Slashdot Mirror
Wired To Block Ad-Blocking Users, Offer Subscription (wired.com)
AmiMoJo writes: In a blog post Wired has announced that it will begin to block users who block ads on its site: "On an average day, more than 20 percent of the traffic to WIRED.com comes from a reader who is blocking our ads. We know that you come to our site primarily to read our content, but it's important to be clear that advertising is how we keep WIRED going," wrote the editors. The post goes on to offer two options for users blocking ads: whitelist wired.com or subscribe for $1/week.
They can tell the difference, since most of those ad scripts include "phone home" calls to confirm that they're running. If the script is blocked, it'll never phone home and they can tell that you were never served the ad. If the script is run but the ad simply isn't displayed, then they can still track you.
How is selling ads "abusing" them?
How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?
This is like entering into a cage fight and then complaining about getting hurt. Noone makes you go to an ad-supported website and read their content. They aren't using your resources, you are using your own resources (and theirs) everytime you read their content. If you don't like it, stop reading their content but don't complain that they want to support the writers of that content. I have no problem with reasonable ads. I get most of my news from news.google.com which has a nice feature that lets me block providers. If I see an obnoxious ad or I reach the "10 article limit" on a particular site, I just permanently block that news site from my feed. If it's an important story then it will be reported by dozens of sites so blocking 20 or so sites isn't a big deal.
Browsing without an adblocker is like fucking without a condom. You should only do it with someone you really, really trust.
I'm gonna use that as my signature, hope you don't mind.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
When I reach the "10 Article Limit" on a site I just clear my cookies and continue reading.
Love sees no species.
Will WIRED at least pledge to screen the javascript for tracking and malware?
I just checked and here is a list of all the javascript loading from their webpage: wired.com, optimizely.com, disquscdn.com, amazon-adsystem.com, ajax.googleapis.com, pinterest.com, adobedtm.com, scorecardresearch.com, mookie1.com, omtrdc.net, yldbt.com, demdex.net, dff7tx5c2qbxc.cloudfront.net, disqus.com, dy48bnzanqw0v.cloudfront.net, condenastdigital.com, facebook.com, outbrain.com, googlsyndication.com, googleadservices.com, polarmobile.com, twitter.com, mediavoice.com, doubleclick.net, zqtk.net, parsely.com, chartbeat.com, tiqcdn.com, typekit.net, googletagservices.com, moatads.com, mediaplex.com, twimg.com, adsafeprotected.com, dotomi.com, google-analytics.com