0
49

[–] 5192308? 0 points 49 points (+49|-0) ago 

The publisher is asking ad-blocking users to provide personal information to access its site

More reasons to avoid Forbes.

0
2

[–] JamesRussell 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They can't be as retarded as to think this could ever possibly work, surely something else malicious has to be going on behind this.

0
14

[–] sinjinsmythe 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

Wasn't Forbes was the site that asked to be white listed from ad blockers and then "accidentally" installed malware on every visiting user's computer?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] ScreaminMime 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Is there no app that will, for example put "-Forbes", in all your future searches?

0
22

[–] Northvvait 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

Fun fact: on a lot of sites, that overlay is just another element you can select and block. It brings me great joy to block those crybaby windows.

0
2

[–] 5193398? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

In addition to blocking the overlay element (as mentioned below), most sites like this are run by greedy fucks who have a separate set of rules for Google, so that their content will still show up in search results (and then disappear when a real user clicks on them). Knowing this, you can use any user agent addon and set your user agent on that site to be the Google crawler bot.

0
1

[–] 5193894? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If that's the case, can't you just provide bs information? For example, I am Micky Mouse and I live on 8 Mile Road.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Subtenko ago 

Well, realize people sue for stupid stuff, things that are just invalid, so.....it sorta depends? What if its a mom and pop store and they are good people but someone is offended by their ad, that'd be dumb..

0
20

[–] maelask3 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

"Forbes loses thousands of potential readers doing stupid shit."

0
18

[–] derram 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago  (edited ago)

“We’ve had a lot of people converting. Around 40% of users were turning off their ad-blockers,”

So they've lost 60% of their userbase who were using adblockers.

0
1

[–] jrfg1743 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

thats the way i read it. lol

1
24

[–] pr0nw4r 1 point 24 points (+25|-1) ago 

The last time some community I remembered enabled ads, the adware provider accidentally let slip by a trojan, infecting several computers.

At this point for me, no amount of pleading or begging will change my mind. Bring on the ad war, I am more than willing to keep track of forums, and tech things to circumvent new ad blocking tech. Because fuck you companies. Go to fucking hell.

1
8

[–] Zetterbluntz 1 point 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Looks like Im gonna use all my ten up votes in this thread.

0
3

[–] discostew 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

0
2

[–] pr0nw4r 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Haha oh wow, its still happening? That is fucking hilarious. I was only remotely aware of it happening ONCE before, on a somewhat more obscure site, 3 years ago, and it stuck with me forever, till this day. Since it keeps happening, spreading news like this is going to tilt a lot of users over the edge, like it did me those many years ago. God, that is hilarious.

0
1

[–] 5193932? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Even without the threat of malware, ads are still a system designed to persuade and to dominate minds by interfering in people's thinking patterns. That system will be used by the sorts of people who like to influence people and are good at it. No person who did not wish to dominate others would choose to use advertising. I choose not to be dominated so I block all ads by default, and I don't expose myself to old media platforms like television or radio.

0
2

[–] pr0nw4r 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yea, that is a pretty fair position as well. But to me, ads to purchase goods, tech and other things are far much of the lesser evil. I mean clean ads. The problem however is that the control around them always turns into complete fucking shit, 100% of the time. If people only restricted ads to a simple jpg, with a link to a verified store inside of it that only activates when clicked. I may start having morality doubts.

But again, I too have had experience with ads and that experience tells me that even at my morality, at my level, they cannot be trusted, not even for a single second. Perhaps if it was a governmental entity, that could be sued and was transparent enough, that HAD to answer to its calls, that could be called upon with a phone and whatnot. That had enough oversight. This would be a lesser evil still.

But these things arent happening. They are basically saying "accept a 100% risk of getting infected, seeing dirty ads, or being subject to some sjw bullshit, or you are a nazi and are literally causing my children to go hungry."

So fug them. Your position is fair as well, as we do not live in communism, and your computer is your own. You are in no way obligated to have anything on it that you dont want. But these companies dont even have the moral high ground for saying that they need ads to survive as they do far more harm than good. So whatever, I am happy to stay in your camp, and to just let them die.

0
11

[–] InfoTeddy 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

New tactics? Did they try actually having good articles and not being annoying about users using ad-blocking software and—oh, of course they didn’t.

0
14

[–] derram 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

Nope, they just let the advertisers write articles for them instead!

“BrandVoice is now a very significant part of our ad revenue. About 35% of our digital advertising dollars are associated with native,”

0
0

[–] Avnomke ago 

What about ads being hyperlinked .jpg files?

No? Oh, okay then.

0
14

[–] Northvvait 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

“Email address is always very valuable and, with proper terms of service, figuring out a way to monetize these things in the right way could be interesting,” Mr. DVorkin said.

Those spammers sure are awesome, Forbes truly is a friend to it's readers.

0
2

[–] CascadeFailure 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They've been doing this since a year now. When you click on a link of theirs, it leads you to a pre-page - with what I suppose must have been an ad - but because you use ad-blocker, it's not visible, and the pre-page doesn't forward you to the actual page, because of what I presume was the ad-blocker.

As a consequence I hardly clicked on Forbes articles to begin with.

0
0

[–] Zetterbluntz ago 

They're all just native ads anyway

0
2

[–] FireForEffect 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Mental note: Do not click forbes links. No need. Info is available elsewhere.

load more comments ▼ (7 remaining)