Reddit's Technology Subreddit Ponders Banning Wired & Forbes For Blocking Adblock Users

from the block-the-blocking-of-the-blockers? dept

Over the last year there have been a growing number of websites that have decided to "deal" with the rise of ad blockers by blocking ad blocking users entirely. Blocking the blockers was the recently recommended course of action by the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), which suggested the best way to have a "conversation" about ad blockers was to try and prevent them from being used. And while sites like the New York Times, GQ, Forbes and Wired have all happily pursued this course of action, their actual implementation has ranged from frustrating to downright comical.

Mike has noted he doesn't use an ad blocker, yet is somehow blocked by all of these sites completely. I do use an AdBlocker and whitelist websites I care about, but even after whitelisting the entire Wired domain, this is what I see whenever I've tried to view a Wired story in 2016:This has been a problem since the website first announced it was going to be blocking adblock users earlier this year. At the time, Wired stated that ad block blocking was necessary because on an average day, 20% of Wired readers block Wired ads:

"On an average day, more than 20 percent of the traffic to WIRED.com comes from a reader who is blocking our ads. We know that you come to our site primarily to read our content, but it’s important to be clear that advertising is how we keep WIRED going: paying the writers, editors, designers, engineers, and all the other staff that works so hard to create the stories you read and watch here."

Wired's ingenious solution to this problem was to impose a system that's so shitty, it can't detect whether you use an ad blocker or not? A solution that's so ham-fisted it's actually pissing off and blocking users that have never even considered using an ad blocker? Like paywalls, Wired's also alienating editors and writers that might otherwise link to its content, but decide not to for risk of annoying their own readers. Wired's "solution" causes far more problems that it fixes, and so far the company's been mute to user complaints, likely in the hopes that annoyed users will just pony up $1 a month for its "ad free" option.

Since users being sent to these websites are increasingly annoyed, moderators over at the technology subreddit have announced they're considering banning ad block blocking websites from the subreddit completely. They don't even mention that these blockers don't work, but they do point out that websites like Forbes have been pushing malware at users should they lower their defenses:

"It has come to our attention that many websites such as Forbes and Wired are now requiring users to disable ad blockers to view content. Because Forbes requires users to do this and has then served malware to them we see this as a security risk to you our community. There are also sites such as Wall Street Journal that have implemented pay-walls which we were are also considering banning. We would like all of your thoughts on whether or not we should allow domains such as Forbes here on /r/technology while they continue to resort to such practices."

It's entirely possible that the mods face pressure from higher up to avoid this route, but it remains an obvious indication of a growing annoyance among consumers, many of whom see ad blocking technologies as just another privacy and security tool. And like any such tool, the rise of ad block blocking has simply given birth to another game of cat and mouse -- the development of tools to help ad block users block detection more easily. Yeah, we're now busy blocking the blockers of blockers. This is the glorious "solution" to a problem that started with websites pushing too many poorly designed ads and intrusive technologies?

So what has trying to block ad block users actually accomplished outside of annoying potential readers, reducing traffic and making your website look tone deaf and foolish? Here at Techdirt we let users disable ads, but simply ask they try to support us in other ways (the Insider Shop, Deals Store, or one of our crowdfunding campaigns). That seems like an easier route than forcibly trying to dictate what tools consumers can and cannot use. Meanwhile, if websites really want to have a "conversation" about ad blockers, the first step would be to really listen to customers when they explain why they're using them.

Filed Under: ad blocker blockers, ad blockers, ad blocking, internet ads, links, social media
Companies: forbes, reddit, wired

Wired Releases A Story Early To Apple News Users; Wired Readers Not Happy

from the fragmenting-the-internet dept

As you may know, Apple last week released its new Apple News newsreader product. I don't have an iOS device, so I haven't checked it out, but the reviews I've heard have been fairly underwhelmed by the experience. Either way, Wired apparently decided (or did some sort of deal with Apple) to release a particular story as an "exclusive" on Apple News. The story was released last week, but you can only see it on Apple News. If you go to this URL on Wired before the story officially shows up on the web tonight, you get a blurb saying that it's only available on Apple news for now.

This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday, September 22nd. Please check this page again at that time.

Perhaps not that surprisingly, a lot of people are unhappy about this. Wired posted this to its Facebook feed and the comments are almost entirely negative.


Whaddya know? Turns out that creating arbitrary exclusives based on what platform people use (and, likely, which company paid you to keep your content exclusive to their platform) serves mainly to piss people off. People don't want a fragmented/fractured content experience. They don't want to be told that they can't read a story just because they don't have the "right" kind of phone. That's not the kind of internet the public wants, and it's a bit unfortunate that it's one that Wired has apparently decided to support.

Filed Under: apple news, exclusives, fragmentation, internet, platforms, wired
Companies: apple, conde nast, wired

Why Can't All These Ideas For Content On The iPad/Tablets Also Work On The Web?

from the i'm-confused dept

Last month, at a panel in Silicon Valley on the future of journalism, one of the topics of discussion was whether or not tablet computing would be the "savior" of news, with most of the focus being on a recent video put together by Sports Illustrated of what a specialized tablet version of the magazine might look like. More recently, Wired Magazine demonstrated a working prototype of a tabletized version of the magazine. Both of these demos are certainly impressive -- but I'll say the same thing that I said about the SI demo on that panel discussion: why is the focus on the hardware? Nothing in either demo really requires a tablet. If this format is so compelling, why aren't these publications already offering it for use on regular computers? Certainly, the ability to use touchscreen controls is nice, but you could easily replicate the basics with a mouse. If the overall format is so compelling, then what does it have to do with a tablet/iPad, specifically? Now, perhaps Wired does intend for this to be useful on other platforms, as its version is just an Adobe AIR app, and so it could function just fine on a desktop/laptop, but again, the video seems to keep focusing on the tablet as if that's necessary. Yes, perhaps the form factor of a tablet computer makes this experience more enjoyable, but I think it's important in judging whether or not these apps actually make sense to separate the hardware from the software, to see if either makes sense without the other, or if they really are joined at the hip.

Filed Under: ipad, magazines, sports illustrated, tablets, ui, wired
Companies: wired

Opening Up Your Entire Writing Process Isn't Such A Ridiculous Idea

from the not-that-everyone-has-to-do-it... dept

Last week, when we wrote about how author Stephenie Meyer seemed to be overreacting to the leak of her latest manuscript, one of our regular critical commenters (an IP lawyer, who fully supports the IP system) posted a mocking comment pretending to mimic us by saying that maybe she should have opened up her whole writing process and put it up as a wiki. Of course, we never suggested any such thing, we merely pointed out that once the reality of the leak had happened, there were good and bad ways to react to it, and she chose a bad way, that punished her biggest fans.

However, it's worth noting that the more wide open process of creativity isn't necessarily worth mocking either. In fact, Boing Boing points out that Wired Magazine has opened up its storyboarding process for a feature for the next issue, so that people can follow the process of building the story. The mocking commenter-type folks would insist that this would somehow hurt the magazine and the writer by somehow "revealing" the process too soon, but the reality is that it's likely to help build more interest in the story by better connecting with fans who will feel a bigger connection to the story by seeing the whole process, rather than just the finished product.

Of course, this isn't to say that everyone has to embrace such an open process, but that it's not such a ridiculous process, no matter how much it may offend the sensibilities (or billing ability) of an IP attorney.

Filed Under: open, open process, storyboarding, writing
Companies: wired