French newspapers start blocking readers who use adblockers

[rogueMatthias]

Perfectly fine with me. If companies want less viewers, then so be it.

Yeah, pretty much. I've already had to drop a few sites I used to go to for news because they did this. It doesn't make people go "oh well," it just makes people go to places that don't force them to disable their adblocker.

Forbes is doing that now. I just refuse to read anything from them. Serves them right to lose readership.

If you have an ad-blocker on then you're happily using all their content THAT THEY"RE PROVIDING AT COST, and blocking their way they make revenue.

I'm pretty sure that they don't give a crap about having less viewers if those viewers are using Ad-Blocker. That's like a Supermarket blocking people from stealing shit and people saying "Well, I won't be going there now then, They've got one less customer". They'll be quite happy that you're fucking off. That;s the whole plan.

More and more sites are going to block people with Ad-blockers so you better get used to less and less sites available. Otherwise, every site is just going to be :"pay for subscription" based. Would you really prefer that?

[Jotaux]

If you have an ad-blocker on then you're happily using all their content THAT THEY"RE PROVIDING AT COST, and blocking their way they make revenue.

I'm pretty sure that they don't give a crap about having less viewers if those viewers are using Ad-Blocker. That's like a Supermarket blocking people from stealing shit and people saying "Well, I won't be going there now then, They've got one less customer".

More and more sites are going to block people with Ad-blockers so you better get used to less and less sites available.

It would be closer to someone at a book store reading the books there instead of buying them.

[rogueMatthias]

It would be closer to someone at a book store reading the books there instead of buying them.

Which again they'd throw you out for, and bar you from the store if you kept coming back to do it.

[Tuesdays]

Forbes is doing that now. I just refuse to read anything from them. Serves them right to lose readership.

Yup, came to say the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

It would be closer to someone at a book store reading the books there instead of buying them.

I am sure if book could cause you harm, people would also stop reading them.

[Heladys]

If you have an ad-blocker on then you're happily using all their content THAT THEY"RE PROVIDING AT COST, and blocking their way they make revenue.

I'm pretty sure that they don't give a crap about having less viewers if those viewers are using Ad-Blocker. That's like a Supermarket blocking people from stealing shit and people saying "Well, I won't be going there now then, They've got one less customer". They'll be quite happy that you're fucking off. That;s the whole plan.

More and more sites are going to block people with Ad-blockers so you better get used to less and less sites available. Otherwise, every site is just going to be :"pay for subscription" based. Would you really prefer that?

Yes, I would. Paying for a subscription isn't an open door to trojan-filled ads that rape my computer, and I get to make that choice.

They don't want us reading that's fine, but I will not disable the adblocker to give them a second chance. If we're both happy with that so be it.

[Cyi]

If you have an ad-blocker on then you're happily using all their content THAT THEY"RE PROVIDING AT COST, and blocking their way they make revenue.

I'm pretty sure that they don't give a crap about having less viewers if those viewers are using Ad-Blocker. That's like a Supermarket blocking people from stealing shit and people saying "Well, I won't be going there now then, They've got one less customer". They'll be quite happy that you're fucking off. That;s the whole plan.

More and more sites are going to block people with Ad-blockers so you better get used to less and less sites available. Otherwise, every site is just going to be :"pay for subscription" based. Would you really prefer that?

Stop making sense as you are dealing with people who feel it is wrong for a company to make money off their product. These people want everything free. Now I will agree, that websites got a little crazy with their ads, but most now that force you to white list them have very minor ads and I don't even notice them.

[Tijuana]

I installed one due to MMO-C ads that spring to life at 1000 decibels after you have been afk for an hour. I never felt any need for one until I started reading forums here.

[Jotaux]

I am sure if book could cause you harm, people would also stop reading them.

Well, my comment was more about correcting the comparison rogueMatthias made since nothing was taken from the website.

[Independent voter]

I stopped going to Forbes because they block me. Not missing them really.

[Jotaux]

Stop making sense as you are dealing with people who feel it is wrong for a company to make money off their product. These people want everything free. Now I will agree, that websites got a little crazy with their ads, but most now that force you to white list them have very minor ads and I don't even notice them.

Within minutes of Forbes requiring you to turn off adblock many people were infected with malware.

[Tailswipe]

I stopped going to Forbes because they block me. Not missing them really.

If their only source of revenue is advertising then you are no loss to them either.

[Kujako]

If their only source of revenue is advertising then you are no loss to them either.

Not our fault they have a poor business model.

[Deleted]

Fastest way for a website in 2016 to go nonexistant.
People don't run adblockers because of normal ads, people run adblockers because of intrusive fullscreen ads or ads that try to be invasive by playing obnoxious sounds or idiotic light effects. People run adblockers because of tracking ads that continuously check your online behaviour to then present you with ads based on those, not something the majority of people has asked for.
People run adblockers because it has been proven many times that certain ads where executing malicious code on your machine.
If sites would run normal, non-intrusive ads, i'm sure a lot less people would have installed adblockers in the first place, they have completely brought this onto themselves, and are now playing the "look at us losing revenue" card, yeah, too late for that.

[Tuesdays]

Fastest way for a website in 2016 to go nonexistant.
People don't run adblockers because of normal ads, people run adblockers because of intrusive fullscreen ads or ads that try to be invasive by playing obnoxious sounds or idiotic light effects. People run adblockers because of tracking ads that continuously check your online behaviour to then present you with ads based on those, not something the majority of people has asked for.
People run adblockers because it has been proven many times that certain ads where executing malicious code on your machine.
If sites would run normal, non-intrusive ads, i'm sure a lot less people would have installed adblockers in the first place, they have completely brought this onto themselves, and are now playing the "look at us losing revenue" card, yeah, too late for that.

Well said.

[Rixis]

Stop making sense as you are dealing with people who feel it is wrong for a company to make money off their product. These people want everything free. Now I will agree, that websites got a little crazy with their ads, but most now that force you to white list them have very minor ads and I don't even notice them.

http://www.extremetech.com/internet/...serves-malware

[rogueMatthias]

Fastest way for a website in 2016 to go nonexistant.

Seriously though, HOW is blocking all the people that already block the site from getting venue from them, going to cause them to get less revenue and "go nonexistant" ??

That makes no sense.

[Jotaux]

Seriously though, HOW is blocking all the people that already block the site from getting venue from them, going to cause you them to get less revenue and "go nonexistant" ??

That makes no sense.

Because they are less likely to share a link to a website they cannot view. Whomever they share the link with may not have adblocker up. After awhile people will stop going to the website and the decrease in traffic may cause the site to drop in search engines.

[Tijuana]

Seriously though, HOW is blocking all the people that already block the site from getting venue from them, going to cause them to get less revenue and "go nonexistant" ??

That makes no sense.

The fees they charge for ads are based on web traffic.

[Raetary]

sure, less viewers for them then.

[Deleted]

Seriously though, HOW is blocking all the people that already block the site from getting venue from them, going to cause them to get less revenue and "go nonexistant" ??

That makes no sense.

Because by now around 70-80% of browsers is fitted with an adblocker. Try running a newswebsite on only 20-30% of possible audience; no link exposure, virtually no social media exposure, etc. These sites run on attracting a large amount of viewers who repost their article links.