The battle between Ad blockers and Publishers is getting hot everyday. Content and News publishers was brought to a new level when they introduced the Ad Blocker detecting scripts on relevant websites. Specially it went totally high when the big online publisher companies like Forbes put a Ad Block detecting script and showing message to users who were using Ad Blocker to White-list their website. If users white-list website they can further use the website, if not, they are stopped literally to use the website or read content.
They are forcing users to read the internet content which is supposed to be free to read at-least. I tried to visit Forbes and it showed me that Ad Blocker thing and requested to Pause it. I don't want to see the ads, because I came to know from some tech news website, that some visitors of Forbes got infected with Malware because of bad scripted ads from Forbes, I clicked Continue to site, still they didn't allow me to view the website.
It showed me the annoying message:
Hi again. Looks like you're still using an ad blocker. Please turn it off in order to continue into Forbes' ad-light experience.
Some websites, even show message that we see that you are using Ad Blocker, if you purchase their package of some kind to have ad-free experience. This looks bad again for forcing users to pay to read, if its a message only, then its OK, but if it redirects you or stop you from reading, its BAD. Even I read on Fortune that Yahoo! blocked user accounts for using Ad blocker software, plugins and extensions for their Internet Browser.
Brave not only can totally block the ads but can replace the tracking ads with non-tracking ads. Tracking is a terminology in which the Ad network looks for cookies on your computer, track your interests and visited websites and show you ads related to your recent web experience. This is kind of freaking thing for me though, the ads should only be shown according to content of the website you visit, well it's my opinion.
European Cookies Law was introduced just for this purpose, that it shows a message that the website is tracking said things and you press OK. That's it!
Brave on the other hand, has a huge database of nearly every ad network and ads as well that which ad networks track your cookies, you can either block the ads completely or change your preference to Non-Tracking Ads.
Eich gave a tremendous logical statement in reply to these newspaper letters:
Browsers do not just play back recorded pixels from the publishers’ sites. Browsers are rather the end-user agent that mediates and combines all the pieces of content, including third-party ads and first-party publisher news stories. Web content is published as HTML markup documents with the express intent of not specifying how that content is actually presented to the browser user. Browsers are free to ignore, rearrange, mash-up and otherwise make use of any content from any source.
If it were the case that Brave's browsers perform "republication", then so too does Safari's Reader mode. The same goes for any browser with an ad-blocker extension installed, or the Links text-only browser, or screen readers for the visually impaired.
Truly, it depends on the User-end browser to show what the user want to see only! You cannot force anyone to see Ads, you can request, but not force.
You can download the Brave Internet Browser from here.
Here are few reasons which make you use Ad Blocker in the first place.
Some websites ask for Paid User Account, some ask for Donations to run their server costs, but it is a harsh reality and a bitter fact that many websites live on Ads, but legal, ethical and non-tracking ads would make a huge difference in overall internet experience for any person.
You must log in to post a comment.