Forbes Is Confused: You Can View Content Using An Adblocker By Promising Not To Use An Adblocker

from the er? dept

Thu, May 5th 2016 6:30am — Timothy Geigner

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

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ed (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 7:01am

I wish I could strike all Forbes links from my Google News aggregator. They take up space that could be served by other sites. As it is now, I just avoid any links going to Forbes because I am NOT going to turn off my adblocker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TechDescartes (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 7:17am

Hey Now
Forbes: a confused schizophrenic that would like to serve you some malware, please. I can just hear the dollars rolling into the coffers now...
Don't blame Forbes for what Forbes is doing. They're two separate companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 7:22am

Forbes is now indistinguishable...
...from every other spammer, phisher, e-pender, and stalker.

What a magnificent achievement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 7:28am

estupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 7:39am

So in addition to being schizophrenic about adblocking, Forbes is also apparently under the delusion that adblockers are a third party. My adblocking plugins aren't a "third party". They're me using a tool to remove, obstruct, and otherwise interfere with content that is both suspect and undesirable. The lists of rules they use are fully under my control, and the updates to these lists merely automate a process I would otherwise be doing myself. So when the adblocking plugins in my browser block something that's not some third party blocking something, that's me blocking something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Silent Crew, 5 May 2016 @ 7:44am

You're confused
The little guy sitting by my keyboard wants me to point out that schizophrenia is NOT about having multiple personalities. You're confusing it with Dissociative Identity Disorder. Hey always asks me to type these things since his hands are too small.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryunosuke (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 8:09am

well can we have Forbes committed now? If corporations are people now, and Forbes is a corporate person, then they should have corporate mental health issues too, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 8:29am

Re: Hey Now
Have a talk with your sales department and the production department. Most companies are composed of few to a few dozens of companies inside that don't talk to each other and often get into fights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 8:31am

So the evil Forbes want to infect you with malware while the good Forbes want you to be free (bonus Queen soundtrack in the background). This needs to be turned into a movie starring Jim Carey. Oh wait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adam (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 8:40am

We set the rules and you agree we set the rules simply by reading this sentence. Gotcha!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yakko Warner (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 8:46am

But it's an "ad-light" experience!
What gets me is that the page they throw up if they detect an ad blocker says to turn it off "to continue into Forbes' ad-light experience." When I use adblock, it tells me how many things it blocked, and just to show that page, the number is in the double digits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 9:29am

That is too much effort to go through just to view a page occasionally. As long as they have a problem with ad blockers I don't need to show up there at all.

The ad blocker stays on as long as the ad pest industry ignores cleaning up it's act.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 9:33am

I'm pretty sure that 99% of people are just going to close the tab, rather than jump through their hoops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 9:39am

Forbes is getting wise to a new method of ad blocking, at the sever level. I block ads at the router level, and that used to work with Forbes, but not anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John85851 (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 10:12am

We need to talk more about malware
block off access to anyone using adblocker software, apparently so that it could successfully allow malicious "ads" to infect its readers' machines
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 10:14am

I right click on the interstitial and select Block Element from the menu.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Melkemind (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 10:16am

Meh
Forbes has become a content farm filled with clickbait anyway. You're better off not reading anything their "contributors" post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 10:45am

forbes, join wired
I will treat them like I treat wired, never click links to their site again.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 10:48am

Re: We need to talk more about malware
Saying you're stealing content is completely backwards! If I don't read every single letter of the page, am I stealing content as well? I guess not going to their website is also stealing content, then, right? I probably owe them a fortune, because I can't remember the last time I opened one of their pages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 12:28pm

Forbes' logic
What the hell is Forbes even thinking with this??

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 12:30pm

Re:
There are a ton of sites that I wish I could tell Google News to omit. That I can't do that seriously diminishes its value.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ECA (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 12:37pm

lETS SEE...
So NOW:
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 thread ]
Kludge (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 1:24pm

Re:
Ed, this is possible by going to news.google and clicking the "Personalize" button at the top-right. Add Forbes in the "Adjust Sources" section and move their slider all the way to the left. I have a large handful of walled gardens and clickbaiters in there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 May 2016 @ 3:39pm

Because demanding better ads is to hard compared to looking for new ways to screw over readers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
no namehere, 5 May 2016 @ 5:45pm

Re:
to me that means there is a lot of scripting in those ad's.. if there's scripting i don't want it
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 5:59pm

It's unfortunate that if you ARE on someone's contacts list and they accept such an agreement the company in question already has access to your information whether you want them to or not. Most people still "click through" permissions and licensing systems like this without even bothering to read the fine print. Unless Google fine grains Android permissions even further and make *everything* including their own apps opt-in (and it will take laws to do it because they won't on their own) this isn't going to change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 7:24pm

CFAA
Could this be Forbes trying to turn the Feds loose on viewers with ad-blockers? If you agree to not use an ad-blocker in return for access, and then use an ad-blocker, they could claim that your access was then "unauthorized", and a felony violation of the Feds' favorite computer law, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

That'll teach those nasty ad-blockers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 7:28pm

Re: Re: Hey Now
That's the way my body is. Parts of it may do things that other parts may not agree with. Still, the whole thing gets held responsible. It's just not fair!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2016 @ 7:34pm

Re: Re: We need to talk more about malware
"Saying you're stealing content is completely backwards! If I don't read every single letter of the page, am I stealing content as well?"

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 6 May 2016 @ 7:05am

Re: Re:
Ah, thanks! I never knew this was possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 6 May 2016 @ 7:06am

Re:
It's yet another in the long list of reasons to stop using Facebook.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 6 May 2016 @ 7:19am

Re: Re: Re:
Ack. Well, it's close, but not quite close enough. Those settings only apply to the google news "front page".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 9:56am

Thanks to Forbes, websites that complain about adblockers will be banned from /r/technology
[ link to this | view in thread ]