from the blocked-from-reading-the-article-about-being-blocked dept.
Wired.com is has announced it will block access to ad-block users, who they say make up 20 percent of their traffic. Users can access Wired without ad blockers or subscribe for $1 per week. Wired joins Forbes in blocking access to ad-block users.
Previous coverage:
Forbes Asks Readers to Turn Off Ad Blockers, Then Immediately Serves Them Pop-under Malware
Forbes.com Says "Uncle," Unblocks AdBlock Plus Users
Related Stories
The Forbes 30 Under 30 list came out this week and it featured a prominent security researcher. Other researchers were pleased to see one of their own getting positive attention, and visited the site in droves to view the list.
On arrival, like a growing number of websites, Forbes asked readers to turn off ad blockers in order to view the article. After doing so, visitors were immediately served with pop-under malware, primed to infect their computers, and likely silently steal passwords, personal data and banking information. Or, as is popular worldwide with these malware "exploit kits," lock up their hard drives in exchange for Bitcoin ransom. The exploit used was a version of hackenfreude.
Forbes has recently taken some flack from Soylent News readers for its heavy-handed approach to ad blockers.
I visited Forbes.com today out of force of habit. Ever since few weeks back, I would be greeted with a loading page advertising that since I was using AdBlock Plus I could no longer proceed. However something was different today, the site loaded. Does this mean that we have won a battle against online media outlets tracking our every move across the internet? Or is Forbes merely pulling back due to recent bad press?
[Ed Note: This story ran in Forbes regarding the test.]
[Update: Corrected the initial Forbes URL and trimmed a presumed tracker from the story URL. -Ed.]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:07AM
I never go to their crap site, nor did I ever read their crappy magazine.
Now, at least, if someone posts a link to Wired, I won't have to waste my time reading a few paragraph before realizing that it's garbage.
Thank you, Wired. And I mean that sincerely.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:35AM
I used to read them back in the day when print magazines were still mildly useful. They didn't suck too much back then. Add a couple decades, watch them go full on SJW, behold the absurdity of switching an actual news site to WordPress... Yeah, me and Wired? We're done.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:52AM
Wow, I'm not the only one who doesn't like Wired. I agree. I hope they become invisible to the Internet.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:20AM
and a crazy amount of their 'articles' are actually just ads for list of products. and when I complain about it, they try to palm it off as a review or even "these are products I use" even though a bunch of them happen to be just released [or not even available yet].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:18AM
There are many options but they will never get a cent from me!
- Tor
- Tor w/ any number of the free web proxies
or other methods. I'll never give up blocking ads! If they target the plugin(s) I still have a hosts file!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:27AM
So to paraphrase with what's actually happening: "Wired.com has announced it wishes to decrease MORE than 20% of their traffic, caused by the immediate alienation of 20% of their current readership which will cause a further loss of hits that would have been brought to them by those 20% sharing links to articles they found interesting with friends."
Can't say I went to Wired much myself so I'm not going to cry over it. When Forbes started with the bullshit I simply stopped going to their site which actually worked to my advantage since it meant I wasn't touching their site with a 10 foot pole during the time when they were serving up malware to visitors with their fucked up advertisements.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:28AM
ok... so i get that you want paying users but charging half the amount of a netflix subscription is quite steep for a single site. they would probably get plenty of takers if they made it $5/year but i don't think they'll get many takers for $53/year.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Tuesday February 09 2016, @05:59PM
ok... so i get that you want paying users but charging half the amount of a netflix subscription is quite steep for a single site. they would probably get plenty of takers if they made it $5/year but i don't think they'll get many takers for $53/year.
You can typically find a subscription to their print magazine which includes access to the digital copy for $5/year, so there you go if you want it.
(Score: 1) by mr_bad_influence on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:57PM
Don't you just love paying for ads? I'm willing to be that's what you'll get if you subscribe at any price. They might be static ads but I doubt they will be eliminated as a show of appreciation for your support.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:35AM
can we have a policy for SN to not accept submissions with links to sites that block ad-blockers? i mean, there is no need to encourage bad behavior.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:39AM
The only such sites we get are going to be Forbes and paywalled Wall Street Journal or NYT. If there are more, I haven't seen them.
Forbes links will be killed or replaced because the site handles script blocking so badly. I keep WSJ/NYT links if they are source links or they don't block the article, but provide alternatives.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:08AM
Ten years ago, I used to go to Forbes for financial advice. No more, though.
Matter of fact, I had nearly forgotten all about them.
I still have one of the people I had met through Forbes, a Mr. Ken Fischer, who still to this day keeps sending me mailers, however, I am loathe to send him any of my money, as he is associated with Forbes that basically told me "comply with my business demand or I will ignore you!". Now what do I do if I have entrusted such an entity with my retirement savings?
Fortunately for me, they showed their hand before I signed anything. I really fear what would have happened if I had sent them money. No telling what they would demand of me in order to get it back. Their mailers sure have them looking good in suit and tie, smiling, hand outstretched for a shake, however my commlinks won't connect to them.
By their request - not mine.
Some businesses pay top dollar for the expertise to make them known the world over.
Other businesses pay top dollar for the expertise to slide them into oblivion.
And at the top, top pay goes to the organizational and leadership skill to choose which path the firm under his guidance will go.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:17AM
For our first home loan, wife decided to use a broker.
Nice guy.
Long tail commissions don't pay enough for him to even reply when we wanted to buy our new house.
Suit.
Tie
Smile
Hand out for commission..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 5, Insightful) by anubi on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:23AM
I break out in a cold sweat when I am around those guys.
To me, the suit is the symbol of business indifference. Coldness. Ferengi.
Hardly human. I expect them to function like a profit machine. If I fail to comply, terminate contact. Next! Put on fake smile, extend hand for next patsy.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Bethany.Saint on Tuesday February 09 2016, @03:16PM
> To me, the suit is the symbol of business indifference.
The suit is a sign of physical equality. It hides as many physical traits as possible. Everyone has big shoulders: check. Minimize stomach size: check. Minimize color/flair: check. Suits allow people to compete on skills rather than physical or stylistic attributes.
You've never gone into the office on the weekend and seen your boss in his casual clothes and though to yourself, "Wow! I never realized what a lump he is." Chalk that up to the suit.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:07PM
I see you've been licking the cream sauce the suits have been selling. A suit hides body language, removes hints of personal predilections, and basically camouflages the psychopaths so they appear normal. All predators which survive adopt some sort of attention deflecting surface presentation -- suits are no different. I hope you enjoy being devoured.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Bethany.Saint on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:35PM
I said nothing of the kind. I said suits hide physical and stylistic attributes. Here you are talking about predilections, psychopaths, and predators. These are personality traits that suits have nothing to do with ... except in your oddly creepy world. The world, in the small, is not that awful. Please, talk to a professional.
(Score: 4, Informative) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:16AM
It would only be an encouragement if a significant amount of readers would actually read TFA, so no risk there, I guess :-)
More serious: I'd not like such a policy. A warning, like we often have for paywalled articles, would be nice, and if the editor finds it in his heart and time-budged to find another source for the same news, so be it. It might also be a valid selection criteria if multiple submissions refer to the same topic. But entirely skipping a topic because the article was ad-blocked2 seems to be excessive to me
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @12:13PM
Perhaps we could use a system of icons and let the reader decide.
website that doesn't work without Javascript enabled ☕ [example.org]
website that only works with Flash ✴ [example.org]
website that doesn't work on mobile 📵 [example.org]
website that doesn't work with adblock enabled 💩 [example.org]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @03:41PM
Is there an emoji for "stick your effen emoji up where the Sun don't shine?"
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:27AM
As several of the 'icons' don't display on my screen - I assume you are using emojis which I most certainly do NOT want so I do not intend installing a font that includes them - then might I suggest that you choose more conventional characters to indicate the different types of 'annoyances' that you wish to display?
Secondly, there is room for you in the editorial team. You could easily become our full-time link checker and emoji manager. Alternatively, we could continue the process that we have a present. We try to flag up links that cause problems (PDFs, paywalls, intermittent links etc) but sometimes different editors have different results for the same links.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday February 09 2016, @12:56PM
I can pledge not to submit anything from paywalled sites. I cut Forbes out several weeks ago when they started with their shenanigans and Wired can join them. To be honest I think I only submitted about half a dozen from them in the last year anyway. It has very little to do with geek interests anymore, and the titles are terrible. They're El Reg terrible. El Reg occasionally has something sort of worth reading once you're done sifting through their ridiculous verbiage, but they too are passing over the event horizon of complete irrelevance.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 09 2016, @06:33PM
can we have a policy for SN to not accept submissions with links to sites that block ad-blockers? i mean, there is no need to encourage bad behavior.
No worries. While we may post stories a week late, Wired is about 3-weeks behind us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:35AM
$52 a year? Does their magazine subscription (which will probably give free digital access) even cost that much?
Shockingly, there is no comment section for the announcement.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:36AM
Just checked, and I'm not blocked out in any way because of my adblocker (probably due to noscript).
uBlock has a couple of filters to remove anti-adblock warnings:
https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer [github.com]
https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/antiadblockfilters.txt [adblockplus.org]
Either Wired staff don't know about this, or they don't expect their audience to know about it. Either way, not a place I want to get tech news from. I stopped visiting after their recent(ish) layout change which doesn't really work without javascript. Their stories were mostly guff about gadgets and "geek culture" anyway.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:40AM
I think they haven't put the policy in place yet. They have just made the announcement.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @02:10PM
> Just checked, and I'm not blocked out in any way because of my adblocker (probably due to noscript).
How are doing reading forbes.com [forbes.com] without javascript?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:10PM
i essentially get a blank page.
I run into this kind of website once or twice a month, and always just hit back and go to my next search result.
But I see your point - the anti-anti-adblocking doesn't work with forbes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:37AM
I went to the page. I don't have an ad-blocker installed in my browser: my proxy blocks some of the most prolific advertising sites. However, I see no less than 6 flash object that are blocked by the flash-block plugin. Six!
Here is a hint to Wired: don't abuse your users and perhaps they won't feel the need to block ads.
The snowflakes think that their output is worth $52/year. In the days of glossy magazines, with significant printing costs, perhaps. Now? Look at their "Business" page (for the day after the Superbowl): there is a prominent article "Angry Uber drivers threaten to make a mess of the Superbowl". This isn't news. This isn't anything. This is no one at the wheel.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by anubi on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:07AM
I do not think the Wired leadership is privy to what kind of world we are living in.
One has accomplished the near impossible if he can get people to as much as type a business URL into their browser. Many shill the social media sites trying to lure anyone they can to as much as visit - for even a couple of seconds. Hopefully, if one can get someone to visit, they now have an opening to present what they are trying to sell - they have the customer - for the time being - all to themselves.
Then they spoil that opportunity by aggressively demanding the customer obey business demands? Just what kind of image is this business trying to present? Right off the bat, making demands....
We used to think door-to-door salesmen were bad. Now, they come up, brush in hand, and the first thing they start demanding is to come in and inspect your bathroom, see the inside of your house. One really must want that brush bad in order to put up with such a pushy salesman. They get so pesky people started blocking off their front gates trying to ward off these salesmen. Now its digital. And JavaScript is the "Foot-in-the-door". Get the customer to open the door wide enough so you can get your foot in and they can't close it. Get your script running in their machine. And wonder why people start getting ad-blockers? Same reason as they got German Shepherds.
With all these books on how to present oneself in the best light when looking for a job, you would think these businesses would also be concerned that they present a comfortable, not a threatening, image to their prospects. When one's first impression of a business - delivered through their website - is an ornery, dominating, you-do-what-I-tell-you-to-do-or-I-will-ignore-you sets a business tone that is not soon forgotten.
I leave those sites quickly, thankful that I found out how that business thinks *before* I submitted any orders or remitted any funds.
It goes both ways. If I was looking for a job, and I was even fortunate enough to be granted an interview, and I came across with demands that I be granted access to the companies' computer system before I would even talk to them, something inside me tells me I would see the interview terminated immediately, with me being shown the door, and no way would that guy ever consider me for anything in the future.
All I see is that business flat does not need customers, and has already found someone to fund them that doesn't really care if this guy is actually turning away business. In it for the ego, I suppose. Best to avoid them. Real pain in the ass to deal with. Just count your blessing that they showed their hand before you involved them in your life.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday February 09 2016, @12:39PM
This isn't news. This isn't anything.
This is a drowning man clutching at the dream of library and corporate subscriptions.
(Score: 2) by novak on Tuesday February 09 2016, @07:56AM
Apparently you can subscribe and get both print and digital access for $20, without a discount. This is a cashgrab, pure and simple.
It's also idiotic. Any form of dynamic content is exactly why the ads were blocked- tracking, distracting movement/noise, page bloat, malware- if they had purely static image ads I would probably read some of their articles just so I could support people who stop the insane bullshit of making ads malware. Not that I care to see ads but that it would be such a drastic improvement over what we call ads today.
novak
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:08AM
But what if there is a WiReD Internet of Things article SO GOOD that you just fall off your seat to pay the $1.00 to see it and all the rest of the content for one week?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jimshatt on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:19AM
(Score: 2) by MrNemesis on Tuesday February 09 2016, @01:12PM
Because your IoT fridge doesn't have an adblocker installed and won't stop ordering fresh tripe until you post on Facebook that the Wired article on IoT fridges is the pinnacle of civilisation.
"To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:32AM
Better worry about what you'll do when you win the lottery.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 09 2016, @12:41PM
Why would a good article be there, of all places? With the adblocking, authors will follow the eyeballs to non-blocking magazines.
(Score: 2) by novak on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:29PM
Yeah, either an IoT article or one about cancer- they are roughly equivalent in my mind, although the cancer ones are usually explicitly about eradicating the titular item.
novak
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:40AM
In my experience, sites that complain about ad-blockers are sites that are so annoying without ad-blockers that I would hit Alt-F4 within ten seconds of opening the site.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:18AM
I would hit Alt-F4* within ten seconds of opening the site.
Translator Note: *Ctrl-F4 for those with tab enabled browsers.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @12:06PM
Translator's note: C-g C-t C-f C-o for those who browse the web using emacs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @03:09PM
Yeah, I keep making that mistake, every time getting p*ssed at Firefox because the "warn me when I close multiple tabs" only works half the time.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 09 2016, @06:18PM
I close tabs with Ctrl-W. Have always done so.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:43AM
I stopped using adblock a while ago, yet still use noscript (and request policy); this covers 75% of what I want to fix; yet many sites think I'm running an adblocker.
Maybe its the JS disable which does that.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:22AM
I recently switched from AddBlock + NoScript to uBlock + uMatrix and it's really the next level. The uMatrix UI is absolutely brilliant.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday February 09 2016, @03:23PM
I just discovered uMatrix....still learning ;-)
A late comment about the subject (Wired), I agree with just about everything said.
I would add that Rhet Allain, seems to produce consistent physics analysis, that are often quite enlightening.
On the subject of ads, is there any proof they work? I mean the first ad (zero->one) might be measurable, but (2->inifinity?)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:05AM
Don't give them any clicks. After knowingly publishing fake stories like the one on Satoshi, they do not deserve their "journalism" to be paid for.
archive.is works well if you need to read or share an article, and won't touch their servers or ads at all.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:53AM
They, like most web publishers, are confused as to what business they are in.
In the print and old broadcast model they all knew. They were in the business of selling advertising, they were their customers and the eyeballs was the product they produced to sell to their customers. The 'content' was what they created to attract, retain, farm and harvest eyeballs, best thought of as akin to fertilizer and usually similar in quality. They had a large advertiser relations staff devoted to attracting advertisers, entering into long term relationships with them, developing programs to help them maximize the return from their ad dollars, etc. They made sure really sleezy ads that would drive away the higher quality, high dollar advertisers would either not run at all or out in 'classified' type pages at the back. It was their business and they paid a great deal of attention to it.
In the Internet age everybody decided they would just worry about the ink stained wretches, elevate them to being the point of the business and outsource the advertising (i.e. the part they actually make their living from) to Google and worse. Often far, far worse. So now the ads are vile trash these same publishers would NEVER permit into their print edition. Because the ad networks do zero vetting, most allow just about anybody to simply upload content (including active content like scripts, Flash, etc) and pick what keywords they want them run with, there is no barrier to outright malware other than automated scanners.
But the bottom line is you can't outsource the actual reason you exist. They are learning the problem of allowing people who do not give a damn about you to control the lifeblood of your business, that it isn't something you can wave the magic Internet wand over and get on with the fun part. They thought in the post industrial economy you wouldn't worry about those grubby money details anymore, you would just do 'quality' journalism and the Internet magic would make sure they got to drive a spiffy car and bang hot babes every weekend with a fat roll of Internet cash to flash around. Nope. Of course in Wired's case they haven't even managed the journalism part in a very long time. Wired is tired, so very tired.
This model can't continue. The users were forced into defending themselves and it will end.
What will work? The same model they used to use in print. Wired will have to have account reps work the phones, get placements from reputable ad agencies, actually see the content they are displaying and serve it from their own servers inline with the editorial content in such a way that blockers can't (and probably won't try) block it. Because they won't be able to offload blame it can't be the same sleeze and malware that makes up so much of current online advertising. Will it be a lot more work? Yup, they will have to actually start taking care of business again.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday February 09 2016, @01:03PM
That's the best post I've seen on this subject in a long time.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @02:20PM
Big sites are already doing that. Except not quite the way you think. It's called Native Advertising [wikipedia.org] Full-blown fake news stories [ianww.com] are one example. Twitter's promoted tweets are another.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:58AM
Only 20% of their visitors use adblock?
I havn't read it in a couple of years but I would have expected more of their readers to use adblock
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:02AM
They drove away hacker nerds and were left with gadget fedora geeks.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @12:57PM
This, and I also block analytics, JS by default, etc. so depending on their way of counting I would not exist at all.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by DonkeyChan on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:44AM
I'd gladly support a site I frequent by letting their ads run. I even trust some of them.
But I don't trust the ad delivery network to root out malware. Nor do I trust them to handle any tracking data they garner from me responsibly.
Zero trust.
They've been the number one intrusion vector on ALL my clients machines, by a huge margin.
I also don't trust them to not sell my tracking info to a 3rd party regardless of what a TOS or cookie policy says. They're shady and it's extremely likely that wording in it will make it SEEM like they can't, but totally can.
So this will continue to be my stance on the subject of ad blocking until I hear of a company empirically testing all incoming ads on an array of virtual machines piped into a router designed to sniff out bad traffic.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by darnkitten on Tuesday February 09 2016, @05:37PM
They've been the number one intrusion vector on ALL my clients machines, by a huge margin.
Amen. After installing an effective adblocker, infections drop to near zero.
BTW-anyone know if Adblock has been developed for the Edge browser? I'm finally seeing people with Win10, and, although I am recommending alternative browsers, it would help if I could wall off ads on Edge as well.
(Score: 2) by danomac on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:55AM
Microsoft's Edge browser doesn't even support extensions [microsoft.com] at this point. Microsoft is supposedly working on it for a later release, and Adblock Plus already has a page [adblockplus.org] saying check back later in anticipation of the extension support that will be enabled eventually. Only solution for W10 is to use another browser, even IE (which is present on Windows 10 machines) with Adblock Plus IE edition [adblockplus.org]. Only reason I know this is because very recently I've been looking to do a large-scale deployment for IE at work.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:30AM
Now was it a great idea to base all your business on the spam model?
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:34AM
Apparently some people still read wired.com.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:56AM
Wired is by far not the worst offender, but when I go to wired.com, Ghostery blocks these trackers:
Adobe TagManager
Omniture (Adobe Analytics)
Optimizely
ScoreCard Research Beacon
So Wired hardly has any moral high ground ("paying the writers, editors, designers, engineers, and all the other staff that works so hard to create the stories you read and watch here") by enabling the panopticon. They also link to other trackers like Facebook.
Nothing of value would be lost if Wired folded by tomorrow. They have a formula of rehashing whatever item is in the news to make it look like they're doing analysis, but not really offering anything new. They have editorials all the time that could be on Medium or someplace. I don't know what value they add. But that's not my point. My point is that if they're going to enable the panopticon, we're better off without them.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 1) by CHK6 on Tuesday February 09 2016, @01:27PM
If advertising is how you make the snatch to pay the rent, then instead of poising the water and punishing those that cannot stand the slosh of ads vomited across the screens that resembles the days of blinking font of BBS boards. Maybe you should create a better advertisement method. I do not frequent Wired.com, but at times once a month catch an article or two. So if they turn off the tap because I have to block ads from chewing on data and overall bumming out my surfing experience, so be it. I'm not the one at a loss here.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by donkeyhotay on Tuesday February 09 2016, @05:19PM
WIRED has sure painted themselves into a corner.
Their business model is to sell ads to support their articles, so...
They begin writing so-so articles in order to sell more ads, so...
Eventually, the ads start becoming dangerous, serving up malware, so...
Users start blocking the ads, so...
Believing the 80/20 rule is really a thing (probably because they read one of their own so-so articles) they decide to keep out people who are blocking ads, so...
Ad-blocking users trust WIRED even less; despise them even more, so...
WIRED's promises to offer "polite" ads (whatever the hell that means) or no ads for subscriptions, is met with cynicism, so...
Even users who were not blocking ads are now wondering if maybe they should.
On a neutral internet, where there are literally hundreds of places offering the same so-so content as WIRED, there is no way for WIRED to win at this -- not with these tactics.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:28PM
That 80% of visitors who don't have Ad-block are clueless. They don't even know a thing like Ad-block exists. They also have no idea why their computer keeps getting infected.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:12AM
Well, a couple of things. I can access the site and the articles fine even though I'm blocking ads. So much for that.
Also, the site is surprisingly very clean. I enable only first party images and CSS, which often breaks sites simply because they pull in a lot of third party CSS. Wired.com only uses a self-hosted stylesheet, it seems.
Also also, I took a quick peek into the Science page and the articles don't seem that bad from the headlines alone.
I'm feeling pretty good about Wired.com. That may change if I disable my ad blocking though.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:55AM
Remember the CueCat? Yeah, that PS/2-based barcode scanner that RadioShack and Wired were foisting on users to try and train them into scanning barcodes on magazine ads (remember magazines? Oh right, they died off when ads dominated over 50% of the page content of magazines like Newsweek, Time, and Wired. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!)
For a refresher, let's take a look at Joel Spolsky's article on the CueCat back in September 2000 [joelonsoftware.com]:
Anyway, the CueCat was a miserable failure, and was an early example of the worst properties of the DMCA, considering that the company issued lawsuit threats for their "encryption" (a.k.a. base64 with XOR, which could also be disabled in hardware by tying R29 to +5 volts in specific models; I did it on mine with a garbage twist tie). RadioShack eventually succumbed to their ineptitude; I say "one down, one to go."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:58AM
"Quote" at bottom of Soylent pages: Avoid gunfire in the bathroom tonight.
Two words: Oscar, Reva.
Bad, bad, bad taste this "quote".
(Score: 2) by acp_sn on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:11PM
I don't want to be "influenced"
The real issue isn't good ads or bad ads (though bad ads are a great wedge issue). The real issue is that some aware people don't want their decision making process subverted against their best interests.
It is beyond my control that I automatically look at hot chicks. It is within my control to block advertising so that my automatic responses aren't used against me for the purpose of extracting money out of my pocket.
If mugging was legal you can bet the marketers would be paying muggers to punch people in the face and try to take their wallets/purses. Just because using my senses to "mug" me is legal doesn't mean it is right, and I'm going to defend against it by whatever means I have available.