With the improvement of safety have this message and the actions of both services that are part of United Internet, not to do. Even if the hazard statement was decorated quite nice, it is here only to the principle to compel visitors to disable your ad blocker so that the display advertising at the end and thus can make money.
early as Wednesday, the safety visitors were playing with an adblocker. Reacted to the internet with fierce criticism because the parent company would pursue only one goal and that is not the safety of visitors, but the placement of advertising.
currently receive visitors from Web.de and GMX no more warnings. Perhaps the criticism shows first effect, some experts even spoke of a deliberate and intentional deception of the user company United Internet.
At least officially, the company maintains its opinion that it would you go explicitly to the safety of users / visitors. Apparently, the company would work to modify the security message and better check whether an add-on can be a hazard. The generalization the ad blocks are generally bad, the company intends to not take on his cap and differentiate better here in the future.Furthermore
United Internet operates with its subsidiary Web.de and GMX on a solution that allows the correct delivery of the sites despite Adblocker. This would bypass the function of United Internet Adblockers. For some time now has become known thanks to Sascha Pallenberg, that there are some Adblock provider, in which companies like Google, Apple and United can shop online so that their advertising is always displayed.
who manipulates whom?
Quite interesting that Web.de and GMX present themselves as heroic service providers who want to protect the visitors from abuse by browser add-ons only, but at the same time deal with a solution that Adblocker to deal so that their Werbanzeigen delivered be.
It shows clearly that even with United Internet not the customer and visitors is paramount, but the love of money. Logically, every company needs to somehow make money to pay employees, but whether this also inevitably must occur at the expense of customers?