There is only a title page that I cannot scroll in chrome. I'm not willing to turn off ad blockers, debug this site, or use a different browser to read the story.
The site also has the right to prevent you from viewing their content without compensation (in this case, through ads).
Of course it is probably not intentional on their part, they probably have never tested with an adblocker. Even if they were aware of the issue, I can't imagine it being very high priority.
Maybe they've got ads, maybe not. I can't tell. What I can tell is that they've stupidly over-complicated "display text and pictures on a scrolling page".
As a work-around, I'm looking at their content through some kind of archive site that someone else in the thread posted. If they'd just hosted their own stuff, it would've come through, ads and all.
Then don't. What are you complaining about?
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.
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.
It's remarkably handy and I use it more often than I'd expect.
I also will sometimes use a browser that is graphical but doesn't support much, such as Midori. If you're a Windows user, there is an obscure browser called OffByOne and I used to use that one on a regular basis.
For much of my browsing, I don't need much more than text. Sometimes, I do like images. I'll use a lightweight browser for that.
On my tablet, like I am now, I have zero non-default apps installed, and don't intend to add any. So, I'll make use of the linked site, or similar, when I find a page that I want to see and it won't behave well for Safari.
It's kind of nice to browse the web with one of the lightweight browsers. Links2 also works, as does elinks, for lightweight experiences. I think both have Windows builds and links2 can be found pre-compiled with https support - I'm pretty sure. OffByOne is the one I generally recommend. I don't think it has ever actually had a security vulnerability. I'm not sure how many people use it, but it probably totals in the double digits!
I don't actually remember how I found OffByOne? I think I may have been looking to include a basic browser in an application I was making for myself. They do have a free stand-alone product, but it wasn't open source when I last looked. That was ages ago.