Slashdot Mirror


Adblock Plus Developers To Allow 'Acceptable' Ads

First time accepted submitter Roman Grazhdan writes "Developers of Adblock Plus, an award-winning add-on for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome boasting over 12,000,000 users, announced that starting from version 2.0 the extension would come with a white list of unobtrusive, privacy-respected ads. These will be allowed by default; users will still be able to block them by unchecking 'Allow non-intrusive advertising.' The developers say: 'Only 25% of the Adblock Plus users seem to be strictly against any advertising.' What is this — betrayal of ideals of annoyance-free web or birth of independent authority for standards for advertisement?" Ads are sometimes annoying, but they also make certain websites (like this one!) possible. Getting the balance right is tricky — I know I often avoid sites because of interstitial advertising, pop-ups, etc. Whitelisting sounds like a good way to reward sites that try to keep it subtle; offloading and generalizing the task of categorizing ads into annoying or acceptable gives sites and advertisers a good threshold to duck beneath. Next step I'd like to see: a sliding scale, so browsers can be set to zero, or eleven, for tolerable annoyance. Update: 12/13 14:54 GMT by T : My fault: I liked the story so much that I missed it the first time.

182 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. Dup! by thsths · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a deja vu feeling, and it is not an ad.

    1. Re:Dup! by governorx · · Score: 1

      Dupe!

      Fixed that for you.

    2. Re:Dup! by gazbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now,now. You can hardly expect Timothy to read back nearly a whole day's worth of stories just to do his job to a basic level of competence. That could take upwards of seconds - and he'd have to do it EVERY SINGLE DAY.

    3. Re:Dup! by TWX · · Score: 1

      Pete and Repeat are ice skating. Pete falls down... Who's still standing?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Dup! by thsths · · Score: 1

      You mentioned words in one sentence that do not go well together.

    5. Re:Dup! by smitty97 · · Score: 2

      We need a DupBlock plugin

      --
      mod me funny
    6. Re:Dup! by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      It hardly seemed like /. without semi-regular dupe stories. I'm glad that they're continuing in the glorious tradition even after CmdrTaco left.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Dup! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      1. Both of them. Pete got back up.
      2. Neither of them. Pete was so fat the vibrations shattered the ice, and everyone fell down.

      Now, on the subject of dupe stories - I don't mind the occasional one (stuff happens, people are busy, some stories are worth repeating b/c some people will have missed it before).

      Why does it happen? I've seen plenty of stories in the firehose, and when they finally appear, I'm thinking "isn't this a dupe, or old news?" So I can see how anyone can slip up. It's not that big a deal - it's slashdot, not reddit :-p

    8. Re:Dup! by TWX · · Score: 1

      I was just surprised to see a dupe so quickly after the previous incarnation of the story. The original was still on the main page and hadn't scrolled off.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:Dup! by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      So you never saw the trifectas - 3 copies of the same story on the front page ... (there was even one double trifecta - but not 6 dupes were on the front page ... THAT took some doing ... )

    10. Re:Dup! by TWX · · Score: 1

      No, but I've been intermittent on Slashdot. I started reading it in '98 or so IIRC, was really into it for awhile in 2000-2001, petered out for a few years, then got back into it a few months ago when I realized how much stupider people were on many other online forums as compared to this one. The straw that broke the camel's back was a ban I received on another board because of a political argument that didn't result in a similar ban to the other parties that were equally bad- I don't dispute the punitive action taken against me, but the mods were very one-sided.

      On the other hand, at least Slashdot's method of peer-review moderation means that nothing's really deleted unless it's so egregious that it threatens Slashdot's existence (like that Scientology incident a decade ago), so the nature of the discussion is entirely different when not having to deal with the whims of a few other members or a few mods on power trips. My comments are modded in-total-positively 100x more than in-total-negatively, so I'm obviously doing something right...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  2. Slashdot to allow duplicates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    maybe we need a Dupeblock Plus?

    1. Re:Slashdot to allow duplicates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A "DupeBlock" would actually be called an "editor". It would be awesome if Slashdot hired some.

      On the plus side, it's been a while since we've had a good duplicate post. I was starting to miss them.

    2. Re:Slashdot to allow duplicates by dakara · · Score: 3, Funny

      And then at some point down the line it will allow unobtrusive dupes through

  3. They got paid for this... by Tufriast · · Score: 2

    I can't really state anything but like my subject says, I believe they got paid off by someone to do this. I fear that their hard work probably wasn't seen as a cash flow of significance. I don't buy the only "25% against any advertising" mantra. I think a lot of people, myself included, will be looking for another advertisement blocking plugin. I pay for Slashdot, not much, but I do pay. I pay for what I read.

    --
    Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
    1. Re:They got paid for this... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I think perhaps the other 75% are those whose computer-literate relatives have aggressively installed Firefox and ABP on their computers on their behalf.

      In fact, come to think of it, it sort of makes me wonder if perhaps the majority of people who haven't converted to Chrome might be people who were never all that in control of their destiny in the first place...

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:They got paid for this... by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I only block ads because the majority are intrusive and many sites are over saturated. If ads were all friendly I wouldn't block any of them. I think many (most?) people probably feel the same way.

    3. Re:They got paid for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think that they got paid. They're probably tired of the arms race with advertisers. I've been noticing more ads slipping through adblock. If simple ads were just allowed to come through, I don't think the ad companies would feel as compelled to "one up" adblock.

      And then there's the moral issue. If everyone adblocks then websites don't make money, and there's less of a compelling reason to create good content. There needs to be a balance.

    4. Re:They got paid for this... by dougmc · · Score: 1

      I don't buy the only "25% against any advertising" mantra

      I do believe that what they said was probably reasonably accurate.

      But remember, what they really claimed was " 'Only 25% of the Adblock Plus users seem to be strictly against any advertising.'".

      In order to be part of that 25%, you have to be *strictly* against *any* advertising. If you don't mind TV being free because there's commercials on it, you're part of the 75%. Or if you do mind, but you're not *strictly* against it -- part of the 75%.

      If you *hate* web advertisements of all kinds, but don't mind a logo on the side of that brown truck that brings you your stuff -- you're not strictly against *all* kinds of advertising.

      It's all in how you word the question. And it sounds like this question was worded *very* carefully.

      In any event, people are getting overly upset about this I'd say. My guess is that they were indeed paid for it, but all you have to do is click a button and it goes back to the way it was, so it really shouldn't be that big of a deal. Yes, it has the stench of selling out, but for now it's not so bad -- but if it gets worse, it could very well be time to ditch them.

    5. Re:They got paid for this... by Tharsman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am a power user, and I actually don’t mind ads. I HATE pop-up ads, though. The ones that show in the middle of the screen while you are reading, the ones that do crazy stuff when you accidentally roll over them, and every single flash based ad. But plain image banner ads, PNGs or GIFs, I don’t mind. Heck sometimes I like them. In some sites they let me know of products I care for (like upcoming games.)

      I currently manually manage ad block in Firefox to allow certain sites to show their ads because I know the sites in question don't allow obtrusive stuff.

      That being said: they stated that they can’t automatically determine what is an obtrusive ad so they are instead going for a kind of partnership program where they won’t block ads from specific sources that agreed to their terms. That is garbage. If you ever dealt with an ad agency you should know they WILL push as hard as they can and they will slowly violate the agreement terms and annoy users like most already do.

    6. Re:They got paid for this... by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm one. I use NoScript rather than AdBlock because it blocks the kind of ads that make it hard to read what I'm trying to read. I don't mind the ads on Slashdot. I've been offered the option of turning them off, and I don't take it. I like the site and don't mind if that's what it takes to preserve it.

    7. Re:They got paid for this... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      What does it matte if they got paid, I hope they got paid. Because either way we get a great feature.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    8. Re:They got paid for this... by icebraining · · Score: 2

      They didn't got paid for now, but

      I don't think that we get anything yet but we indeed hope to get some income this way to make the project sustainable.

      https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8872&start=30#p53166

    9. Re:They got paid for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One way to have balance would be to offer great content and great forums and actually charge for it. Can you imagine how strange it would be to use an internet forum with no trolls, bots, or other crap on it? Yep, charging for access would get rid of almost 100% of that (although to be fair it may drive up the number of accounts the spammers would be trying to 'hack' so they could use them to do their dirty work). For example: I'd prefer to pay say 50 cents a month for slashdot than have ads and trolls. I agree readership would go way down (along with infrastructure costs). But the remaining users would be the ones with actual good comments that are often a pleasure to read.

    10. Re:They got paid for this... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Probably. I don't believe I bought anything specifically because of any ad, though it's possible that some of the products I bought over the years were somehow influenced by some ad somewhere, it's hard to say. But I use every tool available to block as much ad content as possible because it's all in your face nonsense.

      There is nothing wrong with having some ads, obviously we have ads on everything. Look at your computer - it has a logo on it. Look at any food package - it has an ad on it. Check out your jeans, there is an ad somewhere there. Your shoes probably too. But it doesn't really bother us because it's just part of life but more importantly because it doesn't jump out at us while we are trying to do something.

      If I was walking on a street and all of a sudden my shoes stopped me and started yelling: buy (whatever the brand is) and I couldn't keep walking, I would throw those shoes right out.

      More likely scenario: if I put a key into the car's ignition and before it started it gave me a 30 second ad by the car manufacturer, I would fucking sue their asses to hell for wasting my time (imagine if you have to get out of some situation rather quickly, you start your car, and instead of taking you out of there, it started an ad for 30 second, giving enough time for the angry mob to catch up - you are dead.)

      So it's the same with your computer - if instead of allowing you to do your work, it stopped you for 30 seconds to show/read/display an ad to you. That's insane. That's why we block all ads, and I am so jaded now, I want the maximum ad blockage even though in reality most of those ads don't really stop me from anything, but they still occupy my desktop space and it's annoying.

      So I say - we can't have good things because people ALWAYS taking one step further and spoil the good thing. So we fight back the way we know how - technologically.

    11. Re:They got paid for this... by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      More likely scenario: if I put a key into the car's ignition and before it started it gave me a 30 second ad by the car manufacturer, I would fucking sue their asses to hell for wasting my time (imagine if you have to get out of some situation rather quickly, you start your car, and instead of taking you out of there, it started an ad for 30 second, giving enough time for the angry mob to catch up - you are dead.)

      More likely scenario?

      Anyway, now imagine that most people are not chased by hordes of ravening zombies during their lives. Now imagine that in exchange for that 30 second ad-delay, you got to drive a new car all the time for free. Still suing?

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    12. Re:They got paid for this... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Not as much getting paid, but keeping the peace.
      This tool is for getting rid of the sleezball advertisers who will do anything to get their adds out. But there are the good ones who do it nicely, and don't try to trick you into clicking into it. Or take forever loading your pages. We want to encourage good advertising, really we do, the alternative is that we will need to pay for content to access web sites, especially professional ones who have staff that they need to pay for.

      Sure you pay for Slashdot, but are you willing to pay for all your sites? A Google search for a technical answer will require you to pay $0.25 to see the answer?

      And if Addblock gets too aggressive you are going to enter in an Addblock vs. Website owner war where they find ways to stop addblock and addblock finds way to stop the websites. And at the end everyone will lose, consumer will have sites that break on them all the time or they get bombarded with adds, websites loose revenue, add makers need to spend more and more money to make their adds smarter, addblock needs to put more and more resources to make its tool stop the advertisers.

      This way the advertisers who gets block will need to try to prove that they are not being abusive. If they cannot they need to admit that they are abusive and their customers will need to question them on it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re:They got paid for this... by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      More likely scenario: if I put a key into the car's ignition and before it started it gave me a 30 second ad by the car manufacturer...

      I won't hear that ad, because I'll be outside scraping the ice off the windshield.

    14. Re:They got paid for this... by marcop · · Score: 1

      Yup. Even though Slashdot offers me the option to not-display ads I find them to pretty non-annoying so I leave them on. I would guess that there is some view-counter-script so I want to be counted as having potentionally viewed the ads. As Timothy mentions in the article, ads keep the lights on at Slashdot.

    15. Re:They got paid for this... by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      It's even worse than that.

      Some pages have ads that are non-intrusive in on windows, but break horribly on a Linux machine.
      This most commonly occurs with ads that use flash, so you can avoid the worst lot by blocking flash
      except for when you need it.

      Also, while the browser should be able to handle it, it has happened that some poorly coded site managed
      to lock-up my browser or crash it. That should not happen to a well written browser of course, but blocking
      ads all but eliminates it.

      The bad part about this is that "if you don't like the site don't visit it", won't help, because you only realise it
      will break things after you visit. It also happens on occasion that this kind of problem happens to sites you
      kinda need to use, such as when you try to print a form to fill in your taxes.

    16. Re:They got paid for this... by del_diablo · · Score: 2

      Engine stop due bad clutching, somewhere in a heavly trafikked intersection.
      I can think this is a likely scenario, and if the people behind are going to wait a extra 30 seconds, they may even attempt to lynch you, along with whatever fines you can get from the local police.

    17. Re:They got paid for this... by Jamu · · Score: 1

      I have nothing against advertising, provided they aren't pop-ups or such, many websites depend on them to run. The reason I block ads is to avoid malware.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    18. Re:They got paid for this... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I like this idea. I also do not mind none intrusive ads as a way to pay for content. When I read magazines like Cycle World and Circuit Cellar I actually value the ads. What they consider to be an OK ad matches what I feel are non intrusive ads 100% .
      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)

      Frankly since they have an option to block all I do not see why any reasonable person would be upset over this change.
       

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    19. Re:They got paid for this... by allo · · Score: 1

      noscript ... mh, wasn't this the plugin, which adds the author's homepage to the adblock whitelist?

      okay, they are not doing it anymore, but at this time i had the impression the noscript guys want to make money and the adblock people are the good guys. now the adblock author does strange things, too.

    20. Re:They got paid for this... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Yes, but at least the adblock author doesn't mess with other software on your computer like the Noscript guy.

      http://adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users

      http://hackademix.net/2009/05/04/dear-adblock-plus-and-noscript-users-dear-mozilla-community

    21. Re:They got paid for this... by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      You mean you pay for every single site you use?

      Because that's what you're saying. Sites can't survive on good wishes and nice comments.

    22. Re:They got paid for this... by whereissue · · Score: 1

      This is a really poor car analogy. What, precisely, about your computing experience is free?

      Warning... my question is bait; with exceptionally rare exceptions, nothing about your computing experience is free (as in beer, or otherwise).

      --
      where is sue? sue is idle.
    23. Re:They got paid for this... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      This is a really poor car analogy. What, precisely, about your computing experience is free?

      Warning... my question is bait; with exceptionally rare exceptions, nothing about your computing experience is free (as in beer, or otherwise).

      Almost all of the content I view on my computer is free and advertiser supported. Slashdot, Google, News sites, Hulu, etc.

      Though I guess a more apt analogy would be you pay for the car, but every time you want to get on a freeway you have to stop and watch a 30 second ad first to pay for the road.

    24. Re:They got paid for this... by whereissue · · Score: 1

      You pay for the computer, the electricity, the networking gear, the internet connection. You pay with money.
      You pay for the advertising. You pay by cooperating with 3rd party monetization of private information you would, never, otherwise assemble or disseminate of your own volition.

      "every time you want to get on a freeway you have to stop and watch a 30 second ad first to pay for the road"

      That's awful analogy number two... Unless you're prepared to develop a "tax-block" application, the advertising model doesn't fit as a comparison here.

      The advertising models of the internet serve to prove that you CAN rape the willing. That's the only analogy which I see as being appropriate... and it's a right horrible analogy.

      --
      where is sue? sue is idle.
    25. Re:They got paid for this... by mlts · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work that way. The car would cost the same amount, it just would mean that the car dealer and car maker make more ad revenue.

      You can point at Call of Duty and the Pepsi/Doritos stuff. If they are advertising Pepsi, shouldn't the game be free? Nope. It is still 40 bucks, and you have to deal with the fact that someone buying soft drinks has an advantage.

    26. Re:They got paid for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      that's some old shit for which noscript guy quickly apologized for and remedied in an update immediately after he was called on it. But it should be noted that the adblock guy went out of his way to put a blocking rule on noscript guy's url for donations which prompted noscript guy to mess with adblock rules in the first place. adblock guy has long been regarded as an asshole, and now he's regarded as a sellout as well.

      http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/adblock-noscript.html

      It started as a sort of a phallic e-contest revolving around advertisement. The Noscript developer Giorgio realized he was losing revenue because of the way Adblock Plus filters were written and decided to change his product, the highly popular security extension Noscript, to circumvent the barriers presented by the ad-blocking software. On the other end of the fighting ring, the Adblock Plus developer, Wladimir, started writing more complex filtering rules specially designed to block Noscript website content, including ads, from loading.

      adblock guy has long been regarded as an asshole, and now he's regarded as a sellout as well.

    27. Re:They got paid for this... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      suing is part of market. Of-course finding out that some manufacturers are pushing ads onto the drivers and buying cars that don't do that in the first place is also market.

    28. Re:They got paid for this... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      And I block them because their presence makes me write off sites.

      Much like TV commercials, web ads have become so annoying that I am distracted from why I came to a website to begin with.

      Let me explain: if I click the link to your website, and the content that I am looking for is not immediately in front of my face, I write off your entire site. With video ads, 30-60 second ads is far too long for my 3-second attention span.

      The only TV advertisement I can actually stomach these days is what I find in anime, where they have a "sponsored by" section immediately following the titles. And I tolerate it because it's more effort to re-position the slider 5 seconds into the future than watching the damn thing. But yes, if I ever visit Japan, then I will certainly be checking out King Records.

      The upside of entertainment without ads is an extra 3 hours a week to read, watch TV, or any number of a billion different activities.

      And no, these sites are not losing any revenue, because I have no intention of ever-clicking one of those ads. I am in none of their focus groups, trust me. If that means I can't view your content, I can live with that.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    29. Re:They got paid for this... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I've been offered the option of turning them off, and I don't take it. I like the site and don't mind if that's what it takes to preserve it.
      I've been offered that as well, and also don't take it. The ads on slashdot don't interfere with what I am reading. I have never, ever, ever clicked on an ad, and never will, but slashdot is probably paid on impressions and not clicks. Or perhaps they are paid on both, but paid more for clicks. At any rate, if the internet ever went to a click only ad payment system most sites would probably stop serving information to people like me.
      Advertisement is a waste of money, but fortunately for us leeches, most companies are duped by marketing into believing that advertising makes them more money. I have to hand it to marketing, the one thing that they can sell effectively is their own services.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    30. Re:They got paid for this... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I use AdBlock, installed myself, know about it (otherwise wouldn't be commenting about it), and have no problem with unobstrusive ads.

      The only problem is that now I'll have to check if their definition of unobstrusive is the same as mine. That is quite an easy (passive indeed) check, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

      Also, I care that the sites I see should have some revenue stream. I wouldn't pay for most of them, in part because I don't want to care about currency conversion and tarifs for sending money overseas, in part because I wouldn't find new sites if I had to pay for every one of them. But so many sites make browsing so bad an experience that I prefer to block all ads if it must be a binary choice.

    31. Re:They got paid for this... by foradoxium · · Score: 1

      I converted to chrome, and I still use adblock.

    32. Re:They got paid for this... by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Someone should write a graphic novel featuring NoScript Guy and AdBlock Man.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    33. Re:They got paid for this... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      So... you're saying you're not in control of your destiny? Methinks you need to re-read my post.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    34. Re:They got paid for this... by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      I don't believe I bought anything specifically because of any ad, though it's possible that some of the products I bought over the years were somehow influenced by some ad somewhere

      I've specifically purchased Carbonite.com and Audible.com services because they were advertised on podcasts I listened to.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    35. Re:They got paid for this... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > If ads were all friendly I wouldn't block any of them. I think many (most?) people probably feel the same way.

      Um, no, as in DO. NOT. WANT> I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad.

      i.e.
      http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
        and
      http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
        FTW

    36. Re:They got paid for this... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Um, no, as in DO. NOT. WANT> I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad.

      Just imagine how much faster your surfing speed will be with no free ad-supported websites to browse.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    37. Re:They got paid for this... by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      so what you are suggesting that the users pay to ask the questions and provide the answers, can't see why that wouldn't work... oh yeah that's right you go from providing useful info to being exploited by some jerk who thinks he can make a buck off your back.

      See how dumb that is , you want people to pay to post the interesting stuff and hope that no one will pay to troll or just make moronic posts. who would stick around for that.

    38. Re:They got paid for this... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Being a computer-literate relative, I have aggressively installed Firefox and ABP (Chrome too) on many many many systems. Corporate is also included. Although, the vast majority of the time IE is required for some vendor specific sites.

      It's not against IE so much. Security is/was the primary reason to move away from IE (They're getting better) and to get rid of ads. Security is a fundamental problem of advertisements. The greed starts and the next thing you know major websites are just giving control away to have ads injected into their site willy nillly. You must trust the advertisers to sanitize all the ads. There is not a great track record of this either.

      I use a hosts file in addition to AdBlock to stop their code from even running, and it is code too. Either Flash or Javascript included from an external source to the webserver.

      I absolutely hate advertisements as the worthless filth that they are, but disabling all advertisements is simply good security practices.

    39. Re:They got paid for this... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Normally these days sites never get paid for impressions, only for clicks.

    40. Re:They got paid for this... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Why are they probably paid on impressions, when almost nobody is paid that way these days?

    41. Re:They got paid for this... by cforciea · · Score: 1

      When I had a tv I always muted ads and looked the other way so as not to see this silly,insulting nonsense.

      How, exactly, did you know when to unmute the TV, then?

    42. Re:They got paid for this... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      And then there's the moral issue. If everyone adblocks then websites don't make money, and there's less of a compelling reason to create good content.

      Bullshit. There was plenty of good content before the internet was monetized, and a HELL of a lot less dreck. Back in the nineties the most advertising you ever saw was a banner, and people complained about them. Now you have one fucking paragraph with twenty flashy, screaming ads distracting you before you click to the next page full of flashy annoying ads. Perhaps you meant "If everyone adblocks then websites don't make money, and there's less of a compelling reason to create commercial content." You must be one of those folks who think free means worthless.

      I'd trade today's internet for 1997's any day, and that even includes having to dial up on 33.3.

    43. Re:They got paid for this... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Advertisement is a waste of money

      Tell that to the bar owner who puts an ad in the paper touting the band that's playing there Friday on Saturday when he's counting record reciepts. The fact is advertising does usually work. I can't buy your product if I don't know you're in business. Hell, George Ranks just reopened, I'd never know it if there wasn't a big sign out front advertising the fact.

    44. Re:They got paid for this... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. I ran three sites for over five years without a single ad or a single penny profit. My web host charged fifteen bucks per year. YEAR! And my sites had no ads whatever. Back then, few sites did have ads; almost the entire internet was completely ad-free and open. IMO it was a lot better back then, even if there was no streaming.

    45. Re:They got paid for this... by hankwang · · Score: 2

      "I am a power user" - I don't think that there are slashdot posters who might say: "I am a casual computer user, not a power user".

    46. Re:They got paid for this... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Why are they probably paid on impressions, when almost nobody is paid that way these days?Well, I didn't know that most everybody is paid by clicks now. In that case, I'm surprised they still let me on the internet considering that I have never ever clicked on an ad and if there is any hope for humanity then nobody else does either.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    47. Re:They got paid for this... by Tharsman · · Score: 1

      But according to the poster I replied to, only some one that can't even install their own browser would want to willingly see ads. Thats why I felt the need to note that.

    48. Re:They got paid for this... by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is $27-$80 Cpm, depending on ad placement. It's in the advertising brochure.

    49. Re:They got paid for this... by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      > If ads were all friendly I wouldn't block any of them. I think many (most?) people probably feel the same way.

      Um, no, as in DO. NOT. WANT> I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad.

      i.e. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ and http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm FTW

      Well they are not friendly..In this case,it tool a law to make them "friendlier "on tv in the USA. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57342486-503544/govt-asks-viewers-to-police-too-loud-tv-ads/ "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Tuesday voted unanimously to approve rules implementing legislation that makes it illegal for advertisers to pump up the volume during television commercial breaks. The law, called the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, aims to answer the complaints of Americans who have for years protested that commercials are too loud."

    50. Re:They got paid for this... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You just described Experts Exchange.

      Also, Something Awful. The counterpoint to the GP post.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    51. Re:They got paid for this... by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      1. I'm part of the 75%, as in don't mind it. I installed ABP all by myself.
      2. My parents actually *appreciated* me installing Adblock Plus because it destroys the amount of distracting elements on the page, especially for my dad, who doesn't use computers much.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  4. Better idea by ashpool7 · · Score: 1

    Instead, work on a new app: Dupe Block Plus...

    1. Re:Better idea by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      The editors say: 'Only 25% of the Slashdot users seem to be strictly against any dupes.'

      Perhaps the rest appreciate the reminder? (I hear the average Slashdot user memory span in political debates is that of a goldfish. What were we talking about again?)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  5. Doublespeak by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The ministry of adblocking, which displays advertisements.

    In all seriousness though, who thought this was a good idea? We use adblock to block advertisements. I do not want the developers deciding for me which advertisements will not be blocks; the only person who should control the whitelist is me.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Doublespeak by AdamJS · · Score: 1

      They've created their own little extortion racket.

      Face it; Sites need an alternative to paid subscriptions and advertisements.

    2. Re:Doublespeak by SilentChasm · · Score: 1

      As a user of Adblock Plus for Firefox who also blocks ads in other browsers I use by using blocklists, I welcome this as an option.

      The only real reason I installed it in the first place was because ads started using animated images/flash and slowed down page loads and my machine (a low-power nettop). Firefox already seemed slow (UI) compared to other browsers at the time and having the ads slow down the machine more than the actual content became much too annoying when I could simply block them all. I tried for a time to only block a limited number of ads/types that annoyed me but I realized that it had become a lot of effort for the benefit of the people annoying me when I could just download an addon and a blocklist and be done with it.

      In the end, I hope the allowing of "acceptable" ads helps return the web to not being so annoying without addons by forcing advertisers to make their ads less annoying if they want to be seen.

    3. Re:Doublespeak by quixote9 · · Score: 1

      Come on, now. You merely have to go into options and select total block. That strikes me as "having control." It's just a teensy bit less convenient. So long as they don't run away with it, and wind up with an add-on that requires an hour of customizing, I kinda want to say, "Get over it."

    4. Re:Doublespeak by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      I would say that "total block" should be the default, and "allow the ads that the ABP developers think you should see" should be opt-in. Again, this is an extension that is supposed to block ads, not an extension that acts as a sieve for ads that the ABP developers happen to like.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:Doublespeak by mounthood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm going to *start* using Adblock Plus because of this. Advertisers need to be told where the line is, and this is the first practical way to communicate that too them. They should have even more checkbox options so users can decide what's acceptable rather than the devs. People don't use Adblock Plus often because they don't want to deny funding to websites, but a reasonable and practical compromise could kill intrusive advertising and tracking, just like popup blockers (mostly) killed popup adds.

      As to Doublespeak, it's called Adblock *Plus* - it blocks adds plus tells advertisers what's what.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    6. Re:Doublespeak by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I would say that "total block" should be the default

      I disagree. I think it's best to have to manually enable "total block". If the ads that are white-listed by default aren't bothering the user then the user won't feel compelled to block all ads and the free content that the user enjoys will have some financial support. However if the user is adamant about not seeing any ads or the ads are still to bothersome too the user, they can click on the "total block" option.

      If it was "total blocked" by default a very small percentage of the users (if any) will feel compelled to allow white-listed advertisements. While you may feel that this is ideal, the people who work on those free websites depend on the advertisement revenue to stay free and indiscriminately blocking all advertisement will cause the good quality websites to either shutdown or go paywall. This would cause a larger number of low quality web sites to show up on google searches, since they don't put much effort in the content anyway and they make their revenue by gaming the SOE to lure people who don't block the advertisements.

      I know there is a huge uproar when a web site decides to go paywall to pay the bills. Now it seems there is a huge uproar over allowing white-listed advertisers to bypass Adblock. These web sites can not exist as a charity, so we must decide which is the best way to support them.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    7. Re:Doublespeak by SatiricComet · · Score: 1

      How could this not be a good idea? This is an optional feature, that rewards websites who display unobtrusive ads, while still blocking the annoying ads. If you don't like it, you are free to disable it at any time and control your own whitelist.

    8. Re:Doublespeak by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      If it was "total blocked" by default a very small percentage of the users (if any) will feel compelled to allow white-listed advertisements

      That should tell you something about users' feelings on advertisements and why they are using ABP in the first place. How can whitelisting advertisements even begin to make sense if you begin with the premise that nobody will deliberately enable the whitelist?

      people who work on those free websites depend on the advertisement revenue to stay free

      Perhaps they should have refused to do business with advertisers that fail to respect their users? There is a reason that people block ads on the web, and it is the same reason they use spam filters for email: advertisers are a nuisance and they passed the threshold of tolerance long ago.

      indiscriminately blocking all advertisement will cause the good quality websites to either shutdown or go paywall

      Oh well, they should not have shot themselves in the foot with advertisements. If the ads were just banner ads, if the ads did not try to cover the text of the pages themselves, if the ads did not use flash and burn through CPU cycles, and if the ads were not used as a vehicle for privacy violations, we would not be in this situation. People who allowed these advertisements on their websites have no business crying foul now, and if they want to use a paywall then fine -- if they are important enough for me to spend money on, I will (not that any such websites come to mind).

      This would cause a larger number of low quality web sites to show up on google searches, since they don't put much effort in the content anyway and they make their revenue by gaming the SOE to lure people who don't block the advertisements.

      Then eventually everyone will block advertisements, and we will start seeing software that tries to thwart SEO (e.g. by filtering the results returned by Google).

      These web sites can not exist as a charity, so we must decide which is the best way to support them.

      How about the websites start standing with their users against abusive advertisers, and not doing business with advertisers who violate privacy rights or who use annoying techniques? If these websites do not care about their users, why should their users care about them?

      Or, if the web cannot be paid for without annoying, invasive advertisements, then it is time to move back to a more distributed system. We had some cool ideas going with peer-to-peer networking a few years ago, perhaps it is time to revisit those ideas -- distribute the cost of accessing information among the users, who can all contribute some of their bandwidth and CPU time. Sure, there will still be problems, but at least smaller publications will not have to worry about being unable to pay for distribution.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:Doublespeak by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      . . . we will start seeing software that tries to thwart SEO (e.g. by filtering the results returned by Google).

      Such software is long overdue.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    10. Re:Doublespeak by quixote9 · · Score: 1

      Selecting options on install, with a default to block everything, would be the way I'd want them to go too. My comment a bit earlier was just to say that you couldn't really call it loss of control when you have the option to customize a complete block. More inconvenient, but not less control.

      I guess part of it is that I feel such a deep debt to Adblock for making the web usable this last decade that I'm willing to cut them a lot of slack.

    11. Re:Doublespeak by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      The problem with your comments:

      Perhaps they should have refused to do business with advertisers that fail to respect their users?...

      Oh well, they should not have shot themselves in the foot with advertisements...

      How about the websites start standing with their users against abusive advertisers, and not doing business with advertisers who violate privacy rights or who use annoying techniques?...

      Is that you have an implicit assumption that we pick and choose which websites we will allow advertising when we use a program to block advertisements. You can't have this assumption while advocating the total blocking of advertisements nor while punishing all websites for the abuses done by a few.

      Or, if the web cannot be paid for without annoying, invasive advertisements, then it is time to move back to a more distributed system. We had some cool ideas going with peer-to-peer networking a few years ago, perhaps it is time to revisit those ideas -- distribute the cost of accessing information among the users, who can all contribute some of their bandwidth and CPU time. Sure, there will still be problems, but at least smaller publications will not have to worry about being unable to pay for distribution.

      I think you confused the cost of creating content with the cost of distributing it. I think the cost of creation is much greater than the cost of current distribution methods, so I don't know what problem you are trying to solve here.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    12. Re:Doublespeak by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Is that you have an implicit assumption that we pick and choose which websites we will allow advertising when we use a program to block advertisements. You can't have this assumption while advocating the total blocking of advertisements nor while punishing all websites for the abuses done by a few.

      My point was that website operators and advertising companies are not even trying to regain the users' trust. When websites start display simple, static advertisements that are distributed directly from their own servers, we can start talking about trusting them again. Until then, yes, there will be a total block of advertisements. Trust is an easy thing to lose but a hard thing to regain, and website operators are not even trying to regain our trust.

      I think you confused the cost of creating content with the cost of distributing it. I think the cost of creation is much greater than the cost of current distribution methods, so I don't know what problem you are trying to solve here.

      Perhaps we were thinking of different problems; when I think of websites struggling to "pay the bills," I think of the situation that 4chan is in: tens of thousands of dollars in debt just from bandwidth fees. You seem to be more concerned with the problem of paying writers to produce articles, the "old media" style websites like the New York Times.

      If it is truly the case that the choice is between using invasive, annoying advertisements to pay writers, or hiding behind paywalls, then I would say that paywalls are the only logical way to solve the problem. I doubt that the choice is really between invasive advertisements and paywalls. For high-quality writing, simple advertisements that do not annoy people and do not get in the way of reading articles could generate a lot of income. What stops the New York Times from putting static images hosted on the New York Times' own servers on the top or sides of its article pages? What stops them from charging a lot of money for those advertisements (remember that this is a famous, widely read, and well-established source of news)? I imagine that this sort of thing would work pretty well in a P2P distribution system -- the readers would be propagating the advertisements at no cost to the original publisher. If the advertisements are not too annoying nobody will spend the effort needed to develop software to distinguish the ads from legitimate images.

      Unfortunately, what we are seeing is a push in the opposite direction: advertisers are becoming more aggressive, and advertisements are becoming more invasive and more annoying.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    13. Re:Doublespeak by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      You seem to be more concerned with the problem of paying writers to produce articles, the "old media" style websites like the New York Times.

      Correct. The old "Garbage in = Garbage out". You have to pay for good content, and writers deserve to eat too.

      What stops the New York Times from putting static images hosted on the New York Times' own servers on the top or sides of its article pages? What stops them from charging a lot of money for those advertisements (remember that this is a famous, widely read, and well-established source of news)?

      I'm not concerned with the New York Times. I'm concerned about the fledgling writers who operate their own blog and have no capital or experience to handle advertising on their own.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    14. Re:Doublespeak by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I'm concerned about the fledgling writers who operate their own blog and have no capital or experience to handle advertising on their own.

      Are these writers currently receiving large amounts of income from advertising revenue, and are they dependent on the sort of advertising that ABP was designed to fight? Somehow, I was under the impression that fledgling writers were not seeing much income from their blogs and generally had to keep their day jobs; am I wrong?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    15. Re:Doublespeak by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Are these writers currently receiving large amounts of income from advertising revenue, and are they dependent on the sort of advertising that ABP was designed to fight? Somehow, I was under the impression that fledgling writers were not seeing much income from their blogs and generally had to keep their day jobs; am I wrong?

      Actually some do leave their day job. As for large amounts of income... what's your definition of large?

      Face it. We disagree.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  6. This is a duplicate. by Millennium · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As I said before, though, I'm OK with this. I don't use ABP to stick it to The Man; I use it because a number of my ads either actually make my browser unusable or are annoying enough to seriously detract from my browsing experience. If ABP can block only these while letting more benign ads through, then I applaud them: it allows site owners who don't employ these ads to keep their revenue, and it provides a clear alternative for site owners who currently do employ these ads. That's the sort of thing that actually stands a chance of making some change.

    In fact, I wish this weren't optional. There's a difference between protesting against certain odious forms of advertising and simply stealing content. The people who run this just to stick it to The Man are not allies in that fight.

    1. Re:This is a duplicate. by VIPERsssss · · Score: 1

      As long as they stick to static images I'm also OK with this. Ie. something that would be reasonable over dial-up (if I were still using dial-up).
      When it comes down to it, I'm paying to download those bytes too.

      --
      We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
    2. Re:This is a duplicate. by broken_chaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a difference between protesting against certain odious forms of advertising and simply stealing content.

      It's not 'stealing content' to determine what I do and do not wish to download or execute on my computer. I simply do not feel I can trust any advertisers to not be obtrusive, potential insecurity vectors, or abuse my privacy.

    3. Re:This is a duplicate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Blocking ads is not stealing content. You are awfully brainwashed.

    4. Re:This is a duplicate. by dougmc · · Score: 1

      In fact, I wish this weren't optional. There's a difference between protesting against certain odious forms of advertising and simply stealing content.

      Ahh yes, the "if you don't watch our ads you're stealing" argument. (Of course, people have been doing this "stealing" since the first time somebody took a leak during a TV, er, radio commercial, and I could probably think of much older examples if I gave it some thought.)

      I do like this distinction you've made. It's stealing if the ad is not odious, but not stealing if it is (that's just protesting) ?

      In any event, if this wasn't optional, Adblock would find all their customers moving on to something else, perhaps a fork of Adblock that tries to get *all* the ads, not just the 75% that are extra annoying (or failed to pay the Adblock developers.)

    5. Re:This is a duplicate. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      In principle I agree, but in practice having a gatekeeper with a whitelist you must get on sounds like a really bad solution. "I have here these X million of web users and unless you pay me, they're not going to see your ads" sounds too much like an extortion racket.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:This is a duplicate. by nine-times · · Score: 1

      it allows site owners who don't employ these ads to keep their revenue, and it provides a clear alternative for site owners who currently do employ these ads. That's the sort of thing that actually stands a chance of making some change.

      Yes, I agree. I've long thought that part of the problem with the whole advertising system on the Internet is that there's no real feedback. Some site puts up obtrusive ads. Some people open the site and immediately close it because of the ads-- the person operating the site has no way of knowing. Another user has an ad-blocker installed and doesn't see the ads, but the site owner probably can't tell. Is the user blocking the ads because he finds the ads on your site obtrusive, or is it because he just has the ad-blocker installed to block other ads? Who can tell?

      Since there's no way of telling who is blocking your ads and why, how can advertisers, site owners, and web designers make good choices about what ads are acceptable to their users and which ones aren't? If you want people to change behavior, you have to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior-- but just as important, they need to have a clear signal about which behaviors your punishing and rewarding. If you're punishing them and they don't know they're being punished, or they don't know *why* they're being punished, then you can't expect good results.

      So I'd almost like to see something advanced that says, "If a website does X (where X is bad behavior), block all ads on their site and signal to them in some way that I'm blocking ads because of behavior X."

      In fact, I wish this weren't optional. There's a difference between protesting against certain odious forms of advertising and simply stealing content.

      I'm not sure I agree that blocking ads is "stealing content". First, if it's theft, it's theft of potential ad revenue, not content. I'm not taking the content away from the site, nor am I using the content elsewhere. Second, it's not really theft of potential ad revenue since I'm not getting the ad revenue, I'm not failing to provide the site with ad revenue. Third, I don't think it's remotely reasonable to call it "theft" when all that's happening is "I didn't look at the ads that you wanted me to look at." It's also not "theft" to look at the ads and refuse to click on them, or to click on the ads and refuse to buy anything.

    7. Re:This is a duplicate. by IICV · · Score: 1

      Yeah, even the NYT got hit with a fake anti-virus attack ad.

      Untrusted ads are simply not safe.

    8. Re:This is a duplicate. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Since there's no way of telling who is blocking your ads and why, how can advertisers, site owners, and web designers make good choices about what ads are acceptable to their users and which ones aren't?

      Find someone who isn't mentally retarded to look at the site? I swear, I think most folks publishing on the internet are learning-disabled. What kind of idiot thinks that a flashing blinking distracting ad, let alone twenty of them, isn't obtrusive? What kind of idiot puts twenty obtrusive ads on a one paragraph page (twenty pages long) and expects anyone with an IQ of over 50 to ever visit the site again?

      I'm not sure I agree that blocking ads is "stealing content".

      I'm not sure how anybody could be stupid enough to believe that changing the station in the car when a commercial comes on, or taking a piss when a TV commercial comes on, or using an ad blocker is "stealing content?" People must be incredibly dense for these idiotic ideas to take hold.

    9. Re:This is a duplicate. by sdnoob · · Score: 1

      the real possibility of bogus and malicious ads is why adblock should be an all or nothing approach..

      if a malicious ad is approved by abp, that would have otherwise been blocked, should they then be liable for any damage caused?

      then you have the whole issue of ad content and editorial decisions over approving or not approving them.

      the claimed reason for allowing 'acceptable' ads is to allow users the ability to support specific sites that they choose to by having ads displayed on them.. this doesn't do that, it allows *abp developers* to support their own chosen sites by ''approving'' those sites' ads.. the *already existing features* in abp that allows users to disable per page or per domain, or to create specific exclusions does do what was intended, however.

      i can see no other reason for this change other than money... example: why else would ads on sedo domain parking pages be approved? who wants to see that crap? nobody except those who benefit directly from those clicks-for-cash.

  7. So how long by AdamJS · · Score: 1

    Until someone releases an Adblock 2?

    Most sites simply just don't understand that ads and sub services aren't acceptable to a large portion of their userbase.

    1. Re:So how long by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      You're against both ads and sub-services? How exactly should people make money on the site? I mean, even sites that aren't trying to turn a profit should at least be able to pay for themselves surely? I've never entirely understood the attitude: "Keep making things that I like, but don't expect me to make any sacrifices at all to help you."

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    2. Re:So how long by AdamJS · · Score: 1

      I'm personally not truly against either. But I don't view them as reliable or sustainable methods of profit.
      I don't know of what the alternatives are, but innovation is certainly needed by most sites and content producers.

  8. Allow filtering by format details by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd like separate options for suppressing:
    - Pop-unders
    - Pop-overs
    - Ads emitting sound without being clicked on
    - Ads that start playing video without being clicked on
    - Ads that are sneaky (single-pixel, etc.)
    - etc.

    1. Re:Allow filtering by format details by allo · · Score: 1

      just create a blocklist for each, and offer the adblock users to subscribe to your lists. then they can choose.

    2. Re:Allow filtering by format details by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      That might be the way it's modeled from a user's perspective. But I expect the real challenge is coming up with an automated way to maintain such lists.

      And if I'm right, the fact that JavaScript is Turing-complete is a serious problem to automating this, especially because many advertisers are unscrupulous.

    3. Re:Allow filtering by format details by higuita · · Score: 1

      Then use the privoxy proxy, to get that level of control...

      --
      Higuita
    4. Re:Allow filtering by format details by allo · · Score: 1

      yeah, i really like more blocking stuff myself, with my own regexes, so i have a lot more control than these lists. But of course someone could provide such lists, and this would be easy to subscribe for the users. Then statistics for the list-downloads would show, which ads are the most hated.

    5. Re:Allow filtering by format details by mounthood · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Letting the end users, rather then the devs, communicate what's acceptable is the key to getting advertisers to change. The advertising industry isn't going to be dictated to by a few devs, but millions of end users will convince them.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
  9. I unblock ads at webmaster's requests by sandytaru · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Usually webcomic artists, who come right out and state that their ad revenue is their primary source of income generation. I'll even click through ads on those web sites. But in exchange, I expect those webmasters to patrol their own ads, and if anything is offensive or obnoxious, have it removed at the source. Web ads, even automated ones, should not be a totally passive thing on the part of the webmasters. If they're asking people to click their ads, then they need to make some effort to supervise the ad process.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:I unblock ads at webmaster's requests by allo · · Score: 1

      and even this will not work out. when more people start doing this, just clicking to help the webmaster, then the ad-prices will drop.

    2. Re:I unblock ads at webmaster's requests by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      I actually make sure to linger a bit on the websites and click additional links if it's interesting.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    3. Re:I unblock ads at webmaster's requests by allo · · Score: 1

      then you're having enough time to do so. i often want to read the essence and thats it. And clicking on ads, then reading the advertised page, looking if there is something i could possible like .. would only be another distraction, which i am trying to avoid.

  10. Privacy is key, but doesn't seem respected here by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not 100% anti-advertising, but the privacy issue is deeper than just being on a "Do not track" list.

    If the ad is served from a host controlled by the advertiser, then they have my IP address, the date and time, the number of times I saw the ad, and (by the "referer" header) what page(s) I was viewing when I saw the ad.

    For me, "acceptable" ads are those served by servers which I've opted into correspond with, either by typing into the address bar or by clicking a link.

    1. Re:Privacy is key, but doesn't seem respected here by mounthood · · Score: 1

      Nothing stops websites from sharing tracking info with advertisers. If we block all advertising that isn't self hosted, we'll get server-side systems that automatically copy adds from advertisers servers and then share tracking info back to the advertiser. With advertisers hosting their own adds, it's practical for Adblock Plus to influence the industry.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    2. Re:Privacy is key, but doesn't seem respected here by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      For me, "acceptable" ads are those served by servers which I've opted into correspond with, either by typing into the address bar or by clicking a link.

      You understand that this would never really work in practice. Sites load resources (jquery!) from other servers all the time. A restaurant page might have a frame that loads the Google Maps API or a YouTube review. Blogs load related posts from other blogs on the sidebar. Slashdot has some freshmeat content listed!

      Trying to shoehorn the web into back into a single-server single-client architecture is a huge step backwards and violates the basic principle of one-resource-one-location. Your cache doesn't need a separate copy of jquery for each server that serves it.

  11. Am I in the monority? by bogaboga · · Score: 1, Funny

    I love ads on the sites I visit. Without them, these websites look empty. Anyone like me?

    1. Re:Am I in the monority? by Full+Metal+Jackass · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you just invented a word! "Monority" n: A minority of one.

  12. Nth Dup! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Been a while since we've had one of these.

  13. Hide enough ads, and the media outlets will change by tgd · · Score: 2

    On TV, you see product placement in TV shows all the time, because of DVRs. Some shows are rampant with them, like Big Bang Theory, which must get a pile of money from Dell. Laptops are ALWAYS carried around with the Dell or Alienware showing.

    Or you get websites like Slashdot, which show advertiser bias in the bizarre choices of stories, clearly designed to get click rates up, or the new "sponsored" stories.

    I'd rather see unbiased media and unobtrusive ads, then see ads blocked and the whole internet get as bad as /. in that regard.

  14. Wise move, bad PR by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    This was a wise move for the overall health of the web, but the people who use Adblock instead of NoScript + Flashblock are the types who are offended by seeing ads at all. With this user base trait in mind, it would have been best to have the "allow unobtrusive ads" off by default, and maybe show a post-install screen explaining the feature and offering the option to turn it on.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. As I Said Before by TheFlannelAvenger · · Score: 1

    Look websites, we get it, the social contract. I would be fine helping you out by watching your ads. But the ads on your site, aren't from you, they are from an adfarm, or an adhosting company, or any number of third parties I do not know or trust.

    Although not a tech site, everyone here has probably heard of the NY Times third party ad supplier getting hit, and injecting an attack to visitors from a poisoned advertisement. *

    I use Adblock mostly in self defense, along with NoScript, because I don't know who is pushing the ads, or what their policies are. If AdBlock is going to vet advertisers and guarantee safe content, then maybe I will loosen up a bit. But I'm still leery, as even certificate authorities these days are getting gamed.

    In general blocking anything except the web content I'm trying to view, seems best practice.

    * http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2009/09/14/fake-antivirus-attack-hits-york-times-website-readers/

    1. Re:As I Said Before by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Look websites, we get it, the social contract.

      I don't believe in a "social contract". If I didn't sign it, there's no contract. I never agreed to watch anybody's ads. When that beer commercial comes on TV, I'm taking a piss. When that McDonalds commercial comes on the car radio, I change the station. Period. I have no obligation whatever to watch or listen to advertising. If you buy into this "social contract" bullshit you're a fool.

      Advertisers only have contracts with publishers; they have to just hope I look at their ad, because I am not part nor parcel of their contract.

      "Social contract", what will the goddamned rich bastards come up with next? And you fools keep letting them...

  16. "ads power the web". too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've seen people express that opinion and it's nonsense. Remember the internet before the first banner ad, before the web even? It was as *awesome* resource in the 1980's. It hadn't been corrupted by money and commercial interests. There was no astroturfing, you could believe reviews were a real person's opinion about 100% of the time. There were excellent resources to answer questions about a huge range of things without the $$$ sites offering to sell you shit you didn't need infesting everything. Your every move was not tracked and used to sell you shit.

    So if we kill internet ads entirely, and all this crap disappears from the net? That's no loss. That's a gain. Let it all die, I say. Yes, this site too, if that's what it means: usenet of yore before the commercial spammers ruined that too had FAR better tech discussions than slashdot. Maybe the net can go back to what it was before TBL invented the web to make it usable by idiots, attracting legions of idiots, marketeers, censors, and mouth-breathing people clicking on ads to infest it.

  17. Re:Hide enough ads, and the media outlets will cha by sandytaru · · Score: 1

    Just remembered an interesting observation about laptops in use in the "real world" versus the media. In movies, they tend to use Apple products. However, when the now infamous "war room" photo of Obama, the generals, and the cabinet circulated at the time of Osama Bin Laden's capture, every laptop in the room was a ruggedized, locked down, extra-secure business HP system.

    As for the Dells in Big Bang Theory, that really reeks of false geekery to me. Real geeks will either be using Macbook Pros, or some really souped up Windows or Linux system from anyone but Dell.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  18. What's their price for intrusive ads? by swb · · Score: 1

    If ABP makes money off this deal (and I don't understand why they would do this without making money...), I'm sure their principles of only "allowing non-intrusive ads" will last five minutes until the right price is reached and then they'll allow them, too.

    What I don't understand is why the ad biz would try to do business with them -- short term, it's extortion -- pay us and we might unblock your ads. Long-term, you'll pay them and people will switch to BlockAdPlus or whatever the replacement is that does the same thing with the same blocklists but doesn't allow ads.

    Either way, the advertisers get squeezed and don't get a lot of long-term satisfaction out of it.

    I just hope that this doesn't happen to NoScript. I see that system as much more complex to replace than AdBlock. I could be wrong, but ABP seems more of an URL filter for a page, where NoScript seems to need do more heavy lifting.

    1. Re:What's their price for intrusive ads? by NotBorg · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why they would do this without making money.

      Maybe because it sends a clear message to advertisers? Here's what I read between the lines: "Look we can either cut your balls off entirely or you can tone your boner down a bit and be more respectful than a dog humping everyone's legs."

      Also:

      Only 25% of the Adblock Plus users seem to be strictly against any advertising.

      Shit, I didn't even have to click anything. It seems they've done some market research and are giving users what they want. No, you're right, no one does that. Carry on.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
  19. The straw that broke the camels back by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I didn't bother for a long time, partially because I use a lot of different browsers for different needs and that meant that I needed to setup and ad-filtering proxy which is a tiny amount of work and I am very very lazy.

    But ads got so annoying over time that I just installed it, made it the default on my home network (all HTTP traffic is filtered) and not just am I not annoyed anymore by ads, the speed has gone up.

    Ads take just to much time. It doesn't matter where they are. Trying to read an American magazine is a game of "hunt the article". It used to be article - ad - article. Now the article between several ad pages, often only part of the page and spread all over the magazine to force you to keep hunting for it and be exposed to more ads. TV? 5 minutes of ads for every 10 minutes of TV? Including ads for the program you just interrupted?

    That leads me to the next thing about ads. They are so goddamn fucking stupid. A tiny handful are funny but they are shown maybe a handful of times. The ads that are in every single commercial block are the ones that make your brain want to crawl out of your ears. I don't watch TV anymore, not because I am not in the mood for mindless drivel but because even my desire for mindless drivel is insulted when the ads come on.

    Ad-block can start to let ads through but lets face it, they do this for money and so, the ad that pays the most is the one that gets through. That is how all this kinda stuff works. Movie TV channels advertise with not showing ads, and then charge a premium for special offer blocks. You buy a DVD not to see ads and then they put non-skippable ads in front of the content.

    It is not like there are no alternatives to ad-block.

    If advertisers want to get back on my browser they need to sanitize their own industry. Get rid of all the animated ads, the ads that are slow or stupid or annoying and make them be delivered at insanely high speeds so that NEVER EVER a webpage refuses to load because of a slow ad server.

    But that won't never happen and so, I got several block lists. Opera has the most userfriendly at the moment, can even be used to content on the site itself.

    I have even gone to the trouble of filtering out comments on sites with drivel comments. It is easy, just write a javascript command to hide blocks with author "smallfurrycreature" and the net will be a cleaner place.

    Yes, this is drivel, but at least it isn't drivel tracking your every move or taking ages to load.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:The straw that broke the camels back by NotBorg · · Score: 2

      It is not like there are no alternatives to ad-block.

      If you bothered to read just a little bit you'd know that is an optional feature. Even in the absence of adds you fail to read the article. Enough with the charades. How can adds in articles bother you if you don't read articles anyway?

      It's ok... I didn't click either. I don't have a problem with your view on adds I just think it's a bit misinformed to start shouting abandon ship. If anything this option affords the user more choice. With respect to the amount of Slashdot lamenting over "walled gardens," I would think this would be a welcome change.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
    2. Re:The straw that broke the camels back by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Your adds talk about other adds, when they probably meant to talk about ads. You're going to have to give back charades and lamenting until you get ads right.

    3. Re:The straw that broke the camels back by NotBorg · · Score: 1

      Sigh. I was waiting for you to fix it for me. I guess I have to do everything. FIFM:

      If you bothered to read just a little bit you'd know that is an optional feature. Even in the absence of ads you fail to read the article. Enough with the charades. How can ads in articles bother you if you don't read articles anyway?

      It's ok... I didn't click either. I don't have a problem with your view on ads I just think it's a bit misinformed to start shouting abandon ship. If anything this option affords the user more choice. With respect to the amount of Slashdot lamenting over "walled gardens," I would think this would be a welcome change.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
  20. Ads are amazing by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    The internet cannot exist without ads.
    Imagine if every site above personal hobby projects required you to pay to use its content. Imagine if there was not a single news site that did not charge a subscription cost. Imagine if XKCD charged a subscription cost and Google charged 25 cents to make a search.

    That is where we would be without advertising and anyone not willing to help out at all because of some set of principals are just lazy bums and should stop leaking off of everyone around them.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Ads are amazing by sohmc · · Score: 1

      But your forgetting that ads have to, at a minimum, not disturb the user experience. Most online ads are very disturbing to the user. Blocking flash gets rid of a large majority of those ads.

      One bad thing about HTML5 is that these ads will make it through the flashblock. Hopefully, AB+ will evolve to include those as well.

      I will say this: at least they are giving the end user an option. I would prefer that the whitelist was opt-in, but having the option to block them is a good start.

      --
      We don't live in Shouldland.
    2. Re:Ads are amazing by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      What you're really saying is not that the internet can't exist with ads, it's that the world can't exist without consumerism, and somehow people are "lazy bums" if they don't share this belief... I could easily argue that people who subscribe to this dogma are too lazy to fight for a better way of life.

    3. Re:Ads are amazing by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      "But your forgetting that ads have to, at a minimum, not disturb the user experience."
      Why? That is like saying that you are justified to pirate any software out of your ability to afford or steal any car that you cannot pay for.

      Sure I use AB+ for just that situation but no one should feel justified in doing that.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:Ads are amazing by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      No that is not at all what I am saying. In fact I am as anti consumerist as you can get.
      I am saying that just because you do not like paying for something and would rather live in a totally socialistic society does not mean that you get to steal content and revenue from Blogger A who is just trying to do a hobby that he loves and feed his family.

      The internet could exist without ads, as it is today, if the government was willing to subsidize all use of the internet. And I am not saying that I do not support a socialistic society that pays for all use of the internet.
      But we do not live in that world, so it is not OK to take advantage of anyone and everyone who makes a profit off the internet.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:Ads are amazing by Animats · · Score: 1

      The internet cannot exist without ads.

      Actually, it did for a long time.

      Without ads, companies would have their own web sites, and search engine service would be paid with your ISP bill. (Running a search engine isn't really that expensive if you don't serve ads or do search personalization. AltaVista was a demo run by DEC to promote the DEC Alpha. Cuil indexed the whole web (badly), with about 25 people and $25 million. At Google itself, the core search engine team was only about 100 people as of 5 years ago.) You'd be able to find anything you wanted to buy, but you wouldn't have it shoved at you.

    6. Re:Ads are amazing by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      But the internet is not just searches.
      I would not be able to read /. articles or hundreds of other articles for absolutely nothing without ads.
      Thousands of bloggers would not be making a living and allowing us to read whatever they write without ads.
      And even the earliest BBSes had subscription services, and I be not believe that absolutely no abs were ever run on even a single one of them.

      "companies would have their own web sites" AKA ads
      And what about the average user? Where is FB? Where is twitter? Where is newgrounds?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:Ads are amazing by allo · · Score: 1

      xkcd has ads?

    8. Re:Ads are amazing by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Potentially not, but I normally browse with AB+ on so I cannot say anything other then most sites that are not an advertisement themselves (company web sites) do have ads.

      Checked out XKCD and they have a big banner ad for their store, so yes XKCD has at least one ad.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    9. Re:Ads are amazing by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Imagine if every site above personal hobby projects required you to pay to use its content."

      If you get payment, it ain't a 'hobby', it's called a _job_.

    10. Re:Ads are amazing by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      No its not, not if you make $10 a month.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  21. The only way that I'll accept ads ... by MacTO · · Score: 2

    The only way that I'll accept ads is if they're hosted by the site that I'm visiting.

    Sure pop-up, pop-under, flash, and all of the other obnoxious forms of advertising that advertisers have come up with are annoying. Yet I am willing to put up with the inconvenience if there was some guarantee of privacy. And advertising (as it stands today) is one of the multitude of ways that users can be tracked across the multitude of sites that they visit.

    So blocking it shall be.

  22. Trust by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Remember back in the day when you could trust ads to be unobtrusive? Then the Internet came along and suddenly advertisers decided that they had free reign to ruin websites and invade our privacy. At this point, I do not trust any advertisers to respectfully show ads; they all either track everything I do or try to get in the way of what I am trying to read, or both. When advertisers regain my trust, I will stop blocking their ads.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Trust by silverglade00 · · Score: 1

      When advertisers regain my trust, I will stop blocking their ads.

      I completely agree, but how will you know? I don't plan on killing my adblocker to find out either.

    2. Re:Trust by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Remember back in the day when you could trust ads to be unobtrusive?

      No, and I'll be 60 this April. Ads have always been as obtrusive as the advertisers could make them. Print advertisers do their damndest to stand out; notice that when newspapers first started using colored ink, at first the only color pictures were one photo on the front page, the comics section, and ads? TV commercials have always been so loud they wake the neighbors up when you can't hear the dialog in the show.

      The internet just made obtrusive ads easier. Now there are obtrusive roadside signs!

  23. I really can't see any problem by slashdotit · · Score: 1

    I really can't see any problem with them getting paid off. Unless you are an anti-capitalist, getting support this way is legit in my opinion. Just uncheck everything.

  24. I am the 25% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To hell with this, I am one of the 25%. I am strictly against ads.

    Question: But what about Slashdot? Answer: I block ads on Slashdot.
    Question: But what if your favourite website shuts down? Answer: Who cares?
    Question: Do you have an alternate way to make money on the web? Answer: Who cares, it's not my responsibility to prop up a failing business model.
    Question: Would you be willing to pay to use the websites you block ads on? Answer: No. Free and no ads. Those are my terms and conditions.

    Question: But what about TV, the movies, radio, in-store, billboards? Answer: I don't subscribe to pay TV anymore, I pirate or wait for DVDs and buy and rip those. I hate product placement in TV shows. I rarely go to the theatre anymore. I rip all my DVDs/Blus so I don't see previews. I only listen to public radio. I try to do most of my shopping online. None of this has negatively impacted my life in any way, I'm not sacrificing anything here. My (pop) culture experience is at least as good as anyone else's. My city has very few billboards and I hate those. If I could wear augmented reality adblocking glasses, I'd do that. I don't want advertising.

    All ads are intrusive by definition. If I want information about a product, I will look for it myself. I don't /EVER/ want any unsolicited product information. I don't care if it's text, video, audio, interactive, whether it's a statement of fact, an outcome of research, an image campaign, or anything else. I'm not an anarchist or a political extremist. I have a normal social life, with normal friends. I'm not anti-capitalist or anti-corporate. Advertising, in specific, is the problem. It's pollution. It's noise. It's garbage.

    1. Re:I am the 25% by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      You know, it's interesting. Regarding #4, this is the same attitude we (mostly) all accept with regards to **AA (and for that matter, horse and buggy shops). The times change, business models need to change too.

      You lost me at Public Radio, though. Unless you are referring to something other than NPR, you are hearing a lot of advertising these days ("This broadcast brought to you by McDonalds, home of the McRib, who reminds you to 'have it your way' online at www.mcdonalds.com or at your local McDonalds location. McDonalds, 'whatever their other slogan is'."

      I still listen to NPR because this is still way less intrusive, but there is *NO WAY* I will donate money to them.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  25. War on ad blockers by DrXym · · Score: 1

    There have been a few sites which will complain if you block their ads but not many. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a more wholesale backlash against ad blockers given that visitors who block ads are basically freeloaders. It would be fairly simple to test if ads are being blocked or not with some inline JS and take the appropriate action. What that might be is open to discussion but I expect there are ways to devalue the content commensurate with the devalued visitor, e.g. don't show any news articles in the last 12 hours for example.

    1. Re:War on ad blockers by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      Like others have said, if "you" or "your site" serve ads that aren't obnoxious, Flash(®)y, popping up/under/over/down/in/out, data-collecting, page-grabbing, content-masking, survey-taking, usage-tracking, loud, seizure-inducing, eye-bleeding, *totally* inappropriate, or just downright frackin' toxic, then I just might consider easing up on the ad filter for your site.

      I agree. I'm not surfing the web to be your personal money bag. With or without AB I won't click on your ads cause I don't want/need what you are selling. If I want something,I can find it without some ad pusher leading me by the eyeballs down their sleazy little path. And ad makers brought this on themselves by engaging in the most insulting,obnoxious, irritating ads they could conjure. Did they think people would not eventually get sick of seeing their visual vomit? Really? The can't be that stupid. Anyway,I agree with Dave below on what advertisers are really about: "Advertising seeks to make those perfectly happy folks unhappy so they will spend more. " Dave

    2. Re:War on ad blockers by DrXym · · Score: 1

      which will pretty much guarantee that site lands on my permanent "do not visit" list.

      I doubt the site hugely cares or they wouldn't have taken action in the first place though the more diplomatic might attempt to explain to you that the content costs money to produce and host and that money is derived from ad revenue.

      Tell me, though, what's the difference between "freeloader" and "person who wants the web to operate at a decent speed with all this here bandwidth available"?

      None to the site you're visiting unless your user agent said you were using a mobile or something. You're a freeloader. And what about their bandwidth you're leeching without any intention or possibility of compensating them for it by viewing or clicking ads?

      Like others have said, if "you" or "your site" serve ads that aren't obnoxious, Flash(®)y, popping up/under/over/down/in/out, data-collecting, page-grabbing, content-masking, survey-taking, usage-tracking, loud, seizure-inducing, eye-bleeding, *totally* inappropriate, or just downright frackin' toxic, then I just might consider easing up on the ad filter for your site.

      Extensions like AdBlock Plus let users subscribe to block lists. e.g. EasyList. These lists are not set up on the basis of "obnoxiousness", rather they filter out stuff emanating from virtually every ad provider and metric site based on hundreds of regular expression filters. So I don't accept your premise that a) all sites with advertising are obnoxious, b) most people using an ad blocker even bother to test the site with ads to see if it is obnoxious or not. So the ad blocker catches "good" ads along with the bad. e.g I expect most people consider google text ads to be fairly innocuous and low bandwidth but they're hoovered up with all the rest.

  26. three strikes, you're out by epine · · Score: 1

    Many readers have submitted news

    At this point I'm guessing that the license plate still garbed in the pristine shrink-wrap Steve Jobs couldn't bear to tear into has come up for sale on eBay.

    of a week-old announcement

    So it was boring then and it's still boring now, but finally we have geek quorum.

    from Wladimir Palant

    Oh oh, even worse, its about some Twitter celebrity I've never heard of.

    Three strikes, you're out.

    Since I missed it myself the first time, I'll add my two percents.

    I grew up in the era of Coke vs Pepsi. The debate should have been about high fructose corn syrup vs metabolic syndrome. You hear from the man standing under the elephant, but it's never about the diabetic ankles.

    One of missing gems from Five Equations That Changed the World:

    information + greed + sex appeal = toxic sludge

    The dynamic here is that whatever standard one sets for acceptable advertising conduct, the advertisers are incented to differentiate themselves by crowding the perimeter of bad taste. The bad behaviour doesn't end until the acceptance criteria is reduced to the null set of "don't call us, we'll call you". There's plenty of people out there who enjoy the mind rot, the same way many people are into body rot. Advertising is best applied to these people.

    The spectacular increase in metabolic syndrome in the western world over the last thirty years can't possibly be genetics. It could perhaps be caused by people parking the salty and sugary chip truck on their front lawn thinking they'll not really notice its presence there.

  27. The internet existed BEFORE ads by tekrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sure, it wasn't the internet YOU know and love, but in many ways, it was a better place. Now get off my lawn.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:The internet existed BEFORE ads by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      There was no internet before ads.
      Even the big BBSes charged fees and I am sure at least a few ads were run.
      So unless you are talking about a few somewhat interconnected universities and military complexes (that for the most part were locked down and not even open to the public), well then if you consider the ability to email a handful of people as the internet before ads and a better place then we still have that. You don't need to look at ads to use a email client or to direct connect to another computer on the internet (in fact I have never seen a SSH ad before).

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:The internet existed BEFORE ads by tekrat · · Score: 1

      Usenet, Gopher, Archie, Veronica MUDs, Cleveland Freenet, Dorsai Embassy, heck even Fidonet, and there were thousands of BBSes that never charged a dime (I should know, I ran one back in the day). The point is; there was a huge interconnected network, and it ran just fine without ads.

      I'm going to assume you're either 12, or you never connected a modem to a computer until 1995.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    3. Re:The internet existed BEFORE ads by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I never said no free sites existed, just that some of them charged.
      Hell, right now I could give you a list of free websites that do not use ads, but that does not mean that todays internet is ad free .
      And also often those free BBSes cost the runners a whole load of money to run and I would hate the internet reduced to company sites an and those willing to shell out hundreds of dollars to run a website.

      And they either ran on the backs of extreme hobbyists (like I already mentioned), or many of these free BBSes asked for donations (aka they ran some from of ad asking for them).

      I am not saying that no BBSes did not exist without outside revenue coming in, and I am, not even saying that everyone without outside revenue had to pay loads and loads of money to run their BBS, but many did.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  28. I suspect... by billybob_jcv · · Score: 1

    ... "Acceptability" is determined by the amount of cash transferred from the the advertiser to ABP...

  29. Resistance is futile! by sootman · · Score: 1

    This post brought to you by Dell.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  30. What are ads? by redelm · · Score: 2

    Excuuuuse me if I'm "so last millenium", but what are ads? I browse the web with `links`in gorgeous 149col x 143rows of text!

  31. Serving the Users by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    I think it's a reasonably good idea to allow users the option to let some ads through. A lot of people think advertising is a legitimate way to fund Web sites and maybe they want to preserve the revenue streams of sites that advertise in an inoffensive way.

    Myself, I think all advertising is contemptible by definition, so I am also glad the developers preserve the option to block everything.

    I don't see this as a betrayal of the user community. I see it as adding a feature. Yeah it's a feature that is enabled by default but if you are smart enough to use AdBlock in the first place you are probably smart enough to configure it.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  32. This seems reasonable... by sirwired · · Score: 1

    I have no beef whatsoever with unobtrusive text ads, or a reasonable number of static graphical ads. The reason I end up eventually installing AdBlock on my browsers is where some badly designed website brings my browser to a crawl with a half-dozen animated ads, or, even worse, a video ad with the sound enabled by default. (And most video ads in general make my machine chug some...)

  33. Restructuring for revenue by helix2301 · · Score: 1

    This sounds like they are going to do the same thing search engines do the more you pay the more your ads will appear. Just like search engines the more you pay the higher you rank. The company needed revenue and this is how they decided they were going to make money. A lot of company's that offer free services get people hooked the first few years then start with the revenue stream ideas. Apple did with the iPhone they got everyone hooked on the phone then introduced iAd and guess what we all kept our iPhones. If people like the service enough they will just put up with the changes. How ever the post goes on to talk about unchecking 'Allow non-intrusive advertising' to not allow a white list. So this does show they are trying to keep the products integrity and the products main purpose.

  34. the undying asymmetry by epine · · Score: 1

    There's more.

    If I make a considered personal opinion that I'm crossing high-fructose corn sugar and most soy derivatives off my menu for now and forever, because the superficial culinary joy is outweighed by the metabolic tax, and because I dislike mega-corporation agriculture, and because I *really* dislike mega-corporation agriculture as pwned by Monsanto under their regulatory capture of having the FDA "generally recognize as safe" a shot-gun genetic modification technology (which scatters the injected gene throughout the chromosomes) then to enter my house, as a principle of courtesy and respect, the visitor should scrape this particular dog shit off their shoes before stepping onto my porch.

    Until advertising incorporates the "I have decided" list of things I personally never wish to hear from again, I'm not unlocking the front gate, if only to protect my porch, even if I don't open the door after they ring the bell.

    As a consumer, I'm never allowed to set a fixed policy. In their mind I'm permanently up for suasion and drift. They understand decision fatigue and wield it against me.

    Another decision I've made is to never purchase a condiment which contains 40% of my sodium RDA in a single tablespoon. Does the cash register access my file to help me enforce this firm personal decision when I pass the till. Not bloodly likely. I'm surrounding by B2B technology of the highest order, yet I have to personally flip over every stupid bottle and read it myself.

    Capitalism where art thou?

  35. Re:Hide enough ads, and the media outlets will cha by QuantumPion · · Score: 1

    For whatever reason product placement doesn't particularly bother me. When I see a close-up of a phone or a shoe in a movie or TV show, I know that it is a form of advertising but it doesn't detract from my viewing. Probably because the actual time of advertisement is on the order of a second or less. When it is just a brief glimpse that requires no interaction on my part I can tolerate it. What I can't stand are commercials that you have to sit through on TV, or worse, commercials you have to sit through to view a web page or online video. If the advertisement presents itself and then disappears very briefly without interrupting me or requiring input on my part, that is just fine. When the ad requires me to click it to go away, click it to continue, blocks what I am trying to do, or wastes my time, that is unacceptable and I will always either block it or stop using the service that employs it.

  36. Not a big deal for me by motang · · Score: 1

    I will probably allow those non-intrusive ads. I don't mind those, I already disable them on my favorite sites like this one.

  37. ADS by TobyHanks · · Score: 1

    I agree that they should allow ads, there is a lot of good ads

  38. Re:"ads power the web". too bad... by lightknight · · Score: 2

    We need a search engine for websites that do not use ads. One which doesn't crawl blogs. A few other things.

    Yeah. I think I'll create one. Going to make its operational expenses very simple -> it'll use BitCoins to pay for the monthly traffic. So long as the balance remains positive, the site stays up.

    I favor this approach, as Google / Bing / Yahoo are already unusable to me. If I am doing CS work, searching for information on an algorithm, I don't want 300 sites trying to sell me a book on that very algorithm. I already own the book, and the information I want is not in it.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  39. What we need.. by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    Is an ad blocking method that lets the ads load to make the sites and advertisers happy, and also blocks them from being visible to the surfer - win win.

  40. I don't want blocked ads. by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

    I'm fine with people getting revenue for their ads. I just don't want to see them. All I want is a simple ad hiding extension, something that will suppress the viewing and hearing of the ad. Is that too much to ask for?

    --
    Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    1. Re:I don't want blocked ads. by allo · · Score: 1

      this is a problem, because if the website is not yet payed per click, they will be very soon, because the person buying the ad wants the ad-watcher not only to click, but to spend money at his site.

    2. Re:I don't want blocked ads. by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      This would only be a problem if there was a possibility of me ever clicking or even looking at the ad. Since I never do, my habits would go unchanged.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    3. Re:I don't want blocked ads. by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      This also assumes that there are reliable metrics applied to advertisements. As I understand it, the current practice is to throw money everywhere and "see what sticks."

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
  41. Special Whitelist Code vs. Subscription Lists by billstewart · · Score: 1

    It seems like they went to a lot of trouble writing a whitelist mechanism and the associated whitelist distribution method, when there was already a mechanism to implement it - letting the user choose which blocklist subscription to use. ABP already asks you which list to use, so just put out a list that doesn't block the well-behaved ads and another list that does.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  42. I want to publish my ad acceptance policy. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Instead of blocking all ads or deferring to the judgement of others, I would like to make my browser send an ad-acceptance policy.

    I would like say, "no sound", "no video/animated gifs", "no flash", etc etc.

    Also I would like to specify what I am currently in the market for, "digital SLR", "Carib Cruise" etc

    Also I would like to say what I would not click at "singles" "sexual stuff", "gambling" etc

    I would like some site like Mozilla to offer me list of these choices in some web site. I go there and I check mark on or off of these items. That site hashes all these choices into a simple hash and gives it to me. I send that hash to all sites I visit. That site can use the hash fetch my ad acceptance policy and displays ads accordingly.

    I would like the site that hashing my preferences into hash to make it available for others. So when I first visit the site, I get a choice of most popular policies number of people using that set of options. I clone one of the popular ones, make a few adjustments and get a new hash for myself.

    Eventually the web sites would know what kind of ads would be accepted by majority of the users and what would not be. With this feedback we can give good guys some decent break. That is the only way to make the annoying irritants go away.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:I want to publish my ad acceptance policy. by allo · · Score: 1

      build an addon, which adds this like the DNT-Header.

  43. Whitelists vs. Choosing Blocklist Subscriptions by billstewart · · Score: 1

    ABP already had a mechanism to let you choose what ads to block and what ads not to block - it's the blocklist subscription choice that you make when you install/update ABP. Instead of putting in a whitelist, they could have just offered a choice of blocklists beyond the current "Ads in English" / "Ads in French" / etc. choice. Maybe this makes it easier for the ABP authors to get everybody to use the less strict list.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  44. Involvment of the chosen site changes everything by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 1

    > If we block all advertising that isn't self hosted, we'll get
    > server-side systems that automatically copy adds from advertisers
    > servers and then share tracking info back to the advertiser.

    But the site I choose to visit would be a layer between my data and the harvester.

    That changes everything because, not only could they decide to not pass on the data or to scramble identifying elements before passing it on, but they would also share responsibility - which means they would be answerable to questions about what is being collected, and could be criticised for nasty policies.

    Adblock would continue to work. It'd just need regex's (which I think it already uses).

  45. Third party hosting by fa2k · · Score: 1

    It's easy to get used to most ads, except the crazy ones that flash red and green every 0.1 second. Don't mind them, and I've clicked a couple of them over the last six months.

    The problem is slow third-party servers that take 10 seconds to process a request. Don't you too hate staring at a white screen and a status bar that says "Waiting for google-analytics.com..."? Google and other ad providers have immense global networks which are very hard to manage, and they don't seem to be able to keep all their servers smoothly. That would be extremely expensive, if not impossible.

    It would be very useful to have a "temporary adblock" plugin that blocks third-party junk while the page is loading, and fills it in after the page is loaded, while the computer is idle. Maybe Google or its users (including ./) have gotten smarter about where they put their javascript, because I haven't seen the 5-10second stops lately.

  46. Re:Involvment of the chosen site changes everythin by mounthood · · Score: 1

    I think you're wrong about what roll websites would have if all advertising was self hosted: they wouldn't have any roll because they'd simply be running a server side advertising system written by the advertising companies. Google Adds would simply require a PHP script you drop into your site -- not a script you would create or could change. Users can already easily tell websites they don't like the advertising, but the Adblock Plus change will let us tell the _advertisers_ what's going to far.

    --
    tomorrow who's gonna fuss
  47. Too bad. by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    Had ads remained a small banner at the top of pages, originating from the site in question, no animations, no javascript, no cookie tracking, etc ... this arms race would never have come about in the first place. They may have even been effective in getting people curious about their product and checking it out.

  48. Adblock is so 2010: Get GlimmerBlocker by mergy · · Score: 1
    http://glimmerblocker.org/ OS X Control Panel for handling ads no matter what browser you use.

    Let me decide what is "acceptable" for me.

  49. No Adblock for me by massysett · · Score: 1

    Using Adblock reeks of hypocrisy to me. "I like the content your site provides, and I like it enough to go to your site, but you choose to pay for your site through ads, which I don't like, so I'm going to block them."

    I first thought of this when I used Adblock and I visited Distrowatch and a bunch of images were missing. It turned out that the site owner does things to deliberately mess with the folks who use Adblock with huge block lists. I thought about it and realized he is right. I like Distrowatch, it costs me nothing, yet I'm going to block the ads that support it? Not right.

    Yeah a lot of sites have annoying ads. I don't visit them. I used to read the Denver Post's website. It has annoying pop unders. I stopped visiting. I have sent emails to other sites saying "I like your content, your ads are too annoying, so I stopped visiting."

    I also pay for websites that have good content that is worth paying for.

    1. Re:No Adblock for me by fropenn · · Score: 1

      Do you carefully watch every commercial during your favorite television program? Do you carefully read every advertisement in your favorite magazine? Do you turn up the volume on the radio during the ads on your favorite program?

      It's my eyeballs and my computer. I get to choose what I view.

  50. Re:Hide enough ads, and the media outlets will cha by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I not only don't have a problem with product placement, I think it makes the show more realistic. Look at "My Name Is Earl" and the phony beer. IMO it would have been a lot better if they'd have used the redneck beer of choice, Bud Light. Made-up brands detract from a show, product placement adds to it.

  51. There is a big problem with internet ads by Windwraith · · Score: 1

    Internet ads are not like advertisement you see in TV or anywhere else. Instead of using smart, clever, easy-to-remember or catchy advertisement, it's usually a simple image or very intrusive pieces of code that put said images in front of you.
    Those ads barely follow basic marketing guidelines, and offer nothing to catch my interest. Hence, I block them, unless want to support that site (most sites I visit daily, actually, but that's not relevant to this post)
    TV ads and derivatives usually depend on catchy tunes, imagery and cleverness*. Nothing you can find in internet ads.

    Also, I am mostly influenced by ads when I go buy groceries. Internet ads will never advertise something I can go grab at my local market, or something I feel compelled to try, even less something I can obtain with pocket change. I am not buying a 200â+ service or item just because a rectangle with pictures asked me to click on it (or worse, interrupt or bother me).

    Not to mention, that Google, famous ad provider we all know and love, with all their datamining efforts, scanning email and searches for keywords, and all that fancy stuff, in order to provide ads, still fails to see I am not interested on random dating sites or buying server space. All these years and Google still fails to see I am only interested in videogames, cooking and free software. Not even once I saw an advertisement related to those 3 things from Google.
    Or considering 80% of my twitter followers are Japanese (I don't know why either), and Google surely has the tools and data to know that, how about offering a freaking translation suite or dictionary? You know, something I might find useful, instead of renting servers or shady dating sites.

    *Yeah, I know there are dumb as f*ck TV ads everywhere, but you surely remember a few funny or good ads from any period in time. If you remember, they succeeded.

  52. I'm sorry about the mess... by Roman+Grazhdan · · Score: 1

    I tried to retract the post somehow, but failed to find it yesterday (the 'newest' was full of proposals to buy real estate in India)