How to force users to disable ad blocker?

I agree. Always put the end user firest in your web apps and anything.

Whenever I see a site that begs me to turn off AdBlock I just dont spend my time on it.

Say Walmart just came out with a policy. You can no longer enter the store if you have a wallet.

It makes no sense. A lot of people have it and aren’t looking to leave it in their cars or at home because a store said no.

Just maybe a popup saying “If you turn off your AdBlock it supports the site!” and a button that goes away after one click and I dont have to ever see it again.

Not “Turn off your AdBlock to see the site” and no way around it.

Think of your users before adding such a feature.


Your users on the forum will get mistaken, and leave the forum so they can get such cringe mobile game ads.

For example, if i have no adblock on, and it says i have adblock, people will leave your forum

1 Like

I understand your, but is there something that forces users to turn off ad block in order to use the forum? Because I saw a forum that uses Discourse in which it doesn’t let users mess with the forum unless you turn off the ad block, how do you do that?

1 Like

I would recommend asking the site operator if you found someone already doing this.


I thought Discourse forums had no advertisements. Also, doesn’t that make the site less trustworthy?

1 Like

There’s a #plugin that allows you to add advertisements to your Discourse community.

How do advertisements make a site “less trustworthy” when a large majority of the web is funded by advertisement banners?


I’m talking about the prompt that forces users to disable ad-blocker. I think it makes it less trustworthy due to the fact that it forces users to turn it off.


What forum does the advertisement blocker prompt that requires users to turn it off?

Just because a website heavily relies on advertisements for revenue doesn’t mean that it’s “less” trustworthy.

Maybe it’d be best to not mention the name of the forum here? I’m worried that people will harass the owner(s) of the community over the decision they’ve made.

1 Like

I was just curious about the forum there, but now I see the problem. They would harrass the forum owner due to the fact that it contains this “disable your ad-blocker” prompt. Reducing the reputation of the community would cause some problems.

Lesser trustworthy than forced login where you have to give email and accept cookies before one sees content and/or can participate?

So, I would say it depends. Generally most of users don’t use ad blocker, but of course that is matter of scene.

1 Like

Ads suggest potential bias amongst the posts. Some of us do not trust advertisers at all with others considering it demonicly inspired. Either waya ads are intended to promote a “keeping up with the Joneses” or create a desire for products that are generally unnecssary. Plus who actually makes a living from allowing ads on their web site? Google et al don’t want people asking that question because the answer contradicts their claims.

1 Like

How’s that possible? I think you are now talking about YouTube ”influensser”, not forums.

1 Like

You’d need code that checks that a call to the ad source succeeded and then, did something (a blocking pop up?) if the asset from the ad source failed to load.

I am not aware of any available theme component that does this. And no one has offered anything other than why it’s a bad idea, so I suspect that there isn’t one. (But you might make sure that you’ve searched very well.)

If you have a budget you can post in #marketplace.


Nope talking about all discussions (not only Discourse sites) that carry advertsing. Accepting them compromises the veracity of the entire venture. Once saw an advert for Wiccan materials on an evangelcal Christian (Yahoo!) mailing list!

1 Like

And a wiccan ad is the reason why christian mailing list has strong bias and its trustworthy can be questionable :flushed:

I still trust on CNN, for example. My trust isn’t following ads. It is purely content dependent thing.

But. Perhaps it is because I’m finn. Or I am old enough to smell what is an ad and what is not. Or it is personal matter.

But one thing is a fact. You can’t generalize this question. You are now saying that in same second if here would be ads (and here is already…) content would be untrustful when before ads it was not.

1 Like

This is clearly a hot topic, but I’m not sure this side discussion is answering the question in the OP. Perhaps a dedicated topic in #community would be a better place for this conversation?


Well — motives why something should do or not to do are actually in many times more important than how. There is some purposes to solve out and serve and quite often OP actully is offering just one solution.

But sure, topic is slipping away right now. So I don’t mind if category changes, because it doesn’t change discuss itself. But… I’m quite sure we are finished here anyway :wink:

And I see this that way OP was not in right category in the first place. But of course that is just my point of view, but question of ad blockers is not support-question.

1 Like

I don’t see any issue with debating the efficacy of a proposed solution.

We see a lot of examples of the xy problem here on Meta. Contrary to the opinions of certain requestors we’re not here to blindly answer every question. Sometimes those answers are based on flawed or false assumptions, are unethical, or appear user-hostile. Part of the benefit to the community here is the wealth of experience both as community builders and general internet users.

I for one would always either navigate away from sites which try to block access if they believe ads aren’t loading, in other cases I’ll employ something like a 12 foot ladder.

Users don’t usually change their behavior when they run into a wall such as the above. On the other hand there’s plenty of evidence for the other model where a certain level of access is provided to anonymous and basic users, with conversion to a paid tier once they’re sold on the general value of the community.


This is a fair point. Though I thought this one had digressed more into the moral maze of adverts themselves, which seemed slightly too far off track to be on-topic/helpful on this occasion.

This seems more salient. :+1: