www.echo-online.de

[adguard-bot]

Issue URL (Anti Adblock Script)

https://www.echo-online.de/

Comment

Username: @Morku

Screenshots

Screenshot 1

System configuration

Information	value
AdGuard product:	AdGuard for Windows v7.11.3
Browser:	Firefox
AdGuard driver:	WFP
Stealth mode options:	Hide your search queries, Send Do-Not-Track header, Remove X-Client-Data header from HTTP requests, Strip URLs from tracking parameters, Disable cache for third-party requests
DNS filtering:	server: AdGuard DNS Non-filtering filters: AdGuard Home with AdGuard DNS filter
Filters:	Ad Blocking: AdGuard Mobile Ads, AdGuard Base Privacy: AdGuard URL Tracking, AdGuard Tracking Protection Social Widgets: AdGuard Social Media Annoyances: AdGuard Annoyances Language-specific: AdGuard German
Userscripts:	https://userscripts.adtidy.org/release/adguard-extra/1.0/adguard-extra.user.js

[AdamWr]

Fixed some ad leftovers and anti-adblock ads, but I'm not sure if this anti-adblock popup should be fixed in this case.

Adding those rules:

echo-online.de#@#.adsbygoogle
echo-online.de#$#.adBlockerLayer { display: none !important; }
echo-online.de#$#html.fixedBackground > body { overflow: auto !important; }
echo-online.de#$#html.fixedBackground { position: static !important; }
$script,redirect-rule=noopjs,domain=echo-online.de
echo-online.de#%#//scriptlet('prevent-element-src-loading', 'script', '/echo-online\.de\/iomm\/latest/bootstrap\/loader\.js|nativendo\.de|stroeerdigitalgroup\.de/')

to user rules should fix it.

@BlazDT Could you please take a look?

[Morku]

@AdamWr
Added Anti Adblock fix did not fix for me. But your provided user rules fix for me.

Can you also fix the placeholder?

Screenshot-1:

And the Newletter Banner? https://www.echo-online.de/lokales/darmstadt/lilibeth-ist-das-erste-darmstaedter-baby-in-2023-2191252

Screenshot-2:

[AdamWr]

Added Anti Adblock fix did not fix for me.

This fix is for ad reinjection script, not for this popup.
This popup looks like some kind of paywall, that's why I'm not sure if it should be blocked.

I will add rules to fix placeholder and newsletter banner.

[BlazDT]

This is paywall AdBlock detection.

[Morku]

How about circumvent the AdBlock screen trigger and auto accept Cookies?

Screenshot-1:

[BlazDT]

This rule from Annoyances filter already auto-clicks it for me:
allgemeine-zeitung.de,buerstaedter-zeitung.de,lampertheimer-zeitung.de,echo-online.de,main-spitze.de,wiesbadener-kurier.de,wormser-zeitung.de,mittelhessen.de#%#AG_onLoad(function() {var g = new MutationObserver(function() {var b = document.querySelector('#cmpbox .purWrapper__button[onclick]');b && b.click();});g.observe(document, {childList: !0,subtree: !0});setTimeout(function() {g.disconnect()}, 1E4)});

[Morku]

But something need to be unblocked to prevent the adBlockerLayer as the page states to get the normal Tracking Pop-up.

[BlazDT]

It is an AdBlock detection paywall which we do not fix.

[Morku]

I don't understand you guys here.
There are several page where you fix the AdBlock Screen who only offers to disable AdBlock or subscribe for PUR. Exactly like this page. (I'll won't give a list). It's only a matter to catch the right filter maintainer.
Than, you do the exact opposite what the pop-up criticized: blocking tracking and Ads on that specific page, but not the Pop-up itself.
So why not unblock the stuff the page like to have and hide instead of degrading the page to unusable? It wouldn't block any "copyright protection", paywall or whatever you call it. Simply don't make the AdBlock detectable and both parties should be happy.

Whats still the basis here anyway? Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#Legal_challenges has Eyeo won over Axel Springer.
And the other DMCA request on Wikipedia is even in the Tracking filter:

It's only AdGuard acting here like that and it's disappointing. Any other AdBlocker don't care.

[ameshkov]

Whats still the basis here anyway? Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#Legal_challenges has Eyeo won over Axel Springer.

Eyeo proved that ad blocking in general is legal, but as far as I know, the court also stated that using adblock walls is also legal and should not be circumvented, especially when it's de-facto a paywall.

And the other DMCA request on Wikipedia is even in the Tracking filter:

That DMCA request has nothing to do with the issue in question. On the contrary, our point is that we can and should block all kinds of tracking and blocking rules cannot be DMCA'd out.

[Morku]

@ameshkov
I know I won't convince you, but I still think it's all not so clear.

Of course adblock walls are legal. A page can do whatever they like. Placing trackers, Ads, Anti Adblock. But where is the statement, that circumvent 'adblock walls' is illegal? Is there still an ongoing process?

Some Github tickets state:

sehr geehrter Benutzer, aufgrund von Gesetzen (z. B. die Gerichtsentscheidung in Karlsruhe, Deutschland im Jahre 2018) ist es leider nicht möglich diese Paywall (Adblock-Erkennung) zu umgehen. Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis.

Why is that link pointing to a news stating the opposite that Adblockers are legal?

Let's say, circument "Adblock paywalls" is illegal. Why it is okay to circumvent other Anti Adblock preventions? Can't those page sue Adblockers for "circumvent copyright protections", too?

Why needs the page to offer a payment alternative to be excluded by AdGuard?

Why other pages with Anti Adblock PUR subscriptions are fixed by AdGuard anyway, while a page like this is not? (or the blocked stuff does not trigger the Pop-up). Whats the difference?
On the other hand you block reports for several pages who don't have any Anti Adblock anymore for a long time.

It's a very inconsequent policy here.

[ameshkov]

Let's say, circument "Adblock paywalls" is illegal. Why it is okay to circumvent other Anti Adblock preventions? Can't those page sue Adblockers for "circumvent copyright protections", too?

First of all, it's not about copyright protection. This copyright angle is new and hopefully unrealistic. The original lawsuit was about anti-competitive behavior.

In that old case the court granted an injunction on circumventing an adblock paywall (which was then confirmed in the final decision). It's unclear whether it covers all kinds of adblock walls or not so in our policy we narrowed it down to adblock paywalls on German websites.

Why other pages with Anti Adblock PUR subscriptions are fixed by AdGuard anyway, while a page like this is not? (or the blocked stuff does not trigger the Pop-up). Whats the difference?

We can and should make it harder to detect AdGuard in general as otherwise it helps tracking users. However, we should not target a website specifically in the rule.

On the other hand you block reports for several pages who don't have any Anti Adblock anymore for a long time.

Which ones?

They all can be found here:
A: By Design The issue cannot be resolved due to technical, ethic, or legal reasons

[Morku]

@ameshkov

The original lawsuit was about anti-competitive behavior.

Isn't that even worse? Isn't modifying and blocking Ads with a third competitor tool for a benefit of the user even more anti-competitive behavior for the page hoster?

Which ones?

I don't see any any adblock paywalls anymore for faz.net, blick.ch, tweaktown.com and handelsblatt.com or vice versa: I can only still reproduce on bild.de and duden.de
Used only AdGuard filters (like this report) together with AdGuard DNS filterlist and Firefox in private mode.

[ameshkov]

Isn't that even worse? Isn't modifying and blocking Ads with a third competitor tool for a benefit of the user even more anti-competitive behavior for the page hoster?

Ad blockers competing with publishers is quite a stretch :) In the case of Eyeo it might've had a chance because they do whitelisting & ads as well, but it was not enough after all.

My point is that the consequence of that lawsuit is that we should be ultra-careful when dealing with adblock walls in our filter lists.