[stagbeetle]

> people behind those ad blockers make clumsy mistakes

What "mistake?" That the developers couldn't foresee and block the exact elements against ad-blockers before they became real?

Reading the parent comment, it seems users are not opposed to reporting specific instances for the greater good. This is obviously more energy consuming than uninstalling, so where do you get the idea people will all of a sudden stop using an adblock because it failed to get passed one or two sites?

We're already seeing anti-ad-blocker-blockers being developed to remedy this problem. And if they don't come fast enough, users can just turn off their adblock for one page and be done with it.

Direct advertising is a dying legacy tactic. The most successful ads these days are the ones you can't tell are ads. They're also the stronger poison of the two.

[Drumlin]

It sounds like the people behind the ad blocker broke Ajax for that website while trying to block the ads - that's the mistake I am referring to.

You mention that native ads are gradually replacing direct ads as if it's a good thing. The good guys in the publishing industry go out of their way to prevents ads affecting content, they don't allow their writers/presenters etc to touch advertising and everything is clearly separate.

In the long term, ad blockers will just push out those people who are driven by ethics and you'll be left with the sleazy publications that are driven by PR. This is coming from someone who has dealt with PR agencies and constantly turned down proposals.

[stagbeetle]

> It sounds like the people behind the ad blocker broke Ajax for that website while trying to block the ads - that's the mistake I am referring to.:

> The business I work for tried blocking adblockers and after a bit of back and forth they trumped us by blocking all AJAX requests on our site. We gave in after that.

I took this to mean that adblockers had to evolve and block AJAX on the website to make it accessible. Not, that they were hasty and disabled all functionality.

> You mention that native ads are gradually replacing direct ads as if it's a good thing.

On the contrary: "The most successful ads these days are the ones you can't tell are ads. They're also the stronger poison of the two."

> The good guys in the publishing industry go out of their way to prevents ads affecting content, they don't allow their writers/presenters etc to touch advertising and everything is clearly separate.

I didn't know this. However, I think it's a losing game. Consumers don't seem to care too much about the "good guys," unless a moral campaign is spear-headed (a la Tesla by The Oatmeal), only not seeing ads at all.

It's ironic really. We block ads so we're not influenced by them, but then we lower our guards and become susceptible to the indirect kind.

It's the natural order anyway. There will be those in the coming generations that will be like just like us. Except where we fought against direct ads, they will fight against the indirect. There've always been those unorganized who value critical analysis in all contexts, but their findings and ways never reach the public and make any impact.

Or maybe we've just made ourselves out to be sheep. As long as the coyotes aren't around, out of sight out of mind.

> In the long term, ad blockers will just push out those people who are driven by ethics and you'll be left with the sleazy publications that are driven by PR. This is coming from someone who has dealt with PR agencies and constantly turned down proposals.

As is with all things. You do not survive by being ethical, but by being the most adaptable, and sociopathy happens to be a great adaptation for sales.

I'm more interested in what happens next after the sleaze epoch. Will ads continue to become more and more manipulative then, finally after reaching too far, begin to wither and fade into the anals of history (albeit likely not as known as it should be, because of "out of sight out of mind."). Or will someone finally shake up this industry?