zlacker

I am curious. I have a question for all of the people who are in favor of AdNauseum.

How would you react if a website provider was able to detect that you were using AdNauseum, and they blocked your access to their website?

Edit: Expand the question to include other adblockers, not just AdNauseum.

>>inetse+(OP)
I would first argue that being able to detect the presence of specific extension(s) is leaking too much information about the client to the website but that's probably unrelated.

In principle there's no problem with sites that refuse users that don't view ads, I don't visit them, but I take no issue with them.

However, if I request a remote resource from your site and you transfer it to me, you have no say in what my client chooses to do with it.

Do you think it is unethical, immoral, or should be illegal to pay someone to clip the ads out of a free magazine before I read it?

>>inetse+(OP)
Simple: I would stop using the site!

>>inetse+(OP)
In general I'm okay with websites saying, "hey, if you block our ads, we don't want you using our site". I think only a few big sites are doing that so far, typically it's not the kind of site that I'd be sad over.

If it was more prevalent, eg. if Google somehow managed to arrange for all sites serving Google ads to stop working if ads are blocked, that'd change the dynamic. Ultimately it's not gonna lead to me clicking on any more ads and then buying people's stuff, so I don't think it's in Google's interest, but it'd be interesting to see.

>>inetse+(OP)
If the website was one I liked and actually wanted them to get revenue, I would white list them in the extension. I do this on rare occasions when I find sites I really like that object to ad blockers. Usually, though, I haven't been allowed to see their content so no harm done. I just go find something else to click on.