(Mis)Uses of Technology

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
adblock, eric goldman

Companies:
forbes



Professor Eric Goldman Stops Writing At Forbes, In Part Because Of Its Stance On Ad Blocking

from the pushing-away-your-own-writers dept

Law professor Eric Goldman (who has guest blogged here on occasion) has announced that he'll no longer be blogging at Forbes. There are a few different reasons why -- including some personal/family related ones, but one of the reasons that stands out is that he's unhappy with Forbes' decision to block people using ad blockers:
Forbes turns away readers who use ad blockers, and that creates problems for me. First, I’ve heard complaints that the technology misidentifies some users as using ad blockers when they don’t, leaving those users stuck. Second, many of my readers do use ad blockers, and Forbes’ policy hinders those readers from being able to read my posts. Worse, I felt like I lost some reader goodwill for contributing to a venue with an unpopular ad blocking policy.
We've discussed Forbes' anti-ad blocker policies, even wondering if we should stop linking to Forbes articles. I know that, for a while, Forbes was misidentifying me as using an ad blocker and not letting me access stories on the site. I can say that, more than once, I wasn't able to read some of Goldman's posts, that we might have written about, because of those blocks.

Most of our focus was on how this impacted readers and also folks like us who might send Forbes traffic -- but it's worth also thinking about how it impacts writers as well, and taking away their audience, or otherwise upsetting them. We've seen in the past some writers leave publications that had put up paywalls, and now the same impact may be happening for those that block ad blockers as well.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 2 Sep 2016 @ 5:44pm

    No need for Forbes

    I don't turn my ad-blocker off for Forbes. If a TechDirt link leads to Forbes it just causes me a moment of annoyance until I close that window and shrug.

    My preference would be for TD to reference Forbes' links if that is the only possible source for news but not hotlink to it.

    Why drive traffic to those who don't want your readers to use their software (web browser and plugins) the way they want it... not the way Forbes wants it?

    E

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2016 @ 5:46pm

    The Capitalist Tool

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2016 @ 5:50pm

    They have been edited out of my internet

    I use Google News daily and whenever I encounter a website that will not load with ad-blockers running, I remove it from the available sources. I do the same for pay-walled sites. I can't say I've missed them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 4 Sep 2016 @ 3:34pm

      Re: They have been edited out of my internet

      I run fairly heavy security on my browser, and when I encounter a site that will not load, I just move on.

      I mean, really, if the only way to access content is to turn off all my security, I have to wonder what sort of malware ridden crapsack that site is. Good sites that are worth reading have good security and are compatible with the security of others.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2016 @ 5:56pm

    The Forbes Way

    The Forbes Way - tell people who make a conscience decision on how they manage their browsing experience that they aren't welcome.

    That should increase readership /s.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2016 @ 7:12pm

    Guest blogger? Really?

    > Law professor Eric Goldman (who has guest blogged here on occasion)....

    If you do a tag search, none of his guest blogs show up.

    Click on Mike's name (IE author name), takes you to a search page where under authors you can find Professor Goldman's name. (And oddly enough, clicking on Mike's name does NOT list out the first x articles authored by him on that search page...)

    Limitations of the platform, perhaps?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Arioch (profile), 2 Sep 2016 @ 7:21pm

    You won't allow me to read your content unless I see your unwanted advertising?

    Fine.. I'll read up on the subject elsewhere.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    MunkiLord (profile), 2 Sep 2016 @ 7:23pm

    Techdirt doesn't piss me off so I turned off my Adblocker for this site. The Forbes policy annoys me so I'm keeping my Adblocker on for them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    80sRelic (profile), 2 Sep 2016 @ 7:34pm

    I'll turn my adblocker off when the ad networks police their content better.

    Mine protects me most importantly form malvertising, and also from rude audio bearing ads and outright scams ("you've just won a new laptop" blares from my speakers set to "10")

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Avantare (profile), 2 Sep 2016 @ 7:35pm

    Not on my PC you don't.

    I quit watching TV because the time of a show was taken up by an increasing commercial times. Cable came out and they promised no commercials. That didn't last long and I quit watching the 'boob tube' altogether. Haven't missed TV at all.

    The Internet absolutely fascinated me. Then there were ads. I put up with them until ad-block came out. I gleefully installed and kissed ads goodbye.

    Then Forbes decided they didn't want me to read their articles unless I turned off my ad-block and ublock so I decided screw them.

    Reasons are:
    1) I HATE advertisements. I have Google, etc if I want to find something I desire to purchase.
    2) I don't want their crap cluttering up my Internet enjoyment.
    3) Did I say I hate advertisements?
    4) I don't want their crap cookies, etc. on MY equipment nor using up bandwidth I PAY FOR.

    Take a hike Forbes.

    Avantare

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Moby (profile), 3 Sep 2016 @ 1:34am

    I just don't read Forbes anymore. I don't have an ad blocker and frankly I don't need one. If I encounter a site with super aggressive ads, I just don't visit them anymore. Plenty of other non intrusive places to read the same news.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2016 @ 2:45am

    They don't want an intelligent audience. You will probably block their bullshit too.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Josephus Bleauous, 3 Sep 2016 @ 4:32am

    I'll just quote the site https://adblocking.think-privacy.com/ :
    Under European Law, it is illegal for web sites to access information on your computer or device without your consent (with very limited exemptions). Sadly, web site publishers have started to use illegal methods to detect that you are using an adblocker.

    In a recent written opinion by the European Commission, they confirmed that the detection of adblocking tools by accessing information on a person’s device without first obtaining consent to do so, is illegal under Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive.

    In other words, in Europe, what they're doing ain't even legal, in addition to being scummy. Can't remember the last time I bothered to click on anything linked to Forbes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2016 @ 4:59am

    What Forbes doesn't realize that if you're savvy enough to use an ad blocker, you're probably also capable enough of setting up a grease monkey script to bypass their ad blocker detection. So not only are they losing out with false positives, I'm still getting to read the one or two interesting articles they write.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Skeeter, 3 Sep 2016 @ 10:43am

    Forbes' Turn for the Worse

    Decades ago, I liked Forbes' articles. I subscribed to the printed magazine. As the internet came, so did the gradual but persistent swing to 'Left-Wing-Capitalism' (whatever that is trying to accomplish). I noticed as John McCain's style of 'RINO' politics became rampant, so did Forbes' catering to more-and-more leftist shifts. The 'blocking ad-blocker' idea stems out of this leftist 'don't really need them, don't trust them, keep an eye on them, and above all, sell them what they don't need' mentality.

    Needless to say, Forbes is now right there with the Huffington Post for 'rags unworthy of firewood kindling', in my opinion.

    The problem with being a store and then locking the doors to any who won't 'buy what you're selling' is not really endemic to any form of 'free market' ideology. In that case, why take their advice, when they can't understand basic concepts of 'open market'?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 5 Sep 2016 @ 5:47am

      Re: Forbes' Turn for the Worse

      You are kidding, right? Forbes, Leftist? Most of the Forbes articles I read are pushing the trickle-down line of economic thinking. If that's left wing, God help us all.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2016 @ 2:15pm

        Re: Re: Forbes' Turn for the Worse

        Extreme left wing, or extreme right wing, the end result is the same, an authoritarian elite looking after their own interests and living in luxury, claiming that their rule is good for the serfs living in poverty.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 6 Sep 2016 @ 12:12am

        Re: Re: Forbes' Turn for the Worse

        Don't take him seriously. He seems to appear on every story related to newspapers/journalism with some half-assed screed about how right wingers are not being serviced correctly and it's this and this alone that's the problem. If only they'd gear their news toward that specific pre-determined political viewpoint, they'd be rolling in cash.

        Nowhere has he correctly identified the political positions, let alone how they actually affect anything he blathers on about. I've tried poking for a discussion or explanation of the things he says that are clearly wrong in the past, but only get silence.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 6 Sep 2016 @ 12:59pm

      Re: Forbes' Turn for the Worse

      The 'blocking ad-blocker' idea stems out of this leftist 'don't really need them, don't trust them, keep an eye on them, and above all, sell them what they don't need' mentality.

      How is any of that leftist?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sid1950 (profile), 3 Sep 2016 @ 11:31am

    AdBlocking

    Like others here I now avoid sites which won't allow me to block ads. I used to use AdBlock Plus, but have now changed to Ghostery, as it seems to have more granulariry. Sites till think I am using AdBlock (with this exact spelling). Slate is the worst offender.

    I am a retired film editor with a long history of using computers, so I like to keep in touch with those worlds. Most advertising is useless to me. I don't need or want a new smart phone. I don't need or want a new Win 10 Tablet. I don't want a holiday for 2 in Hawaii. I don't want a free subscription to Forbes or Slate or any other periodical.

    The number of sites I now use for tech news is shrinking, and this is a bad thing. Eventually only a small pool of like minded who can afford it will be able to use these sites, and the conversation will become vacuous and void.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2016 @ 4:55am

      Re: AdBlocking

      Even if you don't like the adverts, that's nothing in comparison to the attack surface exposure. Just no to ANY adverts and 95% of third parties.

      Ditch ghostery. There are FAR better options. For an overall adblocker, based on rules and regex etc, with updated lists - you cannot go wrong with uBlock Origin (not uBlock, but uBlock Origin). It's available for both firefox and chrome.

      Uninstall adblock plus (rather than disable it). You could also make sure auto:config entries are left over, or any file remnants on your computer. I suspect the sites that tell you are using the word "AdBlock" generically.

      See below for my comment about resource://URI leaks. uBlock Origin has none, so it won't be picked up this way. uBlock Origin's is more efficient with memory/resources than AdBlock and has adblock's list and more if you want them - auto-updated. You can also toggle rules on a domain by domain basis.

      It's not hard to learn. The first column is global, the second is the domain you're currently on. Clicking the header bar will jump you to uBlock O's options (eg what lists to use, to auto-update them etc). Clicking left/right/middle of a scoop does things like pale red, dark red, pale grey, dark grey, pale green, dark green. (red block, grey use global rules, green allow : really really pale grey is the background and means nothing applies). If you make a change, top left are an eraser (revert to saved) and a padlock (save changes). The big blue power symbol is enable/disable (for the current domain). The refresh symbol means refresh the page. You'll get the hang of it. It's really NOT hard to work out.

      https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock (scroll down you will see some ppictures to give you any idea of what I am describing)

      Eg: youtube is not on any lists. so it's never blocked. So you could go to youtube, pull up the uBlockO interface, block youtube.com globally, but allow for youtube.com domain.

      By default, uBlockO is pretty much set up to run as is. All you probably need to do is just tweak the occasional site. Certainly ready to go re adverts. As for tracking, harden uBlockO and also use uMatrix (and NoScript)

      Sorry for the long post. Don;t stop reading tech because you can't work around bad tech :)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2016 @ 12:56am

        Re: Re: AdBlocking

        My big gripe with uBlockOrigin is that it can't whitelist YouTubers. I couldn't really give a damn about most of YouTube but, as with TechDirt, there are a few users I wish to support, and if ads can do that, I'm willing to see a couple of adverts for terrible Clash Of Clans clones.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Archillies, 5 Sep 2016 @ 2:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: AdBlocking

          White list with UO: Click on the UO shield in the toolbar (or whatever its called today; Upper left corner of my browser, your mileage may vary). Click the big blue power switch symbol to white-list the page.

          Long time user of uBlock Origin, seems to work well in conjunction with Privacy Badger on both Firefox and Chrome.

          If MS-Edge ever really starts to support plug-ins, I suppose I would install it there also if I had to use MS-Edge and a version became available.

          Best of luck with your uBlock Origin application, I hope this makes it more useful for you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2016 @ 11:52pm

    Listen very carefully... I will say this only once...

    For Firefox readers (Chrome users, I don't care about chrome)

    A lot of adblocker-blockers work by reading scoped local resources (such as extension files). The exploit/bug/issue/tor-ticket/mozilla-ticket has been well known for over 3 years.

    https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/8725
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi? id=863246

    Fixing the leak is now part of the Tor Uplift project

    https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Tor_Uplift/Tracking

    Until the resource://URI leak fix is completed by Mozilla, you can use an extension which is a little more blunt (some extensions that (ab)use this feature may break in some way, usually visually). The extension is here:

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/no-resource-uri-leak/

    And to test before and after, here is a test page

    https://www.browserleaks.com/firefox

    ^^ All that said, granular control over XSS (uMatrix, NoScript) and better adblocking/malware/other extensions (uBlock Origin) will also stop a lot of detection.

    Fix the problem, stop treating the symptoms.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 6 Sep 2016 @ 1:05pm

      Re:

      Fix the problem, stop treating the symptoms.

      Defeating the adblock blocker seems like still treating symptoms. The cause of the problem is the behavior of web site operators, and I would think never visiting the site at all would be a better way to deal with that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.