Hacker News Reader

Comment by aphextron | Hacker News Reader

Which results every single time in choosing option C: the browser back button.

Or D: add the popup asking me to disable my adblocker... to my adblocker.

Only works on some sites, but where it does it's effective.

If I'm really interested, I might open the inspector and delete the offending div, but often scroll is still hijacked or I'll delete div after div up the stack only to accidentally delete the content too.

It's a pain and it's often easier to use the cached version from a search engine or some archiving service.

After you delete the div, go to the body tag and delete the relevant class, or add style="overflow: auto !important;" to the body tag.

I'm quite fond of the "Kill Sticky" bookmarklet

     javascript:(function()%7B(function%20()%20%7Bvar%20i%2C%20elements%20%3D%20document.querySelectorAll('body%20*')%3Bfor%20(i%20%3D%200%3B%20i%20%3C%20elements.length%3B%20i%2B%2B)%20%7Bif%20(getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position%20%3D%3D%3D%20'fixed')%20%7Belements%5Bi%5D.parentNode.removeChild(elements%5Bi%5D)%3B%7D%7D%7D)()%7D)()

Usually two or three times because fuck sites who hijack browser history because I scroll a little too far

It's fine if they're just letting you bookmark the particular spot in the page, but this is what replaceState is for. pushState is definitely wrong.

That's what open in new tab is for.

Close tab is way better than back. Easier, more consistent and faster.

Use the mouse wheel/middle button. Will open a new tab when you click on a link and will close a tab when you click on the tab. This changed my life.

too fickle: half the time I endup also scrolling. ctrl-click is far more predictable. Same result, less "trying to press a thing designed to roll".

On most mouses that's not an issue (assuming no motoric problems). Ctrl-click, on the other hand, requires the use of both hands in most cases.

I've never had a mouse where it wasn't a problem. I don't buy uber-quality mouses, so I'm down in the trenches with the vast majority of mouse users with moderate-to-low quality hardware.

I'm also often using a laptop, on linux, and I do the middle-click-simulation (both buttons at once) with two hands, which is really annoying. I suppose I could fix it.

Also I always have my left hand on the keyboard, so for me it's not a problem to ctrl-click.

Ctrl+click doesn't work on a tab, though--have to hit the X.

My laptop has a middle click button ;)

That's a cool trick. Thank you.

That's most likely a well known issue WITH adblock, not the site.

Typically, I find that toggling Javascript Off works - like with Wired.

Some of the websites that do that have solid content though. Not good enough for me to pay them though so I end up clicking the back button and using alternative sources.

soon, someone will implement one-subscription for online content - something like netflix.

Already happening in some form with Blendle. It will always be bundles though, the internet is too huge.

why? what if sites are rewarded based on time user spends on it actively? what if websites just sign up to be part of the network, and uses common api (think: subscriptionService.isPaidUser() { show content } else { say "sorry" }

You realize that everyone CBS, Disney, everyone is starting their own subscription service and (for many) pulling out of Netflix.

Besides grasping at maintaining stranglehold over distribution. They are hoping to replicate the cable model. Pay for the base package where all the crap no one wants is, then pay for all these extra premium packages.

It's kinda like the channels a-la-carte they've fought against for two decades.

This idea has been Coming Soon for decades. But maybe that's ok.

I really like that I can visit the vast majority of links I click on for free.

Do you think this will collapse if adblock becomes 90% ubiquitous?

Well, the sites that currently fund operations through ads would have to fund them some other way, right? I think many of them would transition to other business models, scale back, or go away completely. I think you'd also see a sharp rise in types of sponsorships that look less like traditional ads and aren't as blockable, like when The Onion has funny original content about cooking at home brought to you by Blue Apron.

I always enable ads on a URL if it asks me to (provided they don't over advertise/have spammy advertisements), kind of already feel shitty about what is effectively stealing content for free so those notices just make me conscious of the guilt.

I wonder how others rationalize blocking ads and not subscribing either but still feeling entitled to access the content.

I block all ads because my safety is a higher priority than the site's profitability. Internet ads are a malware vector, with no accountability. Also, advertising companies have made an art out of psychological manipulation; I protect my mind by filtering their input from my senses.

Just saw your subscription update. Why would I subscribe to something that I am unlikely to return to?

The only solution that I can think of, are micropayments. Perhaps this financial pressure will motivate the powers that be to eliminate roadblocks to its implementation.

I don't feel guilty about it, just like I don't feel guilty about not reading ads in magazines or newspapers.

If you put something on the web, and you want me to pay for it, put up a paywall. If you want to instead serve ads, don't expect me to read them (or load them, even). My bandwidth, my decision.

I don't feel entitled to access arbitrary content. But by the time a web server has already sent it my way for free, I don't give any fucks. If they can't afford to do that, then they shouldn't do that. But they probably do it because they can afford it, and find it profitable enough. I'll be happy to leave if the site sends me a paywall instead of content.

4) accessing the site via archive.is or similar service.

That's honestly what they would prefer if you're not going to make them any money. It's fair to both sides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com