Ad blocker detection now enabled

[ComeFlyWithMe]

The content providers are us
grounded has offered free hosting
The moderators are moderating for free

What other costs are there?

Thanks, sounds great! Much better than coughpy ads or fiddling around with subscriptions.

Off you go, go set up your own forum and enjoy the flood of members that don't come your way.

 

[marki]

AFF is a business and costs money to run. Consider buying an AFF subscription that removes ads if you enjoy the content but don't want to see ads.

I find it hard to believe someone with status in 3 airline programs, including one that requires a minimum spend in premium cabins, can't afford a yearly subscription to a valuable site like AFF.

Well said there samh

With respect - I think that is absolutely uncalled for from a moderator of this site. Very disappointing. The iOs app is poor - so I would be paying for membership to use an app which is full of bugs. That was my point, can't use the website and the app is problematic. Of course I would consider membership if the app worked properly.

Yes I do have high status - doesn't mean I'm paying for it does it?

Sometimes/often AFF is full of aggression and tension (recent experience for JohnK showed) - sometimes propagated by mods! First line of response fine, second one not IMO.

No aggression no tension facts? Plenty, yes !

I pay for access without ads so this doesn't affect me.

However, ad blocking is not effectively stealing. .....snip...........
.…snip…But one thing it most definitely is not, is stealing.

Totally agree how can blocking ads be stealing :confu

The content providers are us
grounded has offered free hosting
The moderators are moderating for free

What other costs are there?

Oh oh ...... Plenty … don't go dismissing everything as free even death cost plent

 

[Anna]

Well well well I never knew there was such a thing as an ad blocker. See, I'm always learning on AFF!

 

[marki]

Anna squirrelling away knowledge of the deep dark underworld of the Internet. Problem is you can then be blocked from entering some websites!

 

[Milefest]

An interesting blog post on the ethics of adblocking software:
https://marco.org/2015/08/11/ad-blocking-ethics

 

[JohnK]

I used to run the largest social network in The country and we routinely blocked users who had ad blocking enabled.
Advertising pays to keep the AFF business running and by blocking ads you are effectively stealing.

I tend to disagree.

I can't stand websites storing cookies on my machine and then other websites using those cookies in their ads. If I just booked 7 nights in Paataya I don't want to see ads for next month advertising how cheap their Pattaya hotels are right now. I search for Chiang Mai to Sydney airfares on Skyscanner and then every second ad is cheap flights from Chiang Mai.

I don't click on those ads. I don't want to see them. Those ads are an invasion of my privacy regardless of how you as a business sees it.

Now I blocked Agoda and Skyscanner from storing cooking on my machine but still see these ads tailored to my browsing history. Patience wearing thin very fast.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

If you download a movie the content owner isn't directly affected other than it may have been extra revenue for them.

If 100% of users blocked ads - AFF wouldn't be able to run the business and keep the server lights on.

There is a very real effect on the bottom line from ad blocking. Unlike movies - not viewing an ad can have a very real cost associated with it.

It may seem innocent... But the effect is real.

Which is why I said it may be unethical - although that may be open to debate.
However my point remains. It is not stealing.

 

[TheRealTMA]

AFF is a business and costs money to run. Consider buying an AFF subscription that removes ads if you enjoy the content but don't want to see ads.

I find it hard to believe someone with status in 3 airline programs, including one that requires a minimum spend in premium cabins, can't afford a yearly subscription to a valuable site like AFF.

I'm appalled at this decision to implement such a system. I pay a membership and I still get the add blocker when I use Chrome on the PC. I hate ads that interfer with my reading so always use ad blockers and I will never ever click on an ad on any site so you will never make ad click money from me and many others. All AFF will do with this silly behaviour is lose my and others' paying memberships.

You need to seriously rethink this decision.

And as mentioned above, AFF benefits from the intellectual property, stories, experience and photos from its members. Should popular posters start receiving revenue from their contributions then?

 

[get me outta here]

I am platinum AFF, and I know that the savings and various information pages I get regularly that 'someone' has gone to a lot of trouble to produce, and the shared info in general from the members AFF is worth much more. I do tend to know the value of things rather than just the price.

I didn't know about adblocker. Can you choose which sites to turn it on / off eg the New York Times etc?

 

[grounded]

I use an adblocker, but not because I don't want to see ads, or hold any objection to a website making revenue from displaying ads. Ads are good.

I use an adblocker because I object to my web browsing being tracked and personal data being collected by invisible trackers and spying adtech that comes bundled with the ads.

What's annoys JohnK, above, (and you are not alone John) is that you are clearly being followed around the web by big companies collecting data about your interests and habits without your permission. You only see the tip of the iceberg when you are targeted with ads that match your holiday plans.

I did not give Facebook, Google, AdFormDSP, AtDMT, BlueKai, DoubleClick, Ebay, LinkedIn or Twitter permission to track me as I read AFF (or anything else except when I am explicitly on their websites), yet those very same companies purchase my data from the likes of AFF (albeit indirectly) in order to track me.

Don't believe me? All of those trackers are in this very page right now, and are reporting back to their respective companies about our specific interests and specific topics of discussion.

Do you think this might be a violation of your right to privacy? Well the EU would agree with you and is working to enact laws to prevent covert online tracking by ad companies.

Recently, it has been reported that Adblock-blockers (like the one running here) might be in contravention to current EU law (source: Ad-blocker blocking websites face legal peril at hands of privacy bods • The Register).

In Australia our privacy laws are softer, but websites are required to publish a privacy policy that states, among other things, who they share information with (I am not a lawyer).

 

[cambriamarsh]

I'm appalled at this decision to implement such a system. I pay a membership and I still get the add blocker when I use Chrome on the PC. I hate ads that interfer with my reading so always use ad blockers and I will never ever click on an ad on any site so you will never make ad click money from me and many others. All AFF will do with this silly behaviour is lose my and others' paying memberships.

You need to seriously rethink this decision.

And as mentioned above, AFF benefits from the intellectual property, stories, experience and photos from its members. Should popular posters start receiving revenue from their contributions then?

Wouldn't logging in eliminate the problem?

 

[TheRealTMA]

Wouldn't logging in eliminate the problem?

Not useful since Chrome does not remember the login so one has to specifically stop what you are doing then go up to the top and login. Fine if I want to reply to a post, but annoying waste of my time if I'm just reading one or two items.

But, that's not the actual point. A site that uses add detection is not going to be successful no matter how they rationalise it. The act of a site tracking my usage for its own use is acceptable but any site that supports third party trackers and sends my usage data onto others IMHO should be illegal and is an infringement of my personal data rights.

As JohnM says above, I don't want to see obsessive ads on for the airfare I just searched for or worse adds for, say, Belroy wallets, for the next week if I once looked up buying one as a gift for a friend.

Just look into the background processes of the AFF site and you'll be shocked. AFF supports the background use of 20 or more personal information trackers. Appalling. I won't use AFF without several Ad and tracker blockers.

 

[admin]

As a paid member, you shouldn't be getting the Ad Blocker message. I will PM you for details...

I'm appalled at this decision to implement such a system. I pay a membership and I still get the add blocker when I use Chrome on the PC. I hate ads that interfer with my reading so always use ad blockers and I will never ever click on an ad on any site so you will never make ad click money from me and many others. All AFF will do with this silly behaviour is lose my and others' paying memberships.

You need to seriously rethink this decision.

And as mentioned above, AFF benefits from the intellectual property, stories, experience and photos from its members. Should popular posters start receiving revenue from their contributions then?

 

[Pushka]

I have learnt so much from this forum and now 'expect' (well, not always ) to fly J minimum on international flights so the paid membership was one way of saying 'thanks'. Before AFF it was a pipe-dream.

 

[TheRealTMA]

As a paid member, you shouldn't be getting the Ad Blocker message. I will PM you for details...

Thanks for the concern and the PM.

However that's not actually the point. I'm prepared to support AFF with a membership and contribute where I can, but I am absolutely against the use of anti-Ad blocking scripts. Even if I sign in, there are still a variety of trackers recording what I do on AFF and sending data to third party tracking companies.

 

[cambriamarsh]

Not useful since Chrome does not remember the login so one has to specifically stop what you are doing then go up to the top and login. Fine if I want to reply to a post, but annoying waste of my time if I'm just reading one or two items.

But, that's not the actual point. A site that uses add detection is not going to be successful no matter how they rationalise it. The act of a site tracking my usage for its own use is acceptable but any site that supports third party trackers and sends my usage data onto others IMHO should be illegal and is an infringement of my personal data rights.

As JohnM says above, I don't want to see obsessive ads on for the airfare I just searched for or worse adds for, say, Belroy wallets, for the next week if I once looked up buying one as a gift for a friend.

Just look into the background processes of the AFF site and you'll be shocked. AFF supports the background use of 20 or more personal information trackers. Appalling. I won't use AFF without several Ad and tracker blockers.

I've got Chrome and mine remembers the login, just tested it, maybe look at your settings?

 

[samh004]

I didn't know about adblocker. Can you choose which sites to turn it on / off eg the New York Times etc?

Yes, as mentioned at the start of this thread, you can whitelist sites that you don't want to block.

I use an adblocker because I object to my web browsing being tracked and personal data being collected by invisible trackers and spying adtech that comes bundled with the ads.

Wouldn't a cookie still be stored no matter if the ad is displayed or not? Perhaps a discussion for a different thread, but I would think it doesn't matter, the cookie still tracks you.

I've got Chrome and mine remembers the login, just tested it, maybe look at your settings?

I think the reason their browser doesn't remember their login is they delete the cookies constantly, and those keep you logged in

 

[grounded]

Wouldn't a cookie still be stored no matter if the ad is displayed or not? Perhaps a discussion for a different thread, but I would think it doesn't matter, the cookie still tracks you.

I think the reason their browser doesn't remember their login is they delete the cookies constantly, and those keep you logged in

Nope. An adblocker blocks the HTTP request, preventing any cookie from being sent in the first place, thereby protecting your privacy. They might send them out but they can't retrieve them.

It's unfortunate that publishers don't understand this.

Something like 80% of what an advertiser pays a display network is collected by the adtech industry ... only about 20% goes to the publisher (e.g. AFF)!!!

If publishers understood the tech better, they could easily double or triple their ad income by going direct to the advertisers and cutting out the beacons / networks.... and also avoiding the privacy issues. Sadly that just doesn't seem to happen in Australia.

AFF is a targeted forum and the majority of the ads are predictable.... i.e. if you could speak to the right person at e.g. Amex / ANZ they'd pay you 2 or 3 times what you earn from adsense each month to be exclusive on the credit cards section of the website.

That way you'd avoid annoying your core contributors through cheap tricks (adblock-blockers... seriously?) and you'd make more money.

 

[samh004]

Nope. An adblocker blocks the HTTP request, preventing any cookie from being sent in the first place, thereby protecting your privacy. They might send them out but they can't retrieve them.

It's unfortunate that publishers don't understand this.

Good info to know.

Something like 80% of what an advertiser pays a display network is collected by the adtech industry ... only about 20% goes to the publisher (e.g. AFF)!!!

If publishers understood the tech better, they could easily double or triple their ad income by going direct to the advertisers and cutting out the beacons / networks.... and also avoiding the privacy issues. Sadly that just doesn't seem to happen in Australia.

AFF is a targeted forum and the majority of the ads are predictable.... i.e. if you could speak to the right person at e.g. Amex / ANZ they'd pay you 2 or 3 times what you earn from adsense each month to be exclusive on the credit cards section of the website.

That way you'd avoid annoying your core contributors through cheap tricks (adblock-blockers... seriously?) and you'd make more money.

My bolding here. You've made 22 posts, I've made over 15,000, yet I'm not annoyed.

That said, I don't think this is a big deal. Mountain out of a mole hill type thing.

Yes, there's an argument for a discussion on cookies and sites tracking you across the internet, however I think it's a bigger issue than just AFF. Perhaps you could start that thread in the Communication & Internet forum. It would be interesting to see what a shake-up of the industry would result in, and what direction companies like Google would take to skirt the rules.

 

[grounded]

Good info to know.

My bolding here. You've made 22 posts, I've made over 15,000, yet I'm not annoyed.

For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't consider myself as a core contributor (your bold) - but there are most definitely some in this thread who are. Although I'm not sure why you're picking on my post count? I think my contributions in this thread have been constructive?

I'm not annoyed either because the instructions J-P provided in post #2 work fine.

My point was (and I'll restate it) is that dealing directly with advertisers instead of using display networks is a better way to increase ad revenue