Boycott Anti-AdBlock websites: the blacklist

Many users are using AdBlock and similar software to block ads. Since all the websites owner are experiencing a proportional decrease in ads impression, some of them are blocking the visit from AdBlock users intimidating them to disable the plugin or even change the browser configuration.

This decision is a huge interference in the user experience and it’s harmful to user freedom for the sake of money. Since other automated methods exists, the traditional way to solve this issue is to make a list, spread it and boycott all websites listed and contact the website owner until website owners abandon this practice.

There are 2 classes: the explicit AdBlock political warning (W) and navigation block and the misconfiguration (M). The following list comprehend only the website that are blocking or obstruct the navigation at all for all or some contents.

This is a list of fully blocking websites. Alert about AdBlock and suggestions to disable it are absolutely correct!

Do you know any Anti-AdBlock website? Write in the comment the URL displaying the message and I’ll ad it to the list.

See also

A comprehensive list about AdBlockers, open4adblocking

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Boycott Anti-AdBlock websites: the blacklist

  1. Alexander Bischoff

    I have a question for you. If you were running a hot dog stand and some stranger decided to place themselves in front of your booth, and shout obscenities at patrons as they approached? i) Would you stand by and allow them their freedom of speech? ii) Politely ask them to move away? iii) Call the police and have the person evicted? The issues are complex. The stand owner has a right to operate his business. The individual has a right to their freedom of speech. In this case though, the two inalienable rights granted under the constitution are conflicting. In practice, no one would be surprised when the police showed up and accused the person shouting obscenities of disturbing the peace. The problem comes when the issue relates to Internet technology. I am a publisher and I have watched our revenue decrease by 65%. This is a problem and it has been caused by AdBlock Pro, essentially acting as an abusive shouter to my hot dog stand. They allege that I serve poor hot dogs. But this is not their decision to make. It is for me as a publisher to decide what ads I serve; and my readers to decide if they want my offering on my terms. You allegation that I am disturbing their user experience is simply foolish in this context. And making lists of sites to block; for doing nothing else than trying to make a fair living; asking readers to turn off their AdBlocker is preposterous.

    Reply
    1. chirale Post author

      Hi Alexander, thank you for your reply. If you’re simply placing ads on your website you aren’t disturbing anyone.

      This is not a list against all websites that discourage the usage of AdBlock, it’s a list about those websites that intimidate users to disable a software running on their machines in order to read their content because they have to make profit from that page-view. The same message can be conveyed in a different manner, without interfering with the user experience.

      The question you made is misleading since the law in your country probably already covers the “hot dog stand” case, specifically interpreting the Constitution. There isn’t any Constitution of the web, and there isn’t even any universally-accepted “law of the web”. There is not even a law that protect your (and mine) right to profit from our readers.

      Readers aren’t an enemy of the writer but a precious resource, and the profit model of websites should be adapted to changing conditions since technology like AdBlock cannot be stopped in a “hard” way without hurting the readers.

      Reply
      1. Alexander Bischoff

        Hmm; I live in the USA; not sure why my id would suggest other? I do not agree on your comment regarding universal law of the web. Moral law for people does not change because it is the web. The Constitutional rights to pursuit of happiness do not change because it is the web. Slander on the web is still slander. Cyber bullying on the web is bullying. I maintain that a publisher has the right to decide the terms of who can read their web site. Including how they will handle readers using an active AdBlocker. I do agree that the publisher might want to respect their reader. Else the reader will go away. But that is a commercial decision. e.g. I write on politics. You will probably agree that our President’s relationship with Russia is troubling? This is the latest page: https://open4politics.com/issues/russia/trump-lies-re-russia-putin – I invite you to read it. Note: I do not invite comments. If you read it with an active AdBlocker; you “should” see that the top promotional banner (sponsor of information about PTSD and its manifestations) will not get blocked. I agree that making you turn off your AdBlocker would be an intrusive request by me. I am curious what you think of this approach. In which I use technology to ignore your AdBlocker. But serving a banner that conforms to the principles of any better acceptable ads policy? Including showing the destination url?

      2. chirale Post author

        It seems a smart approach to me. You can even add a small message below the banner like “Ads keep this site running, please whitelist it on AdBlock if you enjoy it ❤ ” or even add a Paypal Donation button (maybe I’m eager to tip some money instead of seeing ads).

        Sadly your Constitution is one of the few to talk about happiness. Costitution of my country, Italy, requires “work” instead of “happiness” and, paradoxically, unemployment in my country is 12% an in your is below 5%. Economic freedom is better enforced by your Constitution and laws compared to mine. Constitutions, as bad implemented as they are, express different views of the world, and these views are not universally accepted on the web spreading on different countries. Anyway, you’re right, breaking the law is still breaking the law but solving disputes between citizens of different countries is maddening since they are in different jurisdiction.

        What I say before is that there isn’t any universally accepted law of web since there isn’t a unique accepted body of laws on the entire world. Internet covers the world (and the space since ISS is use Internet) but we are divided by country. 200 years ahead in the future probably this will seems strange to an historian but for now we have to accept these different views on our Constitutions (i.e. on happiness and work) and different laws.

        P.s. Since you’re into Politics, you should know that your country real contribution to the world in this field is the idea of Federation. In Europe we are divided between who want to build a Federation, who want to keep a Confederation (the EU is now in this phase) and who want to return to national states. Putin and Trump are against EU as a Federation of states and both are actively supporting nationalist, anti-EU parties. I’m writing a section with news from your brand new president on my website (in Italian): https://scandalisti.com/trump-presidente/

        If you’re interested in a collaboration (you can ask info about Italy/Europe and I will ask you about USA) contact me at https://chirale.org/contact-me/

        Have a nice day.

  2. mickrussom

    Forbes, businessinsider. Jerks think im going to give up? Most of the stuff is half baked , poorly researched click bait and fakenews anyways, why would I pay. And the ads are tracking ware, scumware, adware, spyware and invasive of privacy.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s