Forbes Is Confused: You Can View Content Using An Adblocker By Promising Not To Use An Adblocker
from the er? dept
Forbes, an organization with a website presumably built on the value of its content, also has made the unfortunate decision recently to try to block off access to anyone using adblocker software, apparently so that it could successfully allow malicious "ads" to infect its readers' machines. This set of circumstances would seem to be one that would have Forbes re-thinking its adblocker policy, assuming it wishes to retain the trust of its readership. And it turns out that Forbes is doing so. And then not! Or maybe? Allow me to explain.
Rob Leathern recently noticed that going to Forbes.com and refreshing the screen after being told that he should disable his adblocker suddenly offered up a new option: becoming a member. That membership would allow the viewing of the content for free. And, hey, all it wanted in return was the ability to manage his social media contacts for him.
So @Forbes now lets ad blocking users access content if they Google-login and let Forbes... manage their contacts?! pic.twitter.com/CbM4qovEed
— Rob Leathern (@robleathern) May 2, 2016
Forbes, a site that in the past has allowed malicious ads to be presented to its readers, would now like access and control of those readers' social media contacts, which sounds like a terrible idea. But even more strange was when Leathern bothered to look into the terms of services that such a membership with Forbes entailed.
If you aren't laughing by now, you should be. Because the ToS for a membership which would allow readers to access the site's content while using an adblocker contain language asserting that you cannot use an adblocker. Whatever else you may think of Forbes in general, having multiple personalities running policy for the site seems like a bad strategy. Leathern's conclusion summarizes it nicely:
So I’ve basically agreed now to not block their ads, after signing up for the express purpose of being able to see their content while blocking their ads.Forbes: a confused schizophrenic that would like to serve you some malware, please. I can just hear the dollars rolling into the coffers now...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ad blocking, ads, privacy, social media
Companies: forbes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CFAA
That'll teach those nasty ad-blockers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey Now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey Now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forbes is now indistinguishable...
What a magnificent achievement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it's an "ad-light" experience!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ad blocker stays on as long as the ad pest industry ignores cleaning up it's act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
companies can go bankrupt first .. i really don't care. There is no article out there that is worth reading if it's not somewhere else i can get to it without compromising my security and/or contact list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to talk more about malware
I love this sentence and I think it needs to be said more often simply because the argument over using adblockers is usually worded as "you're stealing content by blocking ads". Yet not many people talk about the malware that gets served as ads.
And don't forget how much bandwidth (and time) is spent serving ads, especially on mobile devices. Is Forbes going to pay me back for using my data to serve ads and javascript code from 5 different sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need to talk more about malware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need to talk more about malware
Not just read it, but buy the products as well. If you don't buy the products, then you're stealing! But let's be reasonable. You don't have to buy every product. One buy per page should do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
forbes, join wired
Want my eyes to see your adds? Serve them without requiring scripting.
Want to assume that all people using script blockers are doing so to block adds? Enjoy digging your hole deeper and deeper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forbes' logic
Apparently, they're perfectly fine with people who block ads as long as they are willing to go along with something much, much worse.
This is truly baffling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lETS SEE...
They have access to your Social communications?
So, you wonder their site and ALL your nets, send links to the Forbes site, SHOWING what you are reading..
who HERE would allow FIRST PARTY ADVERTS?? not adverts from a 3rd party, Only ones from the site you are on??
Raise your hand...I know you are there..
Why cant Forbes GET IT into their heads, that THEY can make the ADVERTS for their site, for OTHER advertisers..and GET PAID FOR IT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]