Don’t mind me I’m just using a ad blocker

There is literally no law or contract that says I HAVE to see the ads if I visit a page unless there's some kind of quasi adwall. Most of the time user is just bullied into downloading ad data on his computer that he never asked for in the first place.

Sites have full right to use anti ad block protections, but users also have full right to just block the ads. Personally I do it because ads are fucking bloat and most of them are just repulsive in their behaviour. Don't invade me with that shit, I'm never buying stuff. I never click ads. I'm literally making you a fucking favour by rejecting paid content that I'm guaranteed to never interact with, so there's more impressions reserved for people who might.

>I want companies to fuck my brain and my wallet
>I don't mind the ads, I like them
>we should put more ads on the internet so that companies can make more products and profit.... for innovation of course

>dont mind me just copying this software instead of buying it
>i wasnt going to buy it anyway
>dont mind ne just blocking your advert instead of watching it
>I wasnt going to buy any of the things advertized anyway or watch the ad
>dont mind me just putting climate gasses in the air
>i wasnt going to breathe that air anyway
>i wasnt going to live long enough to see the world destroyed anyway

Attached: images.jpg (275x183, 16K)

>don't mind me just choosing not to buy anything from this store

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1300x1390, 249K)

im a 19 y/o student with so little disposable income it would make your head spin
ads dont even work on me

so I stole this ad from cnn.com, anyone wants it?

Attached: brraaap.png (345x307, 63K)

friendly reminder that ALL (100%) of advertisements are, at least partially, but usually entirely, targeted towards females between the ages of 16 and 35, because >90% of all consumer purchases (from books to houses to cars to insurance) are decided (not necessarily paid for) by this group
if you are a man you are allowed to block ads guilt-free; they weren’t meant for you anyway

hypocrite. If you think it's lecherous then dont use it since it's against your own morals. I use one because ads are inherently evil.

I want to believe you, but do you have a source? Or at least point me towards some further reading material?

>using your bandwidth without your permission
>not stealing

a quick google search turned this shitty article up
fastcompany.com/1663594/women-dominate-the-global-market-place-here-are-5-keys-to-reaching-them
claims women control 80% of spending in the US, but no source

Are you a man? It should be obvious to you then. Otherwise: men don't make retarded impulse purchases just because they saw an ad.

>don't mind me i'm just an advertising programmer that just happen to use some holes left by adobe and google to better serve my clients

Attached: programmer.jpg (1300x934, 120K)

I honestly wish that was what ad blockers do. Unfortunately, they only allow me to stop companies from stealing my bandwidth.

>dont mind me just putting climate gasses in the air
>i wasnt going to breathe that air anyway
you mean like CO2 which is the very result of breathing you fag?

you just jumped the shark

Ad blockers aren't enough
fully fledged surveillance blockers are the future

Attached: Screenshot_2019-07-30_12-54-47.png (1208x487, 75K)

>we noticed you're using adblocker
>that's cool, we understand
>but...

I hate it when companies say "We care about your privacy but we're gonna do this anyway"
It's as bad as rape. Why is this allowed?

Attached: laughingwhores.jpg (1280x720, 207K)

>thinking i am going to let arbitrary code run on my computer
>implying i want to utilize any bandwidth for ads
>implying i am going to buy anything shoved in my face

anything that makes it around any adblocker (twitch) makes it into my blacklist of never buying this product ever for any reason.

if i was going to buy something, i know what i want already, and I WILL SEARCH IT OUT MYSELF. you're wasting my bandwidth and patience..

Less than 10% of the web uses ad blockers, and most of them never click anything. Are they really that desperate for this tiny bit of extra ad revenue, to implement that shit and piss off their most tech savvy users? Or are they just being dumb kikes?

extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-readers-to-turn-off-ad-blockers-promptly-serves-malware

You burned that bridge.

>Boris Johnson to appear on all Chrome browsers in the UK regardless of ad-blocking

if every Jow Forums user installed ublock origin on every pc they service (grandparents, uncles etc etc) we could easily boost it up to 20%, that is a huge 10% increase or huge 200% increase in non-paying customers for companies like goog, but shh

Is AdNauseum still a thing?

I just disable ublock origin for the pages that I want to support or pages that I visit often and know their ads are not malicious

I never had any guilt about blocking ads, though. In fact, I actively avoid buying any products I remember seeing an ad for because I don't know if I actually want that item or if I was tricked into feeling like I want it.

>Oh, nice bandwidth you have here. What if I were to shit it up with less than useless shit?
>Wait, you want to block it?? PARASITE!
Ads made the internet a business. Attention is a commodity.
I reject being sold.

That word doesn't mean what you think it does. You're looking for parasitic. To be lecherous is to be an unabated sex fiend.

wow i want to be like (you) someday

epic analogy my dude now fuck off and neck yourself shill

Attached: 1523305945392.png (457x380, 262K)

>men don't make retarded impulse purchases just because they saw an ad

Attached: bitch.jpg (419x610, 39K)

>puts fence around house to prevent people from burglarizing it and harassing me
wow i'm such a thief

shit bait that nu-/v/ simply can't identify anymore

wagie go back to your cagie

>climate gasses

>Wikipedia for all its flaws remains godlike
$0.02 has been deposited into your account, goyim

Great analogy.
How about the Ad Nauseam approach, where the blocker maliciously simulates ad clicks?

Show me relevant adds and I'll whitelist you, but if you get in bed with the likes of Taboola you asked to be blocked.

>video game reference
go back to manchild

> SJW central
>Godlike
Choose one

Until ads stop being a vector for malware distribution, they're going to remain blocked for me.

I actually do this on every PC I service. Fuck adkikes.

>request web page
>server gives web page
>web page contains links
>don't ask server for links
>somehow this is stealing

If you want me to request the ads, make me request the ads BEFORE giving me the page. You can't give me the page and then claim I have to ask you for ads. This is literally called fraud, where you try to trick someone into a hidden contract.

Attached: chaika.jpg (1000x2250, 636K)

Adblocking is not lecherous at all.
The ethics is solid, I own my computer and choose what I download.
The real debauchery is retards like you and the OP pushing people to equate adblocking and copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement IS wrong, adblocking is not. Creating a false equivalence might lead to a rationalization of an injustice.
All because failed abortions like you decide to not probe the deeper questions of ethics.

Advertisers are human garbage.
Stealing their profit via adblocking is not enough.
If there was some way to rape them through the internet, I would do it in a heartbeat.
Anally, of course, its 2019 after all, can't be discriminatory.

pull medium

I use brave browser and it pretty much blocks all the ads. A few get by occasionally but not for long. Its mobile browser is the best out there imo and its desktop one is nice too.

>0.05 BAT has been deposited into your account

I'd feel bad, but those ads are targeted at me likely based on stolen private data.

I don't mind not incentivizing data theft.

It's not theft if you willingly gave it away.

i miss the flashy 460 wide banner ads

Abortions are wrong user.

Maybe you should have self-hosted the ad and made it a simple image link to your sponsor so it wasn't intrusive and couldn't be blocked by ad domain blacklists and disabling javascript, but no -- you had to make an annoying, infringing, resource taxing, exploitable, immutable piece of shit advertisement hosted by some shady third party company that may or may not be deploying malicious code on my machine. All so you can make them ad jewbux. Now you're complaining because I'm blocking your bullshit? Fuck you.

Attached: fake-Microsoft-Tech-Support.jpg (888x471, 65K)

This. My main gripe about ads are malicious and intrusive ads.

>tfw use a computer that doesnt have adblocker
ads, pop ups, bloat shit everywhere flike srsly you enjoy seeing all this distracting crap wtf

Attached: 1563941208608.jpg (960x960, 334K)

The day I started using ad blockers was due to some unironic faggot hosting unmutable ads on their site while I was reading fanfics.

>watch youtube on pc
>can watch the videos without being spammed by shitty ads, can listen to videos while in other tabs
>watch youtube on mobile
>fucking multiple ads, ads you can't skip, can't play audio while in other apps
>instagram on pc
>just the people I follow
>instagram on mobile
>every 2nd picture is another fucking sponsored ad, all the stories are cut with sponsored ads, anyone who has a decent following is posting their own fucking 'native' 'influencer' ads so 60% of the content is just ad shit.
>every so often a new story about malware using ads as a vector comes out
imagine not using adblock in 2019.

hahaha! this poor stupid faggot is still shilling for the anti-adblock faggotry!

Go dilate or something you stupid liberal faggot!

Dont you have to go suck a BBC?

Attached: Liberals afraid of that hat.jpg (566x537, 72K)

>dont mind me, Im just hogging cpu time

>double the length of your penis in a week
you said 100%?

adaway is a thing
and if you can't into it, dns blocking

ad block + not watching TV is probably the best that could happen to my mental health, but there are also some weird moments
like when co workers start talking about an ad and expect me to have seen it as well.

Ads have the opposite effect on me. Whatever is advertised on TV or online, I refuse to buy the product they are shilling.

>only men can buy penis enlargement pills
think with your head

It is telling that websites won't run advertisers' code server-side, even though the result would be much harder to block.

Websites are free to send me whatever content they like when I request it. I am free to display it in whatever way I like on my machine.

>turn off adblocker
>see the absolute cluster fuck that is a typical webpage anymore
>flip it back on

It's pretty much an unspoken necessity today, ads are literally cancer in their current form.

>OI! YOU GOT A LOICENSE TO STOP LOOKIN' AT BORIS JOHNSON?

Forbes fucking killed themselves with ad blocker blockers. I used to see Forbes articles shared all over the place and now it never happens.

>Women
>93% of food
This data seems incredibly suspicious and your screenshot is from girlpowermarketing.com

Assuming it's not entirely fabricated, it's probably a misinterpretation of data that says something like: In 93% of married couples, the wife does the grocery shopping.

I use ad nauseum so all the webpage ads get clicks :)

Is there an adnauseum equivalent that also just sends completely random behavior to confuse google analytics?

Now let's talk about whose money is being spent

Irrelevant for marketing. Although these numbers are inaccurate anyway.

This. HTTP is a pull protocol.

You bakas are missing the point; if the wife does the shopping, than the wife decides what gets purchased, regardless of whose money it is. If you make 6 figures but your woman is the one who spends it, who are the ads gonna target?

>You bakas are missing the point; if the wife does the shopping, than the wife decides what gets purchased, regardless of whose money it is. If you make 6 figures but your woman is the one who spends it, who are the ads gonna target?
Only the third poster is missing the point. only a little over half of of American adults are married. So while it makes sense to target women for certain things, numbers like 93% are incredibly misleading.

You also have to take into account couples who aren’t married, and children whose mothers presumably buy their food

Still no way 93% of all food. Groceries for married couples maybe. The source is biased.

when ads stop serving malware, I'll stop using an adblocker

i think 93% is completely reasonable
in a population of 50/50 men and women, women buy 50% of the food
then, if half the population gets married, women are buying 75% of the food
if you factor in unmarried couples, children, and the general fact that women purchase more expensive food and eat out more often (which is even more expensive), 93% is definitely possible

I mean you could also stereotype that guys are more likely to buy food when couples eat out, plus I doubt 100% of married couples would have all their food purchases made by women.

And since I can't find the actual study online anywhere, we'll never know.

They usually say: we value your privacy.
value as in a monetary meaning, i'll suggest

>I mean you could also stereotype that guys are more likely to buy food when couples eat out
Maybe, but again, it’s not about who’s actually buying it
>And since I can't find the actual study online anywhere, we'll never know.
Ain’t that the way it goes

here, lick this

Attached: x.jpg (225x221, 13K)

Ahh good point. I double checked and the weasel words in the original pic are that women "account for" the purchases. That could mean a lot of things and I buy that that could reach close to 93% since they could just count automatically in any familial or romantic relationship involving them. Too bad we'll never get the raw data. Anyway good night, bed time for me!

Attached: patriot.jpg (590x510, 68K)