I can't read the Washington Post anymore.

[Archae]

Along with a number of other websites, they "detect" that I'm using Adblock, and that causes the site to block my viewing it.

I use Adblock for a reason, namely, ads are simply far too numerous, and intrusive.
Especially ads that are autorun videos.
Those were really annoying, sometimes causing my browser to crash.

"But...but...we gots ta pay for our sites..."

Bull.

This is not just paying for the site.
It's profiting handsomely from overloads of ads.

[HAB911]

1. For those instances

I switch over to whatever IE is called today, for that one session, then back to the other browser

[INdemo]

2. you can set your browser to allow ads then

after you read the post just reset browser to block ads..

[GoCubsGo]

5. With AdBlock, you can also turn it off for just that page.

Deleting all of one's cookies every so often also helps with the intrusiveness.

[marybourg]

3. They have specials from time to time.

I paid $50 for the year. I look upon it as needed support for an organization (albeit a commercial one) that's doing good work. And obviously, they can't do it for free. Putting up with ads, irritating as they are, makes it free for you, and compensatory for them.

[tblue37]

10. I got a great deal on both the NYT and WaPo for digital subscriptions in October last year.

I grabbed both.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

4. Agreed

On some sites Adblock will show 50, sometimes 70+ ads blocked on a single page. That's ridiculous.

You wanna show a few ads to support your site? Fine. Got no problem with it. But it's waaaaaay too much. Before Adblock, on some pages I would literally struggle to find the text I was looking for because ads were so numerous and intrusive.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. How do you you Adblock on iPad?

Many sites are unreadable!!!

Switching to Firefox didn't do a thing w/Adblock

WTF?

[Comatose Sphagetti]

18. I have no clue

Sorry to not be of any help (I'm not very 'puter savvy)!

[politicat]

22. Go to the App Store and download Purify

Purify costs $1.99, but the advantage is the developer gets paid by you, not by selling the block list content or the whitelist to the highest bidder (which is Ad Block's revenue model; selling the block list content puts advertisers in an arms race, so Ad Block is effectively helping develop better ad warfare). Also, Purify is less likely to cause problems. Then go into Settings/Safari/Content Blockers and enable Purify.

From any single page, you can white-list that page or domain by tapping the arrow up box, then the Purify Actions symbol. You'll have to reload the page.

I also suggest enabling "Block Pop-ups", setting cookie security to very high, and Do Not Track.

[dawg]

6. If sites want people to view their ads, they need to make sure the ads don't ...

consume so many resources they crash older systems.

Also, autoplaying videos are an abomination that should not exist.

[marybourg]

25. True. nt

[Lord_at_War]

39. Totally this

"autoplaying videos are an abomination that should not exist.

Especially the ones that are like commercials on TV- about 3 times louder than everything else.

I'm a "big boy" now- intelligent enough to press the play button all by myself if I want to see the video...

[Dennis Donovan]

7. Whitelist them and the NYT

They've been doing Yeoman's duty with the coverage of the traitorous Trump cabal. They deserve the ad dollars.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Seriously, can you suggest how to do that with Chrome and Avast?

The WP's suggestions for how to whitelist their site just don't work for me.

[Dennis Donovan]

17. When on their site, click the ABP icon in the upper right corner of Chrome

And click "Enabled on this site" to toggle it to "Disabled on this site". I can't speak for Avast, though.

(on edit: I didn't see your post below. Do you have a separate Ad blocking program that might be running in conjunction with with your browser?)

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Avast has some settings, but I've tried to disable them all for WP

Under "URLS to be excluded from scanning and from all shield protection", I have both "https://www.washingtonpost.com*" and "https://www.washingtonpost.com*". I have "https://www.washingtonpost.com*" under "items which should be excluded from Web Shield scanning". Somewhere, and I can't find it now, I found a setting about ad tracking, and I turned that off too.

[Lindsay]

9. Agreed. If the ads were less intrusive

maybe fewer people would block them.

I've had browser crashes as well, along with (not at WaPo) a fake UPDATE YOUR BROWSER NOW! screen take-over that tried to download malware on to my computer. (Fortunately the anti-virus program stopped it.)

Ads are one thing, hostile take-overs are something else entirely.

[USALiberal]

16. Simple, quit visiting it or subscribe. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. I don't even use AdBlock, and it still blocks me

I use Google Chrome, with the free version of Avast and no other ad blocker. I've added the WP site to all the "do not check" lists I can find in Avast. I've told it to allow ad tracking, in case it was that it was objecting to. I have registered with WP, and get an email from them each day as spam that I'm willing to put up with, for access.

And it still blocks me, and gives me no useful clue at all how to change things. It's damn frustrating. I get all kinds of ads on other sites, so I really haven't got settings blocking ads. I'd be quite willing to be served ads by the WP, if they could just do it rather than falsely claiming I'm blocking them.

[bearsfootball516]

12. As a journalist

Who has worked for a newspaper and online publication for several years, I can tell you that no one in the industry is "profiting handsomely" from online ad sales.

They exist because they help keep the lights on, something that's becoming increasingly difficult for publications to do as print circulation and print advertising continue to collapse.

[boston bean]

14. Do you subscribe? I do and do not have that issue.

[peggysue2]

34. Same here

I picked up a Wapo subscription. The paper is doing important work, actual journalism now, something that's critical in the Era of the Orange One.

I've had no problem with excessive ads.

[boston bean]

37. Plus if u don't subscribe you only get 5 articles/month.

[tammywammy]

38. I'm also a subscriber with no issues.

[USALiberal]

15. Wow, so you want free content when they pay reporters, etc? Steal movies and music also? n/t

[yallerdawg]

19. Sometimes they block and sometimes they don't.

They also block to force me to "subscribe."

When they block, I go to any of hundreds of news sites that don't.

Many of them write about what the Washington Post just reported!

I already pay for internet access. I already have targeted "news feeds" and "sponsored news," I'm already being manipulated.

I will not voluntarily have more crap slung at me.

[bearsfootball516]

21. It's a vicious cycle

Print circulation and print advertising are on crashing declines. There's going to be a point in 15-20 years when newspapers that aren't massive ones (i.e. New York Times) cease to exist. Online ads pay a fraction of what print ads do.

For example, a print ad may cost a company $500. An online ad? Only $50.

As more and more people drop print newspapers, they don't only lose the circulation revenue, advertisers start to pull out. So they have to make up all that lose revenue with online subscriptions and online advertising...both of which don't bring in nearly as much revenue as the print product. So it's not a fair 1:1 trade.

Eventually, papers start shutting down because they simply can't afford to keep running, and quality journalism ceases to exist. And a lot of that is because people aren't willing to subscribe online.

[yallerdawg]

32. Newspapers are obsolete.

The 'Wall Street Journal' requires a subscription.

I haven't seen an article by them in years! Hera about them occasionally.

Whether they are here or not makes no difference to me. The fact is, they have already ceased to exist for me.

Many local papers require a subscription. I haven't linked to them in years. They have ceased to exist in my world.

If I PAY for a service now, I expect I want all that service has to offer. If ads come with it I will not pay!

And I damn sure won't pay to NOT see ads!

[marybourg]

27. You may find the joke's on you -

and all the rest of us - when they go out of business and all that remains is Koch Bros-funded media.

[yallerdawg]

29. Adblock allows me some control over the content of what is delivered on my screen.

If I want to see 1% of what Washington Post pumps out daily, do I have to give 'the advertisers' my screen - that's the deal? Or worse yet, pay for advertisements like I do with internet service and cable?

Forget it!

As long as I have the option - I'm not going to allow that unwanted content.

[appleannie1943]

20. I read it incognito.

If I see something I want to read from sites that block people that did not pay, I right click and choose the incognito option to open the link. If you decide to share the article, you can do so by copy and pasting the address to the site.

[procon]

30. That works for me as well.

I've also found that just a simple pg reload, or a shift|reload, will clear the block in some websites.

[m-lekktor]

33. Thanks for mentioning that. I didn't know what you were talking about

so I googled "incognito" and learned about incognito mode on google chrome!! I have this bad habit of knowing only what i need to know to get by and not exploring all the options!

[mrsadm]

24. Turn everything off in your browser

My husband has everything possible turned off in his browser, including cookies. It can cause some inconvenience (generally you need cookies for online shopping). But it gets rid of nearly all the junk.

I HATE all the ads and I especially despise the auto-run ones, as we have limited bandwidth here in the wilderness.

[RKP5637]

26. I've now been using uBlock Origin. Absolutely easy to toggle it for one site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin

[LeftInTX]

28. The ads at WaPo aren't bad.

You can disable Adblock for that particular site.

I find that this is happening with other newspapers - the LA Times and Chicago Tribune.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

31. Lmaoooooooo at "profiting handsomely."

[bearsfootball516]

35. Oh, yeah

The company that owns the publication I work at has had three rounds of nationwide layoffs in the last four year. The newsroom I work in has less than half the employees we did in 2014.

No one is "profiting handsomely" from online ad sales.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

36. Got out when I could, about 10 years ago. Life is too short.