back to article Forgive me, father, for I have used an ad-blocker on news websites...

A survey of people using ad-blocking has mixed news for publishers. Thirty per cent of users deploying adblocking software were less inclined to visit websites that forced them to “whitelist” the site. On the other hand, in reality many do whitelist one or two favourites. 77 per cent of adblock software users have whitelisted …

Adblock + Scriptsafe

This combination takes care of all the ads and the associated "Hard Block" that Forbes et al tries to place on you. As the first poster said, "Until they can guarantee that they wont serve me up crap then they can stay blocked"


After having carefully considered the question {after I stopped clutching my sides and laughing hysterically} the answer is........


Silver badge

A sum-up of advertising online

: Snake oil and security flaws.

Thumb Down

We notice you're running an ad blocker . . .

Nope, not at all. It ruins immersion. Its the same with TV, so I avoid ad channels if I watch anything at all.

Why would I fight through several layers of ads to get to content? Similarly with TV, why would I get hooked on a drama just to have the immersion spoiled by some needless snack advert that has nothing to do with the item I'm watching? I exercise choice and leave it out.

Restricted by blocking ads? Not really. I can't read the whole internets in a life time and there is plenty content to see elsewhere so I don't find its that restricting.

The upside of blocking is the total lack of malware alerts.

PS - I have tried to run a browser without ad blocking, its a waste of life, pointless if you want to do anything useful.


Did you know that when you attempt to read an article that's blocked, often you can read the article in plain text by switching your browser to "reader mode"? You do now. That's how I read more than 10 articles a month in the New York Times, using my Lightning Pro browser on Android.


No guilt

No guilt for all the reasons others have listed but my connection is very slow, often under 1Mbps, and I pay for use. I can't afford the overhead that comes with many ad's and popups. So I understand if sites do not want me to visit, which is fine if I have to pay to download more content than I'm interested in then I do not want me to visit their site either.

A better model is to have everyone pay for data they use, and get paid for data they create but business and governments likes taking and using our data, my data, for free so we are stuck with what we have. For now.


If at the end

If, at the end of the month, one discovers he has gone 5 GB over his limit, and must pay $90 US for having done so, a lot of that guilt will be erased with anger.



POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018