Slashdot Mirror
Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option
Many readers have submitted news of a week-old announcement from Wladimir Palant, creator of Adblock Plus, about a change to the addon that will allow unobtrusive ads to be displayed. The change has been controversial because most people who run the addon strongly dislike seeing any ads. Palant hastens to point out that this is a toggle-able option, and by changing one setting, users can resume ad-less website viewing. Many are upset, however, that the setting defaults to allowing the display of "acceptable" advertisements. The description of "acceptable" ads includes the following criteria: "Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar); Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images; At most one script that will delay page load (in particular, only a single DNS request)."
The summary fails to cite some of the core reasons for the complaints, which are that this feature will be enabled by default as well as the fact that the Adblock project is hoping to make monetary agreements with advertisers.
I don't have a problem with this, even if Adblock is getting revenue from it. I want them to be able to continue to support the product, and I want the sites I go to to be able to afford to continue to exist, and I am happy if they are able to make a profit even. We all win. The only reason I started using adblock is because of all the disruptive, distracting, ads that interfere with the actual reason I came to a website in the first place. As long as they're able to keep blocking those, and sites that do tracking, I'm happy...
My main reasons for using adblock+ is not to kill adds, but to protect my systems from hosts I consider hostile. Ad networks are a major malware vector because most ad network providers are mostly sleazy scum that can't be bothered to secure their networks. Either that, or they try to exploit javascript and other mechanisms to extract information I don't feel that they are entitled to. I'm sure as fuck not going to execute any script that comes from them.
Second comes browsing improvement, because some ad networks are so badly performing that they hinder the use of many web pages. I also found adblock plus the absolute best way to improve browsing performance on low-end netbooks. (Noscript helps a lot too)
Maybe this new option will enable a real no-bullshit way to enable advertisements that respect instead of exploit end users. I would would not mind that at all. Really, though, I don't want to execute any scripts from ad networks at all. I probably would not mind enabling Google's ad services either. As far as I know they're reputable as far as security is concerned.
Why re-invent the wheel? The option of a full ad-block is within the program, you just have to tick one extra box to enable it, at which point it will most likely stay for every update until you chose to disable it. IMO this is not a horrible idea, The reason people started using ad-blockers wasn't because they abhorred the idea of their free sites having the nerve to post advertisements to fund themselves, it was because the advertisements kept getting more and more obtrusive as they went from small images, to large images, to images with popups to obnoxious sounds, at least a few people aren't opposed to a middle ground where they revert back to small banners on the page. One thing that would be nice is if ad-block could be designed to adjust the loading order however, IE the advertisement loads after the page.
It would be a bad move to make it the default. People download this add-on specifically to remove ads, the presumption should be that all ads should be removed.
The best way to handle it would be to just ask the user in plain-english, maybe even explain why they might want to allow such advertisement. Then once the choice is made, never bring it up again. (For example, I don't mind seeing ads for movies because I like to see movies. I don't watch network television, so I never get exposed to movie trailers and I don't know I am missing a movie that might be relevant to my interests. So there are indeed a few cases where I want to allow ads.)
I'm not opposed to non-invasive advertising, and on certain sites, I'll even click an ad from time to time on the sites which I've allowed to advertise to me(assuming the ad was of any interest to me). The ads support the site, and I want the site to continue. I like the idea of advertisers having guidelines to adhere to in order to avoid pissing off viewers. They should already know by now what will piss off viewers, but at least now there's a standard they can point to. For example, if the advertiser has an internal argument between someone who wants a more invasive ad, and someone who wants a less invasive ad, now the guy who wants to use less invasive ads has at least 1 more arrow in his quiver.
If "free" ad-supported content is to survive as ad-blocked viewing methods grow in popularity, somebody needs to keep looking at ads. For that to happen, ads need to evolve into something that gets the point across without pissing off viewers. I didn't mind the brief 15-30 sec Hulu breaks, especially when given the option to give feedback on what kinds of ads they should be serving me with.
Google ads apparently aren't unblocked (yet), but someone on Hacker News asked the developer earlier and apparently monetization is part of the plan:
I don't think that we get anything yet but we indeed hope to get some income this way to make the project sustainable. This doesn't mean that paying us is the requirement to be added to the exceptions list - the requirements a formulated here and they will probably become more precise as we gain experience (suggestions are welcome). As to Google: no, they have nothing to do with it. We didn't talk to Google, we didn't take money from them, there is no conspiracy here. We did look at Google Ads as a typical example (unblocking them is the most common request we get yet most people lack the knowledge for that) but they don't meet our requirements at the moment. Google's search ads are a different thing and they can meet our requirements depending on how the website configures them - and we did add an exception for them on one particular website.
I use adblock because I don't like ads. Or the principle of advertising. If I need something, I look for it. If don't know about something, then I won't care if I don't have it will I? I'll be happy as a pig in shit. Yet somehow to support television, magazines and the internet we have to be fed an endless stream of trash that will invariably end up in the landfills that spoil the countryside after it is thrown away by the morons that actually buy it even though it has no relevance to what they were watching or reading or listening to just because someone somewhere has brainwashed them into buying it by showing it next to a nice pair of tits.
There's already an obvious way to permit no-annoying ads while blocking annoying ones, which is to have the subscription blacklist you already use for AdBlock delete the entries for the annoying ads. No need to build a special whitelist capability, unless you want to prevent people from using alternative blacklists.
I'm not actually too bothered by having a few ads, as long as
Unfortunately, that kills off most of the advertising services that might be used to support web sites I like (especially the no-tracking features, because the ad services use those to prevent web sites from faking view data.)
The current advertising-like annoyance I still get is Disqus's takeover of the site-comments business. It thinks that I'm blocking its cookies (I'm not), so some combination of Linux, Firefox, NoScript, Ghostery, AdBlockPlus, FF's Don't track is breaking it. (Also, it has lots of other problems, like not being good at keeping track of multiple identities - my comment histories on BoingBoing and various newspapers aren't supposed to all get lost, which happens if they get mushed together into one Disqus ID.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"Many are upset, however, that the setting defaults to allowing the display of "acceptable" advertisements."
Considering the "acceptable" advertisement criteria (no animations, sounds or similar) I've no problem with that. Text or static ads are welcome, particularly if they are paying the bills for what I'm reading. I intensely despise video/audio ads, anything animated and will stop what I'm doing to kill them dead and do whatever is necessary to never see them again. Pretty galling what some people seem to consider acceptable advertising behaviour. It's really bad when you have two audio/video ads playing at the same time.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Sorry.... the only part of the post I caught was about the nice pair of tits. Go on.
I also use adblock because I also don't like ads, but you're missing an important piece of the principle of advertising. You hit on why advertisers are willing to pay for ads, but you ignored the reason why people let them place the ads on their websites, radio stations, etc. It's to pay for the service. Running a website may be cheap, but it's not free.
So here's their options: paywall or ads. We all know which one works, and which one doesn't.
We all like "free" stuff, and ads are what make the "free" world tick.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Shady people, shady deals.
... or it could simply be an acknowledgement that -- like it or not -- the web runs on advertising and allowing a bit of it in might not hurt you if you wanted to be more ethical. Ever thought about how small non-profit websites can afford to keep their domain names? In any case, the Adblock Plus devs have long been clear that one of their aims was to change advertisers' behaviour. This is clearly a move to drive change to a point where advertising is present but less intrusive (and also more ethical, i.e. not using psuedo-OS dialogue boxes to fool the gullible).
Anyway, as long as the option to turn all advertising off is present (and it clearly is) then I can't see how this hurts you or anyone else. But hey, if you don't like it, don't use AdBlock Plus.
Naive people installing products they don't know anything about is why there's a thriving anti-malware industry.
Long before paywalls, back even before ads became widespread, there was still an internet. If I was having trouble with something, I would use one of the primitive search engines of the time to look for help, and I would find a site or usenet post in which some academic or enthusiast had worked out the solution and shared it with the world.
Nowadays, that helpful site may still exist, but it's buried among thousands of ad-laden commercial sites - which won't help me with my problem, but are quite happy to try to sell me all sorts of junk that's vaguely related to it. Perhaps, if the advertisers gave up because everyone used an effective ad-blocker, and the search engines didn't index the paywalled material, we could get the old, helpful internet back.
Anyone who screws with the configuration or other software on my system without my permission or knowledge deserves hate. If you feel otherwise feel free to support him, buy software from Tax-Cut, etc. If someone screws with other software on my machine without permission I'll boycott them and make sure to inform others of the issue. I've gladly unblocked ad sites to support Hulu, etc, because they asked. I've got no problem supporting folks who ask for it. I have a real problem with folks who muck with my machines without asking.
I guess thats why all open source software, websites like wikipedia, are ad supported. Oh wait, they are not.
The vast majority of sites that do not charge users money are supported by ads. One example of a site with no ads (Wikipedia) is not an argument that all web sites have a moral obligation not to show ads. Don't want ads? Don't use sites that have them.
Open source software that requires more than one developer and does not suck genrally has a corporate sponsor that makes money on it somehow. For example:
* Linux: Most kernel committers work at companies that pay them to do it. (IBM, RedHat, Oracle, Google)
* WebKit: Mostly Apple, some Google engineers.
* Firefox: Google gives them over 80% of their revenue. Look at the commit logs: The vast majority of contributions come from people working on Firefox as a full time job at Mozilla.
* LLVM: Notice how the project really took off once Apple's gcc team started working on it? The GPL3 change pushed them from gcc to LLVM/clang.
Name an open source project that has a large user base and no programmers paid to make it not suck.
Advertising is a sick cancer on the mind. ALL advertising should be banned, and we should move to an unbiased review model of product promotion.
You want ban me from hearing an ad? What sort of tyrannical, evil, control-freak are you? I will decide for myself what speech I choose to listen to. And if I have to water a metaphorical tree with your blood, so be it.
Junk mail is marvelous. It pays for my local post office to exist and have enough people to serve us. It is energy in the form of paper which can be burned. By carefully soliciting the right sources I can get enough paper that can be safely burned to provide around 60 percent of my heating needs. I'd heat water with it but have yet to find an effective and efficient means to do so with wood or paper.
The other benefit is costing advertisers money. Money to pay my friendly postman and money to heat my home. It's a win for me.
Spammers, I'd burn those too if I could catch them thermally depolymerize them and put the biodiesel in my truck.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty