Slashdot Mirror
AdBlock Plus Defends Ad Blocking, Applauds Marco Arment
Mark Wilson writes: Ad blockers have been much talked about since Apple opened up support for them in iOS 9. The now infamous Peace shot to the top of the download charts before it was pulled by its creator. Now AdBlock Plus has come out in support of Marco Arment, who developed something of a guilty conscience after his ad blocking creation proved so popular. Ben Williams from AdBlock Plus says "I really applaud this guy," going on to suggest that whitelisting and the Acceptable Ads feature of AdBlock Plus epitomize the "more nuanced, complex approach" Arment called for. The ad blocking software I'd like to see would detect and zap into a heap of ash those unrelated-photo clickbait ads; I'd rather suffer through some honest banner ads anytime.
Support of his capitulation to the status quo by pulling his app? Support for him clearing the market of a successful ad-blocker so they have fewer competitors?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I use Ghostery because I think all ads are also tracker bots like Google Analytics, Facebook like buttons, etc. Even if you never use Google or Facebook they know almost every webpage you visit because most have Google Analytics or Facebook like buttons that load JavaScript from their servers.
Well behaved ads are not an issue.
And that's the real problem that the AdBlock haters don't want to admit.
More and more pages crammed full of more and more annoying, distracting ads that are either (a) worthless shit that nobody would ever click on, except accidentally, or (b) outright scams and malware.
Clean up your shit and adblocking goes away.
(a) worthless shit that nobody would ever click on, except accidentally, or (b) outright scams and malware.
There's also a bunch that are somewhere between merely "worthless" and "malware". I've noticed a lot recently which seem to be targeted toward mobile devices, seeming to intentionally trick people on clicking. For example, I've noticed some which seem to load on a delay, either loading overtop of the page or causing the page to reformat itself when it loads, and loading itself directly when/where you would naturally click to begin scrolling down the page. On a technical level, I don't know what they're doing, but I've found myself more and more accidentally clicking on ads on my phone. Like a page loads, I start reading, and as soon as my thumb hits the screen, an ad appears under my thumb. I'm just trying to scroll, and suddenly it's loading some other page.
I wouldn't have gone looking for an ad-blocker in the first place if it weren't for those kinds of tactics.
Those are annoying but really it's the overall slowdown of websites caused by all those lousy ad networks downloads that sucks. Developers spend tons of time optimizing code, minifying javascript and css, using sprites and whatnot, all in order to restrict the number of connections per page to a minimum (the real killer on mobile internet) but then suckers from ad companies step in and cause browsers to download 50 different files.
Do it right without hurting performance and maybe people will stop hating ads.
lucm, indeed.
Clean up your shit and adblocking goes away.
Adblocking would never have become a thing if they had stuck to image only banner ads and such and never introduced 'punch the monkey' type ads.
I don't read AC A human right
Some ads are ok. For example. there are ad paragraphs on the front page of slashdot that invite you to read the articles they summarize. We normally call them stories, but they are also ads.
So then it becomes, what is an ad? If I am on a web site, how can I complain -- or worse yet, want to block -- that site from promoting some of their other web pages. At the most, I can get upset if they are too flagrant in promoting other articles. But some promotion of other content is entirely reasonable.
So "other content" ads are ok, on some level.
At the other extreme, a site trying to sell someone else's random product is not something I want to waste time looking at. But what about a banner promoting some comparison of products? The hardware sites do this kind of thing all the time. I think it is fine if the comparison article is related to what I am looking at, and less fine if it is unrelated. But this sort of thing is a lot grayer.
My personal standard or measure is "Does the site host everything itself?" If so, it is reasonable for them to promote it. But if they do too much self-promotion, I will grow tired of their site and go elsewhere.
So, slashdot promoting their own stories/comment threads on their home page is reasonable and would't be blocked (if that was possible). Whereas, slashdot running ad text/graphics for random products is not something I want to read or look at and I will probably block, or try to block.
I come here for the love
I decide what I want downloaded, because I pay for it and I fucking hate ads and that is why I use ad blocking software. If I want to buy something, then and only then will I look at some ads (maybe). If you want to run a business web site or your own web site then you pay for it. If you don't like me looking at your web site, fine I will go somewhere else, just don't expect me to look at ads.
The recent slashdot poll about ads said it all, 65% use ad blocking software and do not feel guilty about doing so.
Regards
Slashgotgirl
The more I know, the less I know
AdBlock Plus Defends Ad Blocking, Applauds Marco Arment
Try Adlblock Plus fellates self, applauds Marco Arment for fellating advertisers. Because of course AdBlock Plus would applaud Marco Arment for doing precisely what they do, and permitting some advertising content. But in the process, they're doing nothing but patting themselves on the backs... or as we often like to say these days, sucking their own dicks.
There is no "acceptable advertising", to many of us. We're tired of space in our brain being rented out, and we're willing to not consume content if only we don't have to encounter advertisements. I'd rather my ad blocker break a site than show me ads. Otherwise, I know not to go back there, and may that site die the death of a thousand dogs, amen. This is a war for control of your brain. Don't be a loser.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you have a valuable commodity then somebody will voluntarily support it. Wikipedia for example. Or you might find people want to buy what you have on offer. When I see people without ad-blockers I'm amazed at their crap experience, but they don't seem to know any better. If you want to see model this in print then buy Private Eye. Excellent Journalism worth paying for and ads at front and back which I skip over because I've got no money to spend, but presumably some people do because a lot are repeats.
Adblocking would never have become a thing if they had stuck to image only banner ads and such and never introduced 'punch the monkey' type ads.
Nonsense. Ad blocking also has ramifications for bandwidth use, so if it hadn't already become a thing before mobile became big, that's when it would have become relevant.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Adblocking would never have become a thing if they had stuck to image only banner ads and such and never introduced 'punch the monkey' type ads.
I think ad-delivered malware probably plays a role too.
I have no guilt about using Ad Blockers. Advertisements have become so pervasive and invasive that they are literally ruining any experience they touch. I got a TiVo so I could avoid spending a quarter of my TV time watching Ads I got an Ad blocker when web Ads started becoming obnoxious and distracting. I for one would rather not have any Ad supported services. I'd rather pay for services like YouTube and Facebook than have to put up with the Ads. If web services lose revenue over Ad blockers, they should offer users a way to Pay for the service in exchange for an Ad free experience. IMO "Ad supported" might as well be "supported by clubbing baby seals". Both are evil and should be stopped. Elon Musk would seem to agree with me. "he refuses to advertise for Tesla, something most startup car companies wouldn’t think twice about—because he sees advertising as manipulative and dishonest."
If the ad market policed itself, ad-blockers would not be necessary.
Since they are necessary, and since the "more nuanced, complex approach" is expensive and error-prone, rightly self-interested end-users have no choice but to resort to simple, effective, indiscriminate ad-blockers.
That is all.
I'm just very disappointed Marco did not take the time to shift the app to be something he was happy with, instead of just giving up.
That does seem odd, doesn't it?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
How could he? His principle objection was that he did not want to become the gatekeeper of what was a "good ad" and what was a "bad ad".
He closed his app because he was unwilling to take responsibility for such a decision, yet was not comfortable with eliminating the revenue stream of all sites, regardless of their ad policies.
Are you asking me to be sympathetic to sites that post "Doctors hate him! One wierd trick! Singles in your area! Etc!" ads with irrelevant misleading pictures and popups galore?
Wonder when people will see this one?..
A Housewife in Pennsylvania discovered this simple trick that all the web advertisers hate!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.