Sophos Cloud Optix
Moderators of Reddit’s popular Technology subreddit may give websites that block adblockers a reason to reconsider.
In a post published on Sunday, a moderator named creq said the /r/technology moderators are considering banning links to websites that block adblockers or keep content behind a paywall, and asked the community to offer feedback.
The post specifically mentioned Wired, which in February moved to block adblocker users unless they disabled their adblockers or paid for a subscription to an “ad-free” version of the site; and Forbes, which has a similar ban in place, offering users who disable their adblockers an “ad-light” version of the site.
Pointing to an incident earlier this year where a security researcher reported being served malicious advertising on Forbes.com after disabling his adblocker, creq said the moderators “see this as a security risk”:
It has come to our attention that many websites such as Forbes and Wired are now requiring users to disable ad blockers to view content. Because Forbes requires users to do this and has then served malware to them we see this as a security risk to you our community. There are also sites such as Wall Street Journal that have implemented pay-walls which we were are also considering banning.
We would like all of your thoughts on whether or not we should allow domains such as Forbes here on /r/technology while they continue to resort to such practices.
Thank you for the input.
So far, creq’s post has attracted over 3400 comments – the top 200 comments appear to show near-consensus support for the ban on links to domains that prohibit ad blockers, although there is some dissent about banning links to sites with paywalls.
“I think a warning should suffice for those [paywall] sites,” commented user engineer-everything.
Another commenter, tehmlem, said banning links to websites that block adblockers might “encourage responsible ad sourcing,” by “cutting into the revenue” of those sites.
Over Reddit’s private messaging, creq told me that the primary goal of the ban is “to keep the readers of /r/technology more safe” by not directing users to sites that “essentially request that they disable security features on their browsers.”
A secondary goal is to discourage websites from requiring users to disable adblockers, creq said.
The ban on links to those sites could be enforced through Reddit’s AutoModerator, which moderators can configure to block specific domains.
Creq wouldn’t say whether, or when, the moderators would implement a ban, or which sites users would be blocked from submitting links.
Initially, the moderators would use “previous knowledge” and reports from users to create a list of banned domains, creq told me.
Users submitting links from banned websites would get a message explaining why, and encouraging them to submit a similar link from a different source, creq said.
At some point, the r/technology moderators might share their rules with other subreddits, creq said:
Down the road we may end up setting up some sort of repository that we will make available so that other subs could use and contribute to it. For now though that’s future stuff.
Some in the advertising industry have complained that adblockers amount to “censorship,” and critics of the growing adblocker industry say that adblockers who make revenue by charging advertisers to participate in “acceptable ads” programs are a “protection racket.”
Yet adblockers are increasingly popular with users who are fed up with some of the ad industry’s more intrusive and annoying tactics (such as pop-unders, pop-overs and autoplaying videos).
Adblocker users are also concerned about invasive tracking by online ads, and, of course, the risk of malvertising.
According to a study by ad-tech company PageFair, there were around 200 million adblocker users in 2015.
With so many web users changing their browsing habits, a growing number of content providers experimenting with new revenue models, and adblocker companies springing up over night, the only participant in the online advertising struggle that doesn’t seem to be changing tactics is the advertising industry itself.
Might as well. As soon as I see that message that I can’t proceed until I turn off my adblocker, I turn around and go elsewhere.
Because you expect everything for free.
Its not that people expect everything for free but that no one wants to risk their security just to see something that’s intrusive and annoying. Even if the ad is just annoying then fine but when security is involved its a problem. They’re not going to fix anyone’s machine that possibly gets infected.
Definitely block those who would block Adblocker. Adblocker is LEGAL.
When will idiot owners of sites get it through their thick, greedy, skulls that PEOPLE DON’T WANT ADS?
Also, sites that block adblocker, it has been noted elsewhere, are losing some serious traffic because of their highhanded stupidity.
People have neither the time nor inclination to bother with sites like that and they aren’t dumb – they installed Adblocker for a reason. Hello?
I get that said idiot site owners want money, but they’re just going to have to find a less slimy and insidious way of earning a quid than using ads – like, oh, I don’t know – getting a real job instead, perhaps?
Boils down to this: ads assume that people don’t know what they want, which I’ve always found insulting – but that’s the reason ads exist.
I think the ad industry is about to nosedive into oblivion. Oh joyous raptures!
The primary point of your argument seems to be that adblockers are LEGAL (your caps), therefore it’s right and proper to block people who block adblockers.
But blocking adblockers is similarly legal, so clearly someone should block sites that block sites that block adblockers, and so ad infinitum.
That’s rather silly. As another commenter here has pointed out, the user gets to set the conditions under which he’s willing to view a page and the provider gets to decide the conditions under which he’s willing to serve it. If they don’t agree, that’s the end of it. Walk away, no whinging, get rid of all this entitlementarianism on both sides. Sounds like a wise suggestion to me…
It’s amazing the journey we as a society have made to get to 2016 where we’re having a serious discussion about a blocker for the blocker blockers.
websites that block adblockers are stealing from their advertisers! They force visitors to display ads knowing the visitors will neither look at nor respond to the ads just so they can bill the advertiser for the view. Advertisers should be upset about this. They should be telling their clients “we’re not paying for a view that you forced on a visitor knowing in advance that it will be fruitless.”
An outright ban sounds a bit harsh, as in some cases there may be no alternative.
I would support adding a mandatory tag to the the link. eg: “Read more on wired.com [Adblockers forbidden]”, just like links to paywalled sites or pdf files are often tagged.
I believe that users are entitled to control what does or does not appear on their computer screens. I also believe that websites are entitled to decide under what conditions they are willing to serve content. If user and site don’t agree, both walk away, with neither having any right to complain.
I agree with that, but at the same time I would rather they moderate their adds better so we all get what we want, us; to view the content without intrusive and potentially damaging adds, them; to have the media appreciated and gain revenue for their work to provide content.
As per usual people expect everything for free on the internet. Never mind they ignore the costs associated with running their favourite websites like employee pay, insurance, server costs, electricity etc etc. And they always wrap it up about ‘intrusive ads’ or some such nonsense.
Paywalls, ad blocker blockers etc are only going to increase. Website owners have to pay their bills somehow and no matter how much the freeloaders want things for free – that’s not how the real world works.
I wouldn’t be so adamantly against what Forbes, Wired and others are doing if they only required you to whitelist their individual site. Unfortunately they require you to disable all adblocking for all sites and I will never do that. I may never read another Forbes or Wired article again which I will miss but similar information is available with a few clicks. I would never turn off my anitvirus, even for one program, and with malvertising and other nefarious adverts, I will never turn off my adblocking either, even if it is to only one site.
My approach (on LinkedIn) is that when I run into an adblockerblocker or a paywall I leave a warning in the comments section.