Slashdot Mirror


Google, Amazon, Microsoft Reportedly Paid AdBlock Plus To Unblock

RoccamOccam writes with the following news from The Register: Internet giants Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Taboola have reportedly paid AdBlock Plus to allow their ads to pass through its filter software. The confidential deals were confirmed by the Financial Times, the paper reported today [Paywalled]. From the Register's article: Eyeo GmbH, the German startup behind Adblock Plus, said it did not wish to comment. So far more than 300 million users have downloaded its software, it said. The add-on is free to download, with Eyeo generating revenue through its "whitelisting" programme. Companies can request their ads to be unblocked as long as they comply with AdBlock's "acceptable ads" policy. Large companies pay a fee for the service.

4 of 619 comments (clear)

  1. Company does exactly what it says it does... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Companies can request their ads to be unblocked as long as they comply with AdBlock's "acceptable ads" policy. Large companies pay a fee for the service."

    How is this news? Seriously, how?

  2. Re:Bound to happen by pjt33 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    could you imagine if every website was paywalled?

    No, I can't imagine that. In particular, I can't imagine paywalling my own site (or putting ads on it). I remember the days before advertising was big on the web, when content was provided by universities and hobbyists. Comparing the web now with the web then, I suspect that the death of online advertising would harm clickbait sites more than ones with valuable content.

  3. Re:Extortion by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey, these companies put their stuff up freely available on the internet, and make no attempt to block us.

    If they think that magically confers some obligation on us to look at every damned ad their website serves, they're full of crap. How many times to ads end up serving malware? Do they take any responsibility for that? Or just say "wasn't us"?

    They may think they have some magic click-through license, but I'll be damned if I think all of those analytics and ad companies should have access to all that. I'm not conducting a transaction with those companies, I'm viewing your publicly available website which makes no effort to keep me out.

    Not my problem about your ads.

    Don't want me to block your ads, make your site subscription based and block me out entirely.

    But don't act like I'm somehow ripping you off. Since their privacy policy is crap, we're just enacting our own.

    Scorecard research, doubleclick, quantserve, and literally HUNDREDS of other companies ... their product is information about me. But I never signed up for that.

    So if some billion dollar media company wants to piss and moan that I'm not watching their ads ... fuck 'em, stop me.

    I rank this crap right up there with "by reading this billboard you agree to have this 3rd party company rifle through your wallet". Yeah, no, there's as many as 30 third parties on a lot of sites ... and I've signed a contract with NONE of them.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Re:Things by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That said I understand why companies resent having to pay someone to allow them to make money by verifying their ads are 'acceptable'.

    Tough shit: if those companies hadn't tried to ruin the internet in years past with popups, popunders, flashing banner ads, and all kinds of other obscenity, users would never have bothered resorting to adblockers.