No adblocker detected

204 LorenDB 69 9/9/2025, 1:09:21 AM maurycyz.com ↗

Comments (69)

ksynwa · 56m ago
I am extremely insulated from ads online and have been for about a decade. Once in a while I have to browse on a device that does not have an ad blocker or most of the times does not even let you install one. Seeing a website that is SEoptimised and heavily ad supported feels like walking into a crack den. That this is the normal experience for the vast majority of users is sad.
ruined · 13m ago
funny thought: i would speculate that the demographic intersection of web users and crack users has a higher utilization of adblock than all web users
jdprgm · 23m ago
I really can't comprehend how aggressive ad blocking isn't the norm and at 90%+ at this point. Whenever someone just doesn't seem to care i'm concerned something is wrong with them. Youtube ad blocking was briefly not working for me recently and the volume of ads just while doing some chores which forced interrupting flow to go manually skip was astounding and enraging. It's like if I was at a quiet library and every 30 seconds someone randomly started screaming yet half the people have a reaction of "meh, doesn't bother me".
ryandrake · 16m ago
I think people are just hopelessly used to their lives being saturated with ads. On TV, on the Internet, on radio, on billboards, at restaurants, at the airport, at the gas station, in stores, out of stores, almost every surface that could have an ad on it either does now or will one day. This saturation has been so complete and normalized that people are blind to it.
nananana9 · 13m ago
Most people don't use the internet at a whole - if you just stick to the 10 biggest apps/websites, the experience is acceptable without an adblocker.

As for YouTube, blocking their ads is basically a part-time job at this point. On the desktop it breaks once a month, on Android NewPipe stopped working recently, and soon you won't be even able to install third party clients.

neilv · 1h ago
> No adblocker detected. Consider using an extension like uBlock Origin to save time and bandwidth.

And attention and privacy.

This notice is a great idea.

I might remove the "like" from the notice, since "uBlock Origin" is good, but some others are questionable or even outright malware.

BTW, note that the `ublockorigin.com` Web site that is linked to isn't by Raymond Hill, leader of uBlock Origin. It looks well-intended, and is nicely polished UX, but good practice would be to be careful (since it doesn't appear to be under Hill's control, and is an additional point of potential compromise in what would be very valuable malware). Hill seems to operate from <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock>. One link that isn't too bad to view <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/README.md>. Another that isn't great but OK is <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki>.

Vortigaunt · 1h ago
The FBI also makes a good argument that adblockers prevent scammers from directing people to malicious sites.

https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/22/fbi-ad-blocker/

https://web.archive.org/web/20230219020056/https://www.ic3.g...

nicce · 1h ago
I have said it years that adblocker is the best anti-virus these days.
caminante · 1h ago
I get miffed when corporations manage employee browsers and disable adblocker extensions.
BLKNSLVR · 1h ago
I don't understand why DNS ad blockers (Ad Guard, Pi-Hole, other) aren't frequently used across corporates. Especially given the regular-ish training on cybersecurity and related.
bitpush · 1h ago
Because ads are not how malware is distributed? You have higher chance of getting a malware from `pnpm add` than seeing an ad on the web.
minitech · 46m ago
> Because ads are not how malware is distributed?

Malware is absolutely distributed through ads. In the case of more reputable ad platforms that don’t allow arbitrary scripts, it’s by linking to malware, but they’re also used to serve drive-by exploits.

> You have higher chance of getting a malware from `pnpm add` than seeing an ad on the web.

If you’re a normal computer user who browses the web without an ad blocker and never runs `pnpm add`, the relevant chance is a little different. (Fun side fact: current pnpm wisely doesn’t run install scripts by default.)

vasco · 25m ago
And its users wisely read all of those scripts before manually running them, same as the library code, they read all of it before running.
kstrauser · 45m ago
This is very incorrect.

Ads are basically running a program they wrote on your computer. If there’s any exploitable feature in your browser’s JS sandbox, count on someone sending you an ad that will exploit it.

BLKNSLVR · 51m ago
muppetman · 22m ago
Right and Donald Trump is a good president. C'mon Grandad, let's get you to bed.
bb88 · 52m ago
For some industries, it's critical their employees are not spied upon. The CISO should prioritize this for those companies.

Banks, Defense, etc.

keb_ · 46m ago
I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.

There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeloaders resisting the ads then services won't host the content, and on the path to that the freeloaders are really just leeching off a system in an entitled way (unless their goal is to destroy the services they use in which case good on them for consistency and for picking a worthy target).

If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine, enforcement was always by an honour system. But strategically if a service's social contract doesn't work for someone then they shouldn't use that service - they'd just be feeding the beast. They should go make their own service work or investigate the long list of alternative platforms.

safety1st · 18m ago
Well, hang on. Your comment is fair minded, but to be fair we have to consider the context.

The context is that the courts have found Google holds two illegal monopolies within the online adtech market [1], the remedy for which has yet to be determined. Furthermore the DoJ has sued Meta for holding one as well and that trial is now underway. [2]

I don't know about you, but to me, if the counterparty breaches a contract, that contract is now null and void. Same goes for a social contract, and if someone tries to kill me or rob me, whatever social contract we may have had, is now null and void.

Fortunately Google and Meta aren't actually taking hits out on anyone as far as I know, but the fact remains that the market makers for these online ads, are either outright convicted criminals, or being sued by the government for such. I don't see that we have any social contract to respect or allow any of this. It is right, just and moral to oppose the very existence of online advertising in my opinion, until the illegal abuses are corrected.

If the court has resolved that Google's breaking the law, how about we get an injunction ordering them to halt their ad tech business until the remedies are implemented. Why are we going so easy on them?

You don't owe crooks anything, neither do I.

This isn't about being cheap or breaking a fair deal. It's about asking that law and order be restored within American business and society. What's the point of this society, what moral justification does it have to exist as it is, if it keeps on breaking its own laws to protect the most powerful?

Now it's unfortunate that publishers (websites) get caught in the crossfire of this, they might not agree with me when I say you should oppose all online ads full stop until the problem is corrected, but they are getting screwed by Google and Meta and they would be more than happy to see justice done.

[1] https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/04/18/court-ruling-agains... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_v._Meta

throwawaygmbno · 33m ago
This is a fine social contract for the independent blogger just sharing their thoughts on the Internet and maybe hoping to get a few dollars for their server cost.

Mega corporations that have been sucking up personal data for a couple decades now are not people. There is no social contract with them. They just sell your data.

If you know what they are doing, know how to block it, and refuse to, you are complicit in making the world a worse place. Corporations are not people that should be treated with the respect you are talking about.

randunel · 35m ago
The websites you speak of don't get to decide what my hardware and my software does when running in my hands. Their content is a suggestion for my user agent, not some unbreakable law. If they don't like it, they should shut down completely.
charcircuit · 26m ago
That's why the parent said it was a social contact based on the honor system. Just because you can technically block ads, it doesn't meant it's the right thing to do.
ryandrake · 11m ago
It's not any kind of contract. A contract (even an unwritten "social" one) implies at the very least some kind of agreement, some meeting of the minds. There is no meeting of the minds on the web: Your browser simply says "Hey, give me this content," then the server says, "Here's what I'd like you to show," and finally the browser decides what out of that stream of bytes gets shown. There's no agreement by the user in that conversation, not even an implied one. The site can decide whether or not to reply, whether or not to send anything, and the user agent then decides what to show. There's no contract.
charcircuit · 38s ago
>Your browser simply says "Hey, give me this content,"

The technical details do not matter. Social contacts are about societal expectations, not about your personal ones. Do you think a thief has a meeting of the minds about not stealing something from a shop keeper? It's not the theifs world view that matters here. Similar to your example the physics of the world say it's possible for a human to pick up an item without paying for it, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

kergonath · 8m ago
It is not a social contract at all. They track me whether I use their services or not, on websites that are completely unrelated. I do not get a choice, not to mention the monopolies they built (yeah, fuck YouTube). These ads eat up my resources and affect my battery life.

There is no more honour involved as when someone pays the mob for protection. I strongly reject this argument. I am bound by honour but they can do anything and change the contract unilaterally? Fuck them, that’s no contract at all.

ffsm8 · 11m ago
The social contract was broken by the website owner by including ads.
strken · 7m ago
The problem is that commercial ad-supported websites force themselves into all available online spaces: search results, discords, social media, affiliate links on blogs. The only way to stop them doing so is to take away their source of revenue.

If ads weren't profitable, you wouldn't find no results for your search about which kitchen knife to buy, you would would find better, less weaponised, more relevant results. If you don't block ads then you are directly contributing to a world with more ads and less content.

bb88 · 38m ago
Ads in and of themselves aren't really the issue. It's the tracking that is.

If the ad was delivered without cookies and without tracking, as just a stationary gif, I'd be more okay with it.

But without tracking, back in 2008/9 ish before the real estate crash, the Simpsons made a reference to the dancing cowboys ad for selling mortgages. These were the adjustable rate mortgages that went sky high shortly after closing on the house.

https://trailers.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1f73a011-858b-418b-940...

Terr_ · 30m ago
My view is that core bargain was fine, but advertisers have broken the agreement with other offenses, like:

* Autoplay videos that preemptively take my bandwidth.

* Autoplay audio that takes over my speakers unexpectedly and interrupts other things.

* Forms of pop-ups that clutter or disrupt my tab/window control.

* Being spied-on by a system that tries to aggregate and track all of my browsing habits.

* A mostly unaccountable vector for malware and phishing sites.

* Just a genuinely horrible experience whenever a page is one part content to three parts blinking blooping ever shifting ads that would make Idiocracy blush.

They try to pretend customer resistance is just over the most innocent and uncontroversial display of ads, but it's not true, and it hasn't been for decades.

ruined · 26m ago
i host a website because i have information that i want to put on the internet, not because i want ad revenue.
cookiengineer · 30m ago
I wanted to point out that the users that download websites to read them aren't the freeloaders.

The actual freeloaders are the ISPs, because they don't share the profits with the networks they provide access to.

In a better world, Browsers would all be peer to peer, and share their caches end-to-end, with verifiable content hashes, so that websites don't need to provide the majority of bandwidth.

But here we are, Google not giving a fuck because they actually like being a monopoly that does not need to create a healthy ecosystem because everyone involved is paying them anyways. With resources, and with money. Who would have thought?

schaefer · 27m ago
gentle reminder: online advertisements are so dangerous that the fbi recommends you use an ad blocker [1]. If there’s a social contract at play, users aren’t the ones breaking it.

Their behavior is abusive, and our behavior is self defense.

Let the ads networks do the hard work of 1) cleaning up their act, and 2) rebuilding trust before you worry about your end of the social contract.

[1]: https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-recommends-installing-an-ad-b...

zartcosgrove · 39m ago
I feel like SEO and click bait of all kinds has already broken that unwritten social contract. I feel like your argument is that using an adblocker is impolite, borderline unfair. But I also feel like we, the users, have been exploited by surveillance capitalism. If anyone broke the social contract, it's the websites that participated in [enshittification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification).
innocentoldguy · 26m ago
There needs to be a balance. I don't block ads on sites that respect me enough not to drown out the main content with ads. However, I always block sites that have excessive ads or use pop-ups. On a side note, whoever invented pop-up ads should be sentenced to life in prison on a diet of pickled beets and prune juice.
est · 2h ago
I wish browsers could just provide a way to disable javascript after page `onload`.

Perhaps only enables js when user clicks something.

landgenoot · 35m ago
Tried to browse a while with NoScript addon. But barely any page loads, so you need to whitelist almost every page you visit, which defeats the purpose.

I have been thinking about some kind of render proxy that runs all the JS for you somewhere else in a sandbox and sends you the screenshot or rendered HTML instead. Or maybe we could leverage an LLM to turn the Bloated JS garbage into the actual information you are looking for.

anticristi · 14m ago
That's what I love most about using ChatGPT vs Google for finding information: less bloat, just what I asked for.
userbinator · 1h ago
Old Opera (before it became another Chromium-shell) had an easy JS on/off toggle in the menu, but I don't remember if it only took effect on load or immediately.
rkagerer · 1h ago
Amen to that. I used to think the Stop button in IE did this.
bb88 · 45m ago
or mouseover.
dheera · 1h ago

    setTimeout(() => {

        // fuck up all future javascripts

        setTimeout = setInterval = requestAnimationFrame = () => {};
        Element.prototype.appendChild = () => { throw new Error("Blocked"); };
        document.addEventListener = () => {};
        window.addEventListener = () => {};
        Object.defineProperty(document, "readyState", { get: () => { throw new Error("No JS"); } });
        document.write = () => {};

        // fuck up canvas
        if(window.HTMLCanvasElement) HTMLCanvasElement.prototype.getContext=()=>null; 

        // fuck up webgl
        if(window.WebGLRenderingContext) window.WebGLRenderingContext.prototype.getParameter=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}};

        // fuck up webgl2
        if(window.WebGL2RenderingContext) window.WebGL2RenderingContext.prototype.getParameter=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}};

        // fuck up websockets
        window.WebSocket=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}}; window.EventSource=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}};

        // fuck up popups
        window.open=()=>null;

        // ...

    }, 500);
cookiengineer · 19m ago
Is there a Browser extension that farbles all these APIs on purpose instead of blocking them?

By farbling I mean making the data look like it's the most common Windows configuration, for example.

landgenoot · 7m ago
I don't think that will work, because that will also provide false information to the logic.

You will have messed up layouts and unneeded quirks. Moreover, banks are using fingerprinting to detect fraud so you will have a hard time on those websites as well.

And more importantly.

https://xkcd.com/1105/

vhcr · 40m ago

    const iframe = document.createElement("iframe");
    document.body.append(iframe);
    iframe.contentWindow...
brirec · 57m ago
What the fuck up does this do?
scotty79 · 48m ago
Shadows bunch of builtin browser JS functions so they do nothing.
charrondev · 2h ago
> but if you use external CSS, it’s quite common for the request to fail resulting in an unstyled page

That’s a pretty crazy statement. How often do you see loading a CSS stylesheet fail to load? Most sites are completely unusable without their stylesheets and I don’t recall the last time I saw a stylesheet fail to load.

inetknght · 52m ago
> How often do you see loading a CSS stylesheet fail to load?

Often. It might have something to do with my adblock settings though...

> Most sites are completely unusable without their stylesheets

Those sites are generally completely trash anyway.

copypaper · 1h ago
I've had it happen to me exactly once in the past few years. And a simple refresh fixed it. Definitely an overstatement to say it's common.
userbinator · 1h ago
Somewhat common if a site is being overloaded.
saghm · 1h ago
That checks out, I feel like the place I've seen it the most is on Github, which also seems to be the site I use regularly that has the most frequent outages (which also aren't quite at the level I'd call them common, but still _somewhat_ common_ compared to everything else I use anywhere close to daily)
mediumsmart · 36m ago
The message does not show on Orion and I have no adblocker installed. I was also not told any Jellyfish facts.
Squarex · 15m ago
Have you disabled the bult-in adblocker?
noam_k · 22m ago
Can anyone explain why the ID of the div is modified?
userbinator · 1h ago
I found it amusing that my proxy detected the "/ads/" in the URL and killed the connection automatically.

Of course highlighting this fact that the presence of an adblocker is detectable, unfortunately only results in escalating the cat-and-mouse game further.

I have also considered popularising a script that replaces the whole page's content with "JavaScript detected, please disable it to view this content and improve your security".

zamadatix · 1h ago
Ironically, the latter would probably end up being cat-and-mouse blocked by tools like the former.
WD-42 · 2h ago
I wonder what the overlap between visitors to a site that would display this and visitors not already using an adblocker is. Then again I've seen developers with ads plastered all over their screens before, I'd like to believe it's a conscious decision on their part.
GuB-42 · 2h ago
Now that I think of it, when a professional YouTuber shows their browser, more often than not, there is no ad-blocking. But as professional YouTubers, there is no way they are not aware of ad-blocking.

I wonder if they actually watch the ads on purpose, even in private or if they turn their adblocker off just for the video, as not to give ideas to their viewers and potentially losing ad revenue.

WD-42 · 1h ago
Yea, I've seen a few videos from Low Level Learning where the content of the article he's reading from gets covered by annoying banner ads and such. I don't know why but security websites have really obnoxious ads. In any case, you can see the anguish on his face but the show must go on.
creatonez · 1h ago
A while back Linus Tech Tips said ad blockers are a form of unethical piracy. His audience accused him of spreading self-serving bullshit. Oddly, his position changed a few years later and he started promoting adblocking.

The chance that he was using one the whole damn time? 100%

zem · 1h ago
back in the heyday of the daily wtf there was a beautiful submission from a developer who worked for a banner ad company. got called into a VP's office one day and yelled at because some new annoying ad wasn't showing up where intended, a bunch of debugging later it turned out that the VP was running an ad blocker and had just forgotten about it.
omoikane · 2h ago
I see it since I don't have adblockers installed.

Instead of adblockers, I remember sites that are user hostile one way or another and just avoid those sites. Those sites that are heavy on ads usually aren't worth my time anyway, so the presence of those auto-playing videos in every corner ends up being a signal for me to go somewhere else.

giveita · 1h ago
Use the original adblocker: hosts
reactordev · 1h ago
Instead of document.cookie consider document.localStorage since there’s verbiage around showing a notice on your site if you use cookies, etc, for tracking purposes. At least with local storage, you aren’t using cookies :P
Tarq0n · 1h ago
The law doesn't care whether it's a cookie or an equivalent.
minitech · 1h ago
And this cookie isn’t for tracking purposes anyway, so doesn’t require a notice.
dheera · 1h ago
The "law" only applies if you live in the EU anyway.
initself · 1h ago
There's no hope anymore of a solution.
jojobas · 1h ago
I was wondering why I don't see such a for a second.