They'd need to block all JavaScript – essentially disabling interactivity — or develop custom workarounds for every single website, ensuring they don't break any logic (like checkout flows). That’s an utterly extreme complexity solution (believe me, DataUnlocker is, too). I hope to publish an article soon outlining a more cooperative path forward, where blockers and websites don't have to be at odds. Part of that will include DataUnlocker's internal rules, just like cookie consent mechanisms – but thoughtfully introduced over time.

Here's the bigger picture, from my point of view:

The web is shifting toward consent-based tracking – and rightly so. Cookie and data collection consents are now standard (and even legally required in the EU). DataUnlocker is fully compatible with this. When implemented on the website, it activates only after user consent – just like any compliant tracking setup. The tech to do that wasn't trivial a few years ago, and it still catches up. https://support.google.com/tagmanager/answer/10718549?hl=en

In fact, if you visit pages with an ad blocker, cookie consent modals will not even appear – meaning no tracking starts at all. That's a win–win: privacy respected, no shady behavior, "no" is the default. Big companies can't afford to violate that.

What DataUnlocker addresses is a different issue:

Let's say a user wants to grant "essential" tracking consent — they've consented — but uses an ad blocker by default. They load the page, bounce in 5 seconds, and are gone. Most won't bother to disable the blocker for 5 seconds – maybe 1–2% will. So how do you solve this from the publisher's perspective?

Even the best tools can be misused (think Google Sheets). But when used responsibly, DataUnlocker simply helps fix a technical blind spot – surely not spy on people who didn't opt in.