Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal jdavidb's Journal: ad blocking software detected 12

This page just told me "This page cannot be displayed because ad blocking software has been detected." Cute. I guess I just won't bother reading, then.

Or I'll turn off Javascript, or I'll use wget and/or lynx.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ad blocking software detected

Comments Filter:
  • I just installed AdBlock Plus to test, and sure enough I got the same error message. I wonder if this is something that is catching on? Perhaps ad blocking software packages will have to go have a "stealth mode" or something in the future.
    • After reading more into the matter, it appears that this is only an isolated incident concerning this site's crusade against AdBlock Plus. Apparently there are a few GreaseMonkey scripts that can get around this. More available here [adblockplus.org].
      • by FroMan ( 111520 )

        function dieAdBlockPlusDie()
            {
            var giframe = document.getElementsByTagName("iframe");
            var bod = document.getElementsByTagName("body");
            var blocked=1;
            for (var i = 0; i
        • Page works just fine for me, then again, I also have NoScript installed. Block the javascript, page can't detect you're running AdBlock, page renders just fine without ads.
          • Ah, I shall have to add that to my list of addons. Damn I love Firefox...
          • Same results here. NoScript + AdBlock Plus = All kinds of junk just doesn't appear.
          • by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
            It will soon be paired with interstitial technology that prevents you from accessing the page unless you turn on Javascript.

            It seems to be detecting some client-side CSS rules too. It searches all iframes for the presence of one named "google_ads_frame" and, if it doesn't find it (say a "display: none;" rule), it replaces the content with the block message.
          • by jdavidb ( 449077 ) *

            I used to run NoScript, because I didn't admit until last year that Javascript had any practical purposes at all. I got a bit tired of whitelisting increasing numbers of sites, and there were a few bugs, crashes, and incompatibilities, but overall I thought it was great, especially since it helped avoid crap like this. But when I got a new laptop last year I never got around to installing it, and have been doing fairly well without it. If I start seeing more of this, though, I'll put it back.

            I original

      • by jdavidb ( 449077 ) *

        Thanks for the additional info.

        Actually I like seeing these crusades escalate, as the software becomes more sophisticated on both ends. I just worry that someone might escalate it to using legal force, which I would consider to be wrong in this case in the absence of a contract between the site owner and users.

        I think site owners ought to be able to take whatever technical measures they want in order to prevent me from seeing their site in ways other than as they intend. And at the same time I think I

  • I tried to visit that page and, after being disgusted that such a whiner has a Bible verse in his header, was treated to this jewel:

    This site no longer available to FireFox users

    The Mozilla Foundation and its Commercial arm, the Mozilla Corporation, has allowed and endorsed a plugin that blocks advertisement on web sites. Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Many web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displayi

    • by jdavidb ( 449077 ) *

      Heh, that bugs me a little bit, but its easily gotten around. And I don't care about the user agent string and stats; he's very confused if he thinks that all Firefox users feel that way. Personally I don't think protocols should ever include meta information about the specific version of client or server used; doing so encourages deviations from the standard, exploitation of security holes, and in the case of http bowdlerization of content based on user-agent. Having a header in the protocol to specify

    • by jdavidb ( 449077 ) *

      there's a Firefox plugin to let you change your user-agent string on the fly

      And for the benefit of those following along: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59 [mozilla.org]

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...