>>20537 They need to run ads, admits the ad blocker.
They need to run ads that people will see, the ad blocker realises.
This is ridiculous, cries the ad blocker.
>>20537 They've blocked a bunch of news sites at work because all the ads running in the background were to much for our desktop servers to take. I can only conclude that the admins are a bunch of regards who couldn't figure out that the answer was to block the "advertising" category on the corporate web filter.
>>20540 You can't filter the web at the URL or domain level without introducing more problems than you solve. Your parents couldn't, your network administrator can't, and neither can David Cameron. When will people learn?
It would seem to me the problem lies in retaining computer hardware that struggles to handle bog-standard web sites. But maybe you do a job where the the rules of supply and demand mean your boss has no incentive to keep you happy.
>>20541 Have you not noticed the protracted death of print media? Nobody's paying for print because it's all out there on the internet, supported by ads. You must be having me on.
>>20543 >You can't filter the web at the URL or domain level without introducing more problems than you solve.
The authors of every ad-blocking extension ever would like a word with you.
>>20543 >It would seem to me the problem lies in retaining computer hardware that struggles to handle bog-standard web sites.
On the contrary. The problem is clearly that you know fuck all about enterprise IT.
>>20545 Actually the authors of ad-blocking extensions outsource the creation of the lists to some poor chump who has the requisite patience to do a shitty job of an endless task and never get thanked for it.
>>20552 >So this isn't the thread where we discuss how The Telegraph have started running their own in-house ads because adblockers are ruining the CPM at ad agencies?
Doesn't look like it. It looks like the thread where we discuss how respectable news websites are running such awful ads that people might want to use ad blockers.