sites to get people to turn off ad blockers so they can make money from the ad push.