• IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Basically how I browse the internet these days … if I have to click on a bunch of stuff, sign up, register, accept a bunch of notifications, cookies, blah, blah, blah … all because I want to read 200 words on your dumb site … I’m not even going to bother with your site, skip and find a different source that is easier.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I go a step further and block them in DDG. This includes any “article” I have to scroll through to find the answer.

    • archonet@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Get PopUpOFF and AdNauseam. Don’t just back down without a fight. If I need to read an article to find some information I am going to read it, dumb bullshit be damned, even if I have to break half your site to do so. I’ve even been spiteful enough to hack away at the page with inspect element if it still manages to get past those add-ons.

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Generally for news websites … especially highly rated ones that are supposed to be the best professional outfits … if I can’t use ‘reader view’ and just read your copy … I’m skipping your site and never going back to you.

        All I want to do is read the news … you don’t need to sell me on a great refrigerator or a cigarette lighter that has a flame that can melt steel because I’m never going to buy it.

        • archonet@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          NoScript tends to break more things on the page than is desired, in my experience, I used to use it but eventually I got rid of it because of the hassle of “is this the one I should add an exception for to make it work? No. How about this one?” repeat until you figure it out, and then repeat the whole process for every website you ever use

          Using AdNauseam’s built-in uBlock, I can use its element picker if something is particularly stubborn

          Don’t get me wrong, I like NoScript as a concept and think it should exist for the subset of users who want that functionality, but it’s not for me.

          • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            and then repeat the whole process for every website you ever use

            The thing is that you soon reach a point in which most of your frequently visited sites are already properly permissioned. After that, only newly visited domains need any special attention, and that’s assuming you’re there to do anything other than read some text or view an image.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Occasionally my phone recommends an article to read that I find interesting, I click it and it opens in the built in chrome based browser and is a sea of ads. Fortunately there’s an “open in Firefox” button so I actually can read the article

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Someday soon my “adblocker” might be a personal AI that reads the spam-ridden website on a virtual display in memory, identifies the actual content while pretending to look at whatever ads the site demands, and then passes the information I’m actually looking for along to me. Good luck captchaing that.

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      І ԁоո’t раrtісulаrly thіոk thаt summаrіzеrs аrе а gооԁ gоаl, sіոсе аі summаrіеs саո оftеո bе wrоոg, mіsіոtеrрrеt іոfоrmаtіоո, оr оmіt іmроrtаոt іոfоrmаtіո thеy fаіl tо іԁеոtіfy аs іmроrtаոt.

      I think if that starts to become common people should start using tools like this as well as the use of pre-baked PDF or image rendered text to thwart it on their content.

      • TehWorld@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is a really interesting little project, but there’s no background info available. Making this be a plugin for that ‘other’ site that most of us left would be great. I still surf there once in a while but no longer comment due to their policy changes.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not talking about a summarizer, I’m talking about a classifier. It just needs to identify which parts of the page are advertising and which are not.

        The point of such a tool is that it would read the web page in exactly the same way that a human would, so using trickery like pre-rendered images of text or funky unicode wouldn’t really change anything. If a human can read it then so can the AI.

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          That could be useful, if ads get to the point where removing their elements manually is no longer possible. I don’t think that’ll happen for a while though, as long as were still using HTML and Javascript which downloads and runs pages locally inside of our browsers.

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      An AI feature actually useful for consumers? Corporate overloards say no thx, let’s instead create fill the net with more AI-generated SEO bullshit

  • Aneb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Umm I was reading the comments, does nobody else go into the page’s HTML and delete the “pay now” popup. Usually deleting the code works for me. Let me know if you have a way that works for you!

    • Fleppensteyn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Sometimes the reading mode bypasses paywalls and popups.

      Also make sure to block “annoyances” in uBlock.

      For the rest, I’m using the Nuke Anything extension.

    • newcockroach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I used to do that but it turns out ublock has a option for that!! When u click on the ublock plugin that is a thunder symbol option which u can use to delete any element on the page. 🙃

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      That sounds like a lot of work. On sites where that work (which is not all of them, some are made by competent people), firefox “reading mode” just do the job.

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I guess a lot of people have a strange aversion towards messing with the code of websites. Which is weird and dumb, it’s downloaded to your browser, it’s not running on their system, you’re free to mess with it as much as you want. Best to familiarize yourself with the Web developer tools, they can be an effective weapon against scammy sites which use deceptive methods like this.

      • InputZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Plus the worst thing that can happen is the webpage crashes, just hit reload and you’re back baby! It’s the safest environment to fuck around with code. A person would have to go out of their way to actually make a problem, maybe some random kid too. They get into everything.

    • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Generally the first thing I try is to hit ESC to stop a paywall script from running.

      If that doesn’t work I try pressing ctrl-A ctrl-C to copy the whole page as soon as I see something. This works on pages that load and are then hidden by a script, but you have to be quick. Then I open Notepad and paste. If this doesn’t work I’ll either try it once more and see if I can be faster or just say screw it, if they want to hide their content that bad I don’t need it. If it’s important to me google will usually find the same news or info somewhere else.

    • Mr. Satan@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Depends, some pages don’t actually load the full content. Removing the paywall pop-up doesn’t really work then.

      • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        There are some websites you can use to avoid a paywall for a newspaper sites, sometimes even loading the otherwise hidden content when removing the paywall code or manually removing the paywall overlay using an ad blocker. I forgot the one I used to use, but I found a Reddit post about it.

    • tehmics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’d rather just leave if I hit a pay wall, I want to hit their metrics. but I have a huge amount of blocked elements via ublock and a handful of my own tampermonkey scripts for frequently used sites

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve found this rarely works myself, due to them disabling other parts of the page, it’s less hassle to just find the article elsewhere

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Many moons ago I worked briefly on an ad prototype that aimed to replace banner ads, particularly those that sit in content with a single bottom overlay that would “smartly” unobstruct the viewing experience of the page. I was able to reduce a full page of horrible ads into a single box at the bottom of the page that could be closed whenever.

    The idea fell completely flat for various reasons, but some off the top of my head:

    • We have x advertisers that NEED to be on this page - how can we possibly get x on the page with just one box?
    • I don’t care if people use ad blockers, let them do their thing and we’ll target those that are happy to see ads
    • If people can easily close them, the reflex to close will mean no ad is glanced.

    The sad stat that came out was that obtrusive ads, the kind that used popups or automatically opened apps to download were VERY effective. I could prove that my ads were several times more effective than “normal” banner ads and popups, but when you could sell 10x the ads it didn’t matter if they were 10x more effective.

    My brief stint in advertising made me feel that for many years people didn’t care about those that blocked ads because there was always more shit to optimise or grow into. That has stagnated, so now the likes of Google are targeting “market share” by getting those that block ads to look at ads again. It won’t work, at all, but it feels like they’ve now optimised themselves into a hole.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s ironic, they depend on perpetual growth, which means the more efficient they get at growing, the faster they outgrow their effective markets and then end up in a position where they need to further optimize optimal positions.

      Sure, there’s probably smaller optimizations they could make, but they don’t just depend on growth but a certain % of growth.

      Cornering markets is the beginning of the end for businesses in our growth obsessed system.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      What they’re “forgetting” is that those who block ads are more likely to say “fuck product X I’ll never buy it because of this ad” if forced to see an ad. (Well, they don’t care, they know, but they can still sell the “spot” so to speak because the advertisers themselves are dumb enough not know that it is just shooting themselves in the foot.)

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        those who block ads are more likely to say “fuck product X I’ll never buy it because of this ad” if forced to see an ad.

        This demographic is much, much smaller than you probably assume it is–I mean ‘statistically insignificant’ small.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          It very well may be bigger than you think, there’s a reason all the adblock users use adblock, and I know multiple people who do the same thing, and even more that while they may not say “fuck your ad I’ll buy your competitor,” they will only buy the product if they were already going to buy it through their own independent research or word of mouth from trusted friends.

          Honestly, I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone that bought something from a popup or ad in the middle of a news article, maybe the first few “sponsored links” on google when they google the product anyway and were already looking for that amazon link, but that’s about it.

  • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It really depends on:

    1. How intrusive the ads are
    2. If there is other invasive tracking
    3. How “corporate” the website is (SEO garbage AI spam vs genuine indie blogger)
    4. The quality of the article

    But for some reason, 75% of the time I decide to willingly turn off my ad blocker, there’s nothing to block.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s just fine as far as the site is concerned.

    They provide content that is paid for by ads. When you block the ads, you’re using up bandwidth and not contributing to the site’s revenue. They want you gone.

    • NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Peak monetisation. Don’t let them even see the article [copied from another website and run through ChatGPT] until they fork over the entrance fee.

    • save_the_humans@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      At least you won’t use up that bandwidth routing traffic through pihole. You also get a nice cache for faster loading on frequented sites.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      We want them gone. The market goes where the users use it. The Internet did not have the advertising presence it does now when it was conceived. Saying they want us gone means they are the only game in town. They aren’t. They are too big for their britches and need to realize the users dictate the usage.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Rose-colored glasses, dude.

        The internet was full of never-ending pop-ups that opened 2 more windows every time you closed one 25-30 years ago, and the viruses they carried fucked your computer to the point you had to do a clean Windows install. Spam.filters didn’t work and you’d get 500 unfiltered spam messages a day, and since you were on 28-56k using a POP3 system it took an hour to download them before you could sort through them.

        Shit’s bad now, but it was way, way worse back then.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I talk about the prevalence of online ads 30 years ago when Linux was first getting a GUI and wasn’t supported by any major hardware companies, and you respond with this bullshit?

            Fuck right off with that argument.

            You didn’t just move the goalpost you changed fields, leagues, and sports.

            • GladiusB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Almost like I saw the issue and resolved it with knowledge rather than being a victim. If you want to continue to be an asshole about it, you can fuck off with being too stupid to see that shit is different when you can see through the BS ahead of time.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The Internet did not have the advertising presence it does now when it was conceived.

        Do you mean back when it was only the government and universities connected to it, before the web existed? Those times were very different. Practically user was contributing to the internet some way, either through time (like actually creating the software to use it, and once the web existed, creating sites) or money.

        These days, there’s a significantly larger number of freeloaders that want everything for free, without contributing anything back. So far, advertising has been the only effective model to support such users that don’t want to pay.

        • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah it really is choosing beggars. If you don’t want to look at ads to view content you should pay for it.

  • UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Imagine if Newspapers were originally run like web site news

    If you wanted to read A paper, you would have had to buy a year’s subscription

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Isn’t this just the system working as intended? You gain benefit from the content of a website and the people who make the content get compensated via ad revenue. If you choose to not provide them with ad revenue, you don’t get the benefit of the content. It’s basically the same as walking into a store and choosing not to buy a product on the shelf. You’re not “getting yours” by not buying something, you’re getting nothing and paying nothing, zero benefit for zero cost.

    • twinnie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t know how people who block ads are so delusional to think that these websites would be sad to see them go, any more than shops would be sad to see shoplifters take their business elsewhere.

      I get why some people might block ads but don’t kid yourselves, you’re blocking the only revenue stream for most sites and it doesn’t cost you anything. I’m not taking about tracking of course, sites that track you can get fucked.

      • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not taking about tracking of course, sites that track you can get fucked.

        That’s essentially every single website that runs ads. The tracking is in the ads.

    • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      and the people who make the content get compensated via ad revenue

      We’re assuming that the only possible goal is money. The people who make the content can also get compensated by enjoying the propagation of their ideas, just as one example.

    • archonet@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This is exactly why I choose to persevere with ad-blocking addons and make their website work the way I want it to without dumb bullshit getting in my way. :D

      If you want people to use your website, make your website usable with unobtrusive ads or I’ll make it usable for me, and you won’t see a dime of ad revenue. Unfortunately, most sites seem to just double down (which doesn’t work because it just makes ad-blocking even more necessary and popular). Sucks for them.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you want people to use your website,

        Why do you assume that’s the end goal? Pretty sure their goal is to get paid. The website is a means to deliver content to people. If we’re talking about news sites, then I think they’d prefer people buy a newspaper. But since they have to have a website they need to figure out a way to make some money or they’re going to get laid off.

        Sucks for them.

        Well if we’re all having this attitude, then why should anyone care about your preferences for no ads? You’ve taken the low ground and anyone can now say “Sucks for you” if you don’t like seeing ads.

        • archonet@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Why do you assume that’s the end goal? Pretty sure their goal is to get paid.

          … and they get paid by…

          people using their website. More specifically viewing ads while using their website. The kicker is (and I thought I explained this), the more obtrusive they make their ads, the more people use an ad blocker, and the less people will see their ads. I thought I covered that well enough, but apparently not for you.

          But since they have to have a website they need to figure out a way to make some money or they’re going to get laid off.

          If they can’t figure out how to make money without their website being obnoxious and nigh-unusable, then indeed perhaps it’s time they found a new line of work, methinks.

          Well if we’re all having this attitude, then why should anyone care about your preferences for no ads?

          Did I ever claim that anyone cared about my preferences? It’s pretty obvious from the fact I said “most sites seem to double down”, that I acknowledge most websites already don’t give a shit and would rather squeeze as much as possible from the few people not running ad blockers than make the web a better and more usable place for everyone. They very clearly do not care about that, which is very amusing to me, as it means ad-blocking software will continue to improve and outpace shit web developers, as it’s so popular and needed. Which sucks for them, that they’re shooting themselves in the foot.

          Ya followin’ me, sport?

    • The web, “as intended,” worked for several years with utterly no ad content. And when ads did start coming along, they were largely innocuous; little things in side bars, not obnoxious full-page videos that are rarely dismissible.

      Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that the web was designed for commerce or as a way to distribute anything other than information is a lying fucker.

      • nfh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I knew about ad blockers before I started using one. Small sidebar or header ads weren’t really enough to convince me I needed one.

        Now the Internet has so many popups, ads, aggressive video players, requests to accept cookies, all because some people figured out how to make websites more profitable by making them worse. It’s sad, really. The Internet of old was great.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Is your point that technology should never be used for anything other than what it was originally designed for? If that’s the case then please stop using TCP/IP for anything other than advancing US military weapons research.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I did in the past. But now my internet connection involves co-ax cable. So please send all replies in an analog video form, since that’s what that cable was designed for.

        • My point was that the comment I was replying to implied that the web was created so that people could monetize content. That was not the reason why the web was created.

          If I create a whingdoodle that provides people with free electricity, and you find a way to murder cities with it, then you can’t claim it’s “functioning as intended.” I didn’t intend for it to do that; you found a way to pervert it. Now, Billy found a way to prevent you from murdering him with your weaponized wingdoodle, and you argue that he shouldn’t, because the wingdoodle is “functioning as intended.” I’m calling bullshit on that. That was my point.

          • tomalley8342@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            When he said “the system”, he probably meant the system of ad funded services, not the system of the World Wide Web, the HTML markup language, the URL system, and HTTP as envisioned by Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee (born 8 June 1955),[1].

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            There’s http response code 402 (payment required) which comes before even 404 (page not found). Indicates to me that people were thinking about using the web for commerce even before they thought about people putting in a wrong URL.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Don’t know if that’s true. People invested in it as a bubble - knowing that someday the companies running sites within them would be worth trillions. And they were right (though not about which ones would be worth that)

        I remember seeing a lot of dinky banner ads back in the day.

    • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      My less tech savy younger family members have learned to completely ignore ads, wait for the skip button and effectively avoid all the false skip buttons on account of playing mobile games with ads since they were babies. Advertisers have perfected the human brain of people who rawdog the internet to be incapable of retaining any information from any ad they see and finding skip buttons wherever they may be.

      From my personal observational account, i think I’ve only seen boomers and some older millennials ever interacting with ads. A gen alpha’s brain wouldn’t even remember an ad they just saw. They have perfected filtering them.

      • helloworld55@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Ads work differently than that. At least good ones do.

        A good ad is almost imperceptible in presenting an idea to you. I have no doubt that people that are bombarded with ads that they say they “ignore” are still influenced over not having seen the ad at all

  • NutWrench@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Advertisers abused the hell out of us back in the early days of the Internet and we haven’t forgotten. Multiple Pop-ups, pop-unders and seizure-inducing banner ads.

    If they simply stuck with small, basic, non-flashing banners, I could have handled it. But greed knows no limits with advertisers.

    • yamanii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yep, they brought it upon themselves, I still remember as a kid falling for a “you are the visitor number 1 million” and getting a virus; and now we have porn and cults advertising on youtube, nothing changed.

    • Holyginz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Honestly I wouldn’t even mind some basic banner flashing, i.e. not neon fucking strobe and plastered over everything. I can understand them wanting to get a little bit of an eye catch. But not all of the ads can be like that and not with pop-ups and shit.

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I certainly do lot miss the days when I’d go onto a website covered in ads for cheap, garbage MMOs… And then suddenly hear random music really fucking loudly. Scrambling to figure out where it’s coming from I’d find 4 or 5 smaller windows has opened up behind my main browser window.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I will try to unblock ads on a new site one time. I want to see the whole article on one page, No click-through gallery of 27 different takes. There can be ads in the borders and margins. And maybe if I’m feeling generous one in the middle of the content. I don’t want to see an unrelated pop-up video I don’t want to see every paragraph separated by another ad.

    If they can’t play nice I block the ads, If I can’t, by default, see the content without the ads, I’ll find the article on another service. Everyone’s literally just copying the same content back and forth with different wording.

    If I can’t see the content, and I can’t find it on another service, I’ll generally use bypass paywalls clean. If I can’t see it through that I don’t see it.

    I’m not giving in for this b******* ads all over the place scenario. You can’t even read a recipe page nowadays without an ad blocker.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      You can say “bullshit” here, lemmy isn’t so concerned with making everything child friendly to appease advertisers like tiktok or youtube.