Anti-Adblock Killer

[Joshua the Writer]

Hey, I found a solution to "kill" anti-adblocker on news sites and stuff. It's available for Chrome and Firefox, and works 99% of the time on all sites. Basically, it "murders" sites anti-adblock, and works better than a Chrome or Firefox addon/extension. Here is the link: Anti-Adblock Killer. This is basically an exploit that kills adblock on all sites. If you are using Chrome, you must have the Tampermonkey extension installed. If you use Firefox, you need the Greasemonkey extension, instead.

It's good if you don't know how to use uBlock origin.

 

[Greatshield17]

Murders!

 

[Mia]

Sounds good Joshua, I'm all for adblock murderers. My three different ad blocks tend to work quite well.

 

[Misery]

I'll never understand internet ads.

Do the people behind them seriously think that having an ad annoy the hell outta the user, will make that person want to buy whatever is in it? The sheer number and prevalence of adblockers in general should be a freaking tip, yeah?

 

[Joshua the Writer]

I'll never understand internet ads.

Do the people behind them seriously think that having an ad annoy the hell outta the user, will make that person want to buy whatever is in it? The sheer number and prevalence of adblockers in general should be a freaking tip, yeah?

"Ooh! A video ad that I don't want and is eating up my RAM and processing power, and at the same time complicating this site's code! I definitely wanna buy that product now! Take all of my money!" - said nobody who uses the internet, ever.

 

[Crossbreed]

I don't mind passive ads in the margins. (I even enable them.)
I just don't like ads that interfere with the page's content.

 

[Kit]

The internet ads is what helps pay for their website. Every views on the page gives them earnings because of those ads. But since so many people are using ad blockers, that is why we now have to pay for a subscription to read articles. It's getting harder and harder to read free articles on newspaper websites. That means it's getting harder and harder for me to read current events.

Websites can either make you disable ad blocker for that site or turn their website into a subscription service.

I will happily be glad to disable ad blocker just for that website and then turn it back on when I leave it if it means keeping it free.

 

[Crossbreed]

I use an ad-blocker in my main browser, Firefox, but not in my #2, Chrome.
If I can't find a free report in one, I use the next (with ads).

It got really bad on some forums. I couldn't look at member content (images, etc.) without triggering a pop-up ad each. and. every. time.

 

[Progster]

I use uBlock Origin on Firefox, and I rarely ever have to see an ad. I also have an extension called "I don't care about cookies" which blocks pop-ups about cookies, another thing that really bugs me, because I know they are going to put the cookie there regardless whether I want it or not, and so it's pointless. I also use a gif freezer, I hate moving images when I'm trying to read or focus on something on the screen.

I don't get how bugging people with in-your-face ads is supposed to make you want to buy or visit the site even, must it must work or they wouldn't invest so much time and money in them. My guess is that for every ten thousand views, one hundred people might click on the ad and visit the site. Then, for every one hundred views, a person might actually buy something.

You'd be surprised how many people just passively accept all the ads and whatever is thrown at them. The vast majority don't use an adblocker. I feel like I'm in a minority because I use one.

 

[Judge]

You'd be surprised how many people just passively accept all the ads and whatever is thrown at them. The vast majority don't use an adblocker. I feel like I'm in a minority because I use one.

Exactly.

Like the marketing of so many things, what drives it more often than not is a dominance of user ignorance. Just look up the estimates of browser extensions and add-ons used. You might be surprised by how few people overall actually even use technologies to limit or eliminate ads, let alone to enhance their online browsing experience. Beyond that, there's still a huge market of users who are susceptible to online advertising. Just not you- or me.

For us such advertising is a lost cause. However in the big picture, we are a minority of more experienced users compared to a majority of them who remain not only exposed to such advertising, but possibly susceptible to such ads whether subliminally or not. Then consider the economics of online advertising. Hosts get paid for clickthroughs. Online advertisers get paid by corporate clients. And the clients get to write off their taxes involving various advertising costs assigned to advertisers.

In essence the numbers still favor the advertisers, as well do the economics of advertising.

 

[WildCat]

Great, I can now see a distant future where you'll need 20 extensions just to keep the corporate onslaught of garbage at bay.

What was that, they found another work around?

 

[Joshua the Writer]

Exactly.

Like the marketing of so many things, what drives it more often than not is a dominance of user ignorance. Just look up the estimates of browser extensions and add-ons used. You might be surprised by how few people overall actually even use technologies to limit or eliminate ads, let alone to enhance their online browsing experience. Beyond that, there's still a huge market of users who are susceptible to online advertising. Just not you- or me.

For us such advertising is a lost cause. However in the big picture, we are a minority of more experienced users compared to a majority of them who remain not only exposed to such advertising, but possibly susceptible to such ads whether subliminally or not. Then consider the economics of online advertising. Hosts get paid for clickthroughs. Online advertisers get paid by corporate clients. And the clients get to write off their taxes involving various advertising costs assigned to advertisers.

In essence the numbers still favor the advertisers, as well do the economics of advertising.

Companies realize that the reason ad block doesn't exist is because people want to read stuff for completely for free without them, but that most of the time, ads are intrusive and distracting, especially ones that are gifs and/or videos that auto-play with sound on. One or two side bar ads will do the trick, and nothing more is needed.

 

[Judge]

Companies realize that the reason ad block doesn't exist is because people want to read stuff for completely for free without them, but that most of the time, ads are intrusive and distracting, especially ones that are gifs and/or videos that auto-play with sound on. One or two side bar ads will do the trick, and nothing more is needed.

Most people inherently do not even truly understand the very concept of "free". That more often than not, it's just a misnomer and little else. In many economics 101 courses, the very first thing they teach you is the acronym "TANSTAAFL". - "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Meaning that nothing is truly free. It's just a matter of who absorbs a cost in whole or in part. Just as so many Internet users clench their fists and insist that the Internet is entirely free. They simply don't know any better, and assume they have rights in what is largely just another proprietary domain maintained and paid for by others.

As for advertising strategies, sadly they parallel similar dynamics of the 24-hour broadcast news cycle. Where it's not enough to objectively inform their viewers. Rather that they must grab them by their lapels and shake the crap out of them, even over the most benign of stories reported. Subsequently advertisers feel obligated to agitate their viewers rather than merely inform them over the sale of goods and services. Especially those of us like myself who have "banner blindness".

In totalitarian systems citizens often lament over public sector propaganda being aimed at them 24-7. Yet in democracies their private sector is doing essentially the same thing with minimal regulation.

One thing I've found with certain websites is how they "move" slightly before a page completely loads. So if you're in a hurry to hit that "next" button to get to the next article or page, you may inadvertently click an ad rather than go where you intended. Microsoft News in particular. Apart from visual ads that "pop", there is also subterfuge- by design.