The Z-man is right

Like many of you, I'm sure, I run ad blocking software, a pop-up blocker, and a script blocker on my Web browser.  In fact, I use multiple Web browsers.  For Web pages that simply must allow scripting, cookies, etc. - such as Blogger, on which I'm writing these words - I use Chrome.  For general browsing, where I don't want to allow Web sites to set cookies, run scripts, etc., I use Firefox, fully loaded with protective software.  As backups, for occasional use when I want to visit a Web site, then instantly clean out whatever it sets in the way of cookies, etc., I use Opera or Edge.  To add to my browsing security, I use a VPN (virtual private network) offering end-to-end encryption, and providing a 'location' that's many hundreds of miles away from where I am.  I want to make life as difficult as I can for scam artists, hackers and intrusive corporate spyware.

I therefore get very frustrated when certain Web sites won't allow access unless I disable my ad blocker, or demand that I disable some or all of my security software in order to use them.  I simply won't tolerate such nonsense.  The amount of malware distributed through advertisements is staggering, and there's no reason why I should allow such companies to track my every move through their Web beacons or other software devices.  It's none of their business.  Therefore, I don't visit or use such Web sites.  I can always find what I need elsewhere.

The Z-man makes similar observations.

The other day, I was reading something on-line and followed a link to one of the business sites. The first thing to happen was a useless popup. I have a pop-up blocker, but many of them still slip past for some reason. After years of dealing with pop-ups, my mouse hand is trained to close the window on instinct. It is a reflex now. I closed it only to have another open and I closed it. A minute reading the site, the screen goes dim and I get a message telling me that I am running an ad-blocker, along with a lecture about how that is mean.

I just closed the site and moved on. In fact, this has become my habit. If the site has any of this junk, I just close the site and move onto other things. I respect the fact that sites need to make money so they post ads, but having to navigate through a sea of clutter just to read 500 words or look at a picture is not a good use of my time. I’ve observed others do the same thing I do when it comes to pop up windows. Before they load, people close them so they do nothing more than annoy the reader. They are otherwise useless.

The main reason I run the ad-block stuff is that many of these embedded ads have malware. If a website wants to monetize my viewership by infesting my computer with malignant software, I have no qualms about blocking their attempts to monetize my viewership. Therefore, the lectures that are becoming common on websites about the immorality of running ad-block strike most people as ludicrous.

. . .

The proliferation of scripting has made many sites unreadable on a phone or tablet, unless you use something like ghostery. The Washington Times is a perfect example. It is more ad than content and the scripts never seem to load properly, so the site looks like a Picasso painting most of the time. I stopped going to the site entirely as it took too much effort to make it work. If I have to redesign my web browser to look at your site, I’m probably not going to bother visiting your site.

There's more at the link.  Worthwhile reading.

This sort of thing strikes me as yet another example of mainstream media myopia.  Their attitude seems to be, "What we're offering is so important to you that you'll pay whatever we ask, or give us the information we demand, or submit to our tracking requirements, in order to get it!"  Er . . . no, we won't.  We can always find another source for whatever you're peddling, or an alternative for it.  The Web is big enough that you no longer have a monopoly.

Yet, Web sites and news media still fall into this trap.  The Telegraph in London, which used to be one of my daily reads, did so just a month or two ago, instituting a "Premium" (paid) subscription service for many of its articles (even including its obituaries).  That's stupid.  Why on earth should I pay for the Telegraph's view on the news when I can get exactly the same news (albeit from different perspectives) from dozens of other Web sites?  They offer nothing worth paying for.  I don't think their subscription service will be a success . . . but I don't think they've figured that out yet.  Forbes is another offender in this regard.  If you run an ad blocker, it won't allow you into its site.  OK - too bad.  Next site, please!

Peter