[fChk]

For me I do not use adblockers much.When a website displays ads that were too annoying I often report the.ad covering content to make it disappear.(..................)

Interesting!.. Because I'm the anti-AD guy on the Web!.. Never used them on my own websites nor allow them to show up when browsing the Web.

In the pre-WebApp era (the era when JavaScript played a passive role), blocking ADs was as simple as using :
> a generic AD-blocker which use a pre-built database of well-known AD-servers, OR
> a simple Cross-site origin blocker that blindly block any third-party assets loading from another origin than the one initially loaded.

Then, in the post-WebApp era, things got complicated given that one needs to activate JavaScript for the website to load in the first place thus allowing the website owner to check for the presence of any AD-blocker before loading the website itself.

In this case, I generally resort to:
> just drop the whole thing and close the tab if I don't really need the website info, OR
> Use my WebDev skills to kill the JavaScript code that blocks the loading on the fly.

My bottom line hereis this: serving ADs should never be compulsory on the Web. Webmasters have the right to include them in their websites BUT WebUsers MUST also have the right to refuse them without being blocked from the website. A large portion of websites still function along this model -which is commendable- but an increasing portion is shifting to that unhealthy mandatory AD-driven Web experience model, as @deanhills complained in the OP.

[mzltest]

Interesting!.. Because I'm the anti-AD guy on the Web!.. Never used them on my own websites nor allow them to show up when browsing the Web.

In the pre-WebApp era (the era when JavaScript played a passive role), blocking ADs was as simple as using :
> a generic AD-blocker which use a pre-built database of well-known AD-servers, OR
> a simple Cross-site origin blocker that blindly block any third-party assets loading from another origin than the one initially loaded.

Then, in the post-WebApp era, things got complicated given that one needs to activate JavaScript for the website to load in the first place thus allowing the website owner to check for the presence of any AD-blocker before loading the website itself.

In this case, I generally resort to:
> just drop the whole thing and close the tab if I don't really need the website info, OR
> Use my WebDev skills to kill the JavaScript code that blocks the loading on the fly.

My bottom line hereis this: serving ADs should never be compulsory on the Web. Webmasters have the right to include them in their websites BUT WebUsers MUST also have the right to refuse them without being blocked from the website. A large portion of websites still function along this model -which is commendable- but an increasing portion is shifting to that unhealthy mandatory AD-driven Web experience model, as @deanhills complained in the OP.

Yeah and for me I once implented ads that are shown only when the user uses the service for the first time once in a period($SESSION),together with captchas that are used mainly to protect me from spam.For me this is only a concept proof as I have no traffic,but for users they just need to see ads once and then fully enjoy the rest.Of course,this method is not good enough,as it requires visitor interaction,but at least it doesn't break the website look and are not confusing to visitors.

Not strongly discourage the use of ads - but at least,before implenting these ads,imagine yourself as the visitor.And for those anti-adblockers enabled,simply close the tab.
(and by the way,how to kill a anti-adblocker that prevents loading?)

[Kururin]

I really do not know why people still uses chrome. It baffles me as there are so many intrusive way Google is now trying to get people's data that its not even funny anymore. They straight up invented a new technology to track users. Also its a no brain-er to not use ublock origin (as said by previous people) and I would also recommend Edge if you pair it with ublock origin and privacy enhancing extensions. Still best advice I would give is to stop using Chrome all together. I personally use Firefox and it works really well for me.

[tiwil]

I really do not know why people still uses chrome. It baffles me as there are so many intrusive way Google is now trying to get people's data that its not even funny anymore. They straight up invented a new technology to track users. Also its a no brain-er to not use ublock origin (as said by previous people) and I would also recommend Edge if you pair it with ublock origin and privacy enhancing extensions.  Still best advice I would give is to stop using Chrome all together. I personally use Firefox and it works really well for me.

Not gonna lie, I still use Chrome even though I know it does track me. Whatever page we open, Google tracks and knows it. Oh well, I still use Chrome because ... it's Google. They already "tracked" me and I already in a comfort zone with Google. That's why I don't switch to other browser unless very needed (I have switched to Firefox since my old laptop cannot handle Chrome, now with new laptop it does handle Chrome)

[Kururin]

Not gonna lie, I still use Chrome even though I know it does track me. Whatever page we open, Google tracks and knows it. Oh well, I still use Chrome because ... it's Google. They already "tracked" me and I already in a comfort zone with Google. That's why I don't switch to other browser unless very needed (I have switched to Firefox since my old laptop cannot handle Chrome, now with new laptop it does handle Chrome)

I do not know why you are okay with being tracked. Its like a guy that follows you and sees everything you do and suggest you buy stuff based on that. That is creepy. I woudn't ever use chrome unless I am forced to use it, even that with adblocks and tracker blocking. You are never in a "Comfort" zone with Google. They will just extract more and more information and make a profile based on you.

[deanhills]

Feedback following the suggestions earlier on for adding extensions to browsers.  

I've been using Ghostery with Mozilla Firefox, and Chrome without Ghostery so I have something to compare.  I can see a big difference between the two.  Also very easy and user friendly to install the Ghostery, which for me means it's very popular.  There's even a Ghostery App for Android.  

I like it with Ghostery that it's not too invasive and very uncomplicated.  Like sometimes the blockers can be almost as irritating as the ads themselves, but Ghostery seems to be on auto and you only need to check through the settings once.  There is also sufficient explanation in the settings for you to actually understand what they are there for, and what disabled or enabled would mean of any given setting in the bigger picture.

I could probably do more.  But for now I'm OK.  I'm working mostly with Mozilla Firefox (80% of the time) and Google Chrome occasionally (20% of the time), so I can compare the two.  Eventually I'll load Ghostery on Chrome as well.

[mzltest]

Feedback following the suggestions earlier on for adding extensions to browsers.  

I've been using Ghostery with Mozilla Firefox, and Chrome without Ghostery so I have something to compare.  I can see a big difference between the two.  Also very easy and user friendly to install the Ghostery, which for me means it's very popular.  There's even a Ghostery App for Android.  

Seems Ghostry is somehow a anti-tracking browser and in early times (when I was using my old Android 4.0.3) there is also a browser called InBrowser that features tracking protection.
For me I was using via (mark.via) on my android as my primary browser as I prefer lightweight and using its built-in ad rules.And the most annoying part is adblock detection and just wondering any plugin can block this?

[deanhills]

Seems Ghostry is somehow a anti-tracking browser and in early times (when I was using my old Android 4.0.3) there is also a browser called InBrowser that features tracking protection.
For me I was using via (mark.via) on my android as my primary browser as I prefer lightweight and using its built-in ad rules.And the most annoying part is adblock detection and just wondering any plugin can block this?

True.  But not aggressively anti-tracking.  For example, it picked up tracking on post4vps Forum and it appeared subtly (instead of rubbing it under one's nose) as a number on the right hand side of the page.  You can then click on three degrees of anti tracking.  Of course I don't touch this at post4vps as I feel I have to be loyal to the page.  If I should land on a Website however that I'm visiting and planning to spend time reading through articles, I'd probably click on one of the options.  So far I haven't done that yet.

A habit I've been using for a long time is to clean all cookies etc after every search.  With Mozilla Firefox it's easy to have an option for all cookies etc to be purged when one exits the browser, but with Chrome, unless one signs in every time, one needs to clean up cookies before one exits the browser.  Purging cookies of course doesn't take care of tracking, as when I use the browser the next time, Google intuitively knows what my interests are. To be honest, for me Google has become malware in its own right.

[tryp4vps]

..... For me I was using via (mark.via) on my android as my primary browser as I prefer lightweight and using its built-in ad rules.And the most annoying part is adblock detection and just wondering any plugin can block this?

For me, honestly if a website enforces adblock detection, I would just give up visiting such website any more.

I would not feel I may miss anything at all because there are so many other good websites without adblock detection.

With a simple search, it is so easy to find out alternatives or better choices whenever necessary.

[debjit]

Ok so I am not against the ads but sometimes it seems YT videos are full of so many ads and they are unbearable. The sound is so high they really hurt my ears. I use Ads Blocker Pro and pi-hole to block ads at dns level. It's going fine for now.