How do those who code the webpage for te Boston Globe get paid for correctly making webpages? Once an adblocker is involved, it seems to hardly be fair to complain about page quality. Itβs like a stowaway complaining about the in flight movie.
I'm not dismissing the fact that other people had problems, but all due to adblockers. So if you want to read the article, but aren't willing to do anything about working around the fact that the page has problems with certain ones, how does that add to the discussion about the article?
Specifically the comment that you replied "And?" to, I think makes valid points. You have the right to block ads, but the BG also has the right to block people who block ads.
Finally, how can they be reasonably expected to test a custom page against many different adblockers, all of which alter the structure of the DOM; In addition to being actively hostile to their goal, which is to be compensated for their work.
> I'm not dismissing the fact that other people had problems, but all due to adblockers
That's not true. Others can view it in safari with adblocker on, in lynx, in ff with noscript, etc. The problem isn't an adblocker but that the site doesn't work with commonly found browsers.
> So if you want to read the article, but aren't willing to do anything about working around the fact that the page has problems with certain ones, how does that add to the discussion about the article?
That's a far better question. When I made my comment, the page was 100% comments about people not being able to read the webpage. There were about 10 comments at the time. So, the page that I posted to was a list of all the ways that people tried to read the webpage and couldn't. In that way, my comment, and every other comment on the hn page, were made to list how the web page didn't work in order for someone to find a way that the page could be viewed, without people having to change their browsing configurations. That continued until someone one person posted how to use textise and another used archive.is to view the page. Normally I use archive.org or google cache instead of archive.is, but this site wasn't in those caches at the time.
> Specifically the comment that you replied "And?" to, I think makes valid points. You have the right to block ads, but the BG also has the right to block people who block ads.
Except that nobody disputes the points in the post. It was a truism, which is why I responded, "And?"
> Finally, how can they be reasonably expected to test a custom page against many different adblockers, all of which alter the structure of the DOM; In addition to being actively hostile to their goal, which is to be compensated for their work.
The issue isn't the adblocker but a poorly coded site that doesn't work in all browsers. You are making assumptions that simply aren't true. I'm not hostile to a website making money. That's just a strawman.
