AdBlock Plus To Introduce Independent Board To Oversee Acceptable Ads Program

Mark Wilson writes: Ad blocking has been in the news quite a lot recently, not least because of iOS 9's new support for advertising avoidance. Perhaps the most famous tool in the arena is Adblock Plus. It's something that many people have become reliant on for cleaning up their online experience but Eyeo — the company behind AdBlock Plus — has been keen to encourage people to permit the display of some advertising through its Acceptable Ads program. That companies can pay to bypass Adblock Plus is nothing new, although Adblock Plus insists that most ads that are deemed 'acceptable' are added for free. Today Eyeo announces that it is going to hand over control of the Acceptable Ads program to a completely independent board.

Comments

Acceptable ads?

[xenotransplant]

What are those?

Re:Acceptable ads?

[gstoddart]

I'll tell you my definition of them: If the host in question serves the ad from its own servers, and doesn't use any Javascript or Flash.

Anything which just links to external ad companies, analytics companies, and expects to run code on my machine is blocked. Because expecting me to trust code execution from a 3rd party is simply not happening.

If I can't do that, then I'll pretty much block every form of ads I can.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[TWX]

I'm willing to accept a couple of lines of small text on a page within a box labelled that it's an ad.

Come to think of it, had we not had ads with audio, ads that popped-up, ads that popped-under, ads that moved around on the screen to avoid the cursor, ads that spawned more ads, ads that hijacked DNS, ads that hijacked Windows Socket Services, I probably would have even been okay with a small number of appropriately-positioned graphical ads, basically the equivalent of a magazine or newspaper's ad content but with the potential for simple animated GIFs. Early on the advertisers fooled me once, I will not give them the opportunity to fool me again, as ad-blocking software, javascript-blocking software, and flash-blocking software will forever be used on any and all browsers that I run.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[xenotransplant]

The worst type of ads, in my unsolicited opinion, are the download buttons that are located adjacent to each other. These are the ones that cause most of my customers their headaches. Of course telling them to stop downloading software from dubious sources is not an option, as the customer is never, ever, ever, ever, ever wrong.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Wootery]

If the host in question serves the ad from its own servers, and doesn't use any Javascript or Flash.

Nowhere near strict enough.

Is the advert obscene? Does it use obnoxious flashing colours?

Re:Acceptable ads?

[TWX]

Does the customer have to pay monetarily, or at least through downtime, for their error?

At least make 'em pay through equipment unavailability while it's fixed. Take the gear away from the customer site to fix it without providing a loaner, and attribute the problem to user-infected malware brought down from the world wide web as the problem while it's being serviced on the bench. They may get mad, but if it's documented that they shot themselves in the foot even if accidentally then maybe they'll learn not to do that.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[slacka]

Exactly, just compare Weather Underground to reddit without an ad-blocker. Reddit is actually so unobtrusive, that I have whitelisted them for the past year.

To all these slashdotters flipping out about "acceptable ads", I have a question for you. How many of you pay for that content you're using ad blockers on? All the none-user generated content costs money and bandwidth always costs money. If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place. I'm really happy I have the option to use ABP with unobtrusive allowed. Just like it felt better to watch Game of thrones on HBO-Go then pirating it like I had to for the first few seasons.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[xenotransplant]

I like your style.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[tepples]

No Flash Player I'll agree with. But would you really prefer to waste your valuable bandwidth on a prerendered silent video ad when a vector animated ad rendered to a canvas using JavaScript on the client can be sent with far fewer bytes of your monthly cap?

Re:Acceptable ads?

[rainmaestro]

How many ad-containing sites give you the OPTION to pay for the content? That's the real question. I'm perfectly happy to toss a few bucks to the site if I get value from their content, but damn few even give me the option. It is either fund them through dodgy third-party ads or don't support them at all. And when those are my choices, sorry, no funding.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[hairyfeet]

Exactly. During the early days most of us had NO problem with ads because they weren't being assholes. They had simple .txt, maybe a .jpg or if they wanted to be fancy a .gif, and since it was first party it was actually relevant to the site and usually the site host had good experiences shopping there.....then came the MBAs, Masters of Being Assholes.

First came the pop ups, then came the ads blocking content, then came loud as hell sound blaring, then Java (in fact the reason I originally started advising customers to remove Java was early Java ads) and then came Flash, now look at what we have...want to make a PC so safe you can remove the AV and be just fine? Block ALL ads and watch infections disappear. Last figures I saw had malware ads causing something like 96 out of every 100 infections, nothing else came close.

And to all those that say "we need ads to have the web, boo hoo" I'll say the exact same thing I said to Jim Sterling that got me banned from The Escapist when he was being their apologist, I produced links showing how many times The Escapist had shown malware ads and said..."are you gonna be responsible for the damage you cause? Are you gonna pay to clean their PCs, have a watch put on their CC numbers? Gonna pay them for the lost hours dealing with resetting passwords and cleaning up the messes YOU CAUSED with your ads?" You want to be treated like REAL journalists and stores? Fine and dandy because they pay when they are hacked sometimes to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars like TJ Maxx when their system got hacked.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too ad pushers, either you step up to the plate and claim responsibility and pay for the damages when YOUR ADS cause damage or you have a heaping cup of STFU when users do the only smart and sensible thing and block the largest source of malware their PCs can possibly see.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because expecting me to trust code execution from a 3rd party is simply not happening.

This is an interesting intersection of trust issues.

You don't trust a 3rd party. Fair enough.

But the 3rd party doesn't trust the publisher either. Advertisers can't trust publishers to report how many times an ad was viewed, because the publisher has a very strong incentive to "cheat" and claim more ad impressions than really occurred. This is why the advertisers absolutely insist that the ads be delivered from a 3rd party server under their control so that they can trust it to report the correct metrics.

In fact, it's this lack of trust that makes ad blockers possible at all. Ad blockers have an easy job: they simply blacklist the domain names of known ad servers. But if the publishers served the ads directly from their own server, then ad blockers would have to solve the brutally difficult AI problem of figuring out the difference between "content" and "ads" that are both intermixed inside one HTTP response.

The publishers would love to serve the ads from their own servers, just as you want. But that's never going to happen, because the advertisers can't trust the publishers to do that. Be very thankful for that lack of trust, because that's the only thing that makes ad blockers possible, which, in turn, is the only thing that makes the Web tolerable.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[mrchaotica]

All the none-user generated content costs money and bandwidth always costs money. If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.

Yes, an Internet where people would host what they create themselves or via distributed technologies like bittorrent or freenet (and demand symmetrical connections because of it), where only stuff worthwhile enough to be crowdfunded would survive, where ad-infested reposted shit on content farms would no longer be able to obscure primary sources... it would be glorious!

Re:Acceptable ads?

[idbeholda]

It's just another fancy phrase for "Pay To Play". Further bets placed on the ads being mostly written in flash.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[david_thornley]

Depends. Am I on my laptop or desktop, which are hooked into an uncapped 40Mb/s fiber, or on my phone, which does have limits on its cellular data consumption? My answer would be different between the two.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[david_thornley]

My answer:

For my desktop and laptop at home, an acceptable ad is one that doesn't try to play audio without permission, isn't too garish, doesn't open its own windows or tabs, allows me to work or whatever normally, and has some method for me to be sure it doesn't contain malware.

For my phone, an acceptable ad is something that lets me use the site I'm at. It will not permanently obscure part of an already small screen, it will not make it difficult to scroll without touching an ad that will take me to another site, it will not take me out of the browser, it will not play audio without permission, and won't get me in trouble if I see it at work. Oh, and I can be sure it isn't carrying malware.

Personally, I don't think this is too much to ask, and I'm perfectly willing to see those ads. I somewhat regret installing adblockers, but I really don't feel like I had much of a choice.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[epyT-R]

I pay for my bandwidth. Why should I have to subsidize theirs with mine?

Re:Acceptable ads?

[saward]

As you say, 'damn few' do, but some do. Some offer the option to subscribe, or pay a once off fee to remove those ads. My concerns in those cases are that it means remembering a separate account for each such website, signing into those websites each time my session expires in order to remove the ads, and paying a significant sum of money if I do it on too many sites.

That's why I've started webpass.io, a service that offers websites an easy way to offer the option to pay for content, but that avoids these extra kinds of concerns.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[tepples]

Am I on my laptop or desktop, which are hooked into an uncapped 40Mb/s fiber, or on my phone, which does have limits on its cellular data consumption? My answer would be different between the two.

3. Or you're on your laptop tethered to your phone or a MiFi device while a passenger in a vehicle.
4. Or you're living in a rural area outside of cable and DSL availability, and the only service options are satellite and fixed cellular.
5. Or you're living in urban Seattle whose right-of-way red tape has blocked attempts to deploy wired broadband, and the only service options are satellite and fixed cellular.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Panoptes]

'Acceptable ads' is an oxymoron.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[pete6677]

Considering how much of the modern internet consists of worthless clickbait sites, expecting people to pay for those is asking an awful lot. So those sites either go bankrupt or survive by using abusive advertising.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[pete6677]

There is no broadband in downtown Seattle?

Re:Acceptable ads?

[tnk1]

Because if you don't, they turn off their web site and do whatever it is that you do for a living to pay for their bandwidth. Depending on the site, you may or may not care, but chances are, you care about some of them.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[tepples]

There is no broadband in downtown Seattle?

Suburbs of Seattle have broadband. But as I understand it, Seattle proper requires a supermajority of landowners in a neighborhood to agree to install a utility, and failure to cast a vote is counted as an oppose vote. See also this thread in a story about Netflix.

Re: Acceptable ads?

[HappyDrgn]

Man, most startup ideas are pretty sketch, but yours ain't all that bad. Good on you for finding an actual problem to solve.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Dutch Gun]

Yep, for me the issue is simply one of safety. I currently don't block ads in particular, but I refuse to allow scripting, which actually ends up blocking most of them as a side-effect. Just the other day Forbes.com was found to be serving ads that were trying to infect visitors through a Flash vulnerability, which of course was launched via scripting.

I understand that using no-script is probably too high a burden for most users, and honestly, it's a bit of a pain even for me. I'm considering using uBlock Origin instead of noscript. That will kill most advertisement that I'm currently fine with viewing. I'm not likely to grant exceptions, because that will mean turning scripting on for remote, untrusted sites.

Sorry advertisers and webmasters. You guys are pulling shit from literally dozens and dozens of different domains, and you have NO idea if that code is actually safe to execute on my machine or not. But it's profitable, so you don't care. Enough is enough. If you don't curb the ability for advertising agencies to run arbitrary code on my machine, I'm not going to let you serve ANY ads to me, period. These ad agents are performing real-time bidding, followed by redirection after redirection, so no one ever really knows when or where malware will come from. In short, safety can't be guaranteed. Not even close.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Mryll]

They blew it when they decided to act like they're more clever than the users. They declared war and it's on. Advertising is not a two way street for me. I'll give my information feedback in some other way.

Re: Acceptable ads?

[mister_playboy]

Meh... Flattr has been around since 2010.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Aighearach]

All the none-user generated content costs money and bandwidth always costs money. If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.

Yes, an Internet where people would host what they create themselves or via distributed technologies like bittorrent or freenet (and demand symmetrical connections because of it), where only stuff worthwhile enough to be crowdfunded would survive, where ad-infested reposted shit on content farms would no longer be able to obscure primary sources... it would be glorious!

My goodness, it would be like somebody invented a time machine back to the Good Ol' Days, when the information glut was nearly half information. Now most of the information hides behind ten pages of clicky infotainment.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[jellomizer]

So you just want to steal from people who operate and maintain your favorite sites.
Or do you make a list of sites that you regulatory visit and send them a check for thanks for running?

For me ad blocking is about computing safety as a bad add posed as a legit link can lead to a system security or performance problem that eats up my battery life.

Good ads I don't have issues. I know it is an ad it isn't slowing my system, advertising a legit product or service. And the money from these ads pay for the site information which I value.

Re: Acceptable ads?

[saward]

Thanks! I'm glad you think so :)

Re:Acceptable ads?

[vakuona]

It's not costing them any bandwidth. It's costing them actual money though, you know, dollars and cents.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[AmiMoJo]

Your system is useless I'm afraid. It needs a browser plug-in, and even if I was willing to trust your code most mobile browsers don't support plug-ins anyway. Mobile is the platform where I want to avoid ads the most.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[GuB-42]

So, for you, ads on major services from the likes of Google, Microsoft and Amazon are acceptable where small sites that don't have the resources to run their own ad service can go fuck themselves?
The "own server" criteria is effective because it can catch a lot of ads, but "own server" ads are not better, just harder to block.
If external site blocking becomes ubiquitous, the obvious response would be to make the things happen behind the scenes, where the server gets the ad from the external company and relay it to you while sending back tracking data in return. This would make to harder to distinguish ads vs content and would make tracking almost impossible to prevent. It would also make things technically harder because it would add workload to the webmaster's servers and ad providers would have to take measures to make accurate measurements and prevent cheating (probably by tracking more).

Re:Acceptable ads?

[saward]

Source code for plugins is hard to hide, so you should be able to take a look yourself and see what it does. But the information we send is outlined in the privacy policy as well. You are right that mobile is a very important platform, but it is also more challenging (particularly on iOS). An Android Firefox plugin is in the works, and we'll keep an eye on ways to make it available for other platforms and browsers.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[FlexPlexico]

I thought ads that get served from the same domain as the website you're visiting couldn't possibly be picked up by AdBlock? (and I do know of a few websites off the top of my head that circumvent ad-blocking simply by serving un-targeted, static ads)

Is there some kind of deep inspection going on within AdBlock, because I thought it was literally just a list of blacklisted domains that are known to serve ads?

Re:Acceptable ads?

[JohnFen]

How many of you pay for that content you're using ad blockers on?

I do, for the few sites that have a mechanism that lets me. Not all the sites (since I block all ads all the time no matter what site is serving them up), but the ones that I go to regularly.

If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.

Indeed. I remember when the internet had almost no ads at all on it, and it was a very different place. A very better place.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[JohnFen]

My concerns in those cases are that it means remembering a separate account for each such website, signing into those websites each time my session expires in order to remove the ads

That's no problem. Use an ad-blocker, then you don't have to log in.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[JohnFen]

I don't care what technique is used to accomplish it, animated ads are automatically objectionable.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[JohnFen]

(and I do know of a few websites off the top of my head that circumvent ad-blocking simply by serving un-targeted, static ads)

If by "untargeted" you mean ads that don't track you, then those are exactly the sort of ads that are perfectly fine with me anyway.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[FlexPlexico]

They don't track anything specific about you, just like billboards you can see on the street, serving the exact same content to everyone (maybe regularly cycling through a predefined list).

They're perfectly acceptable to me as well (and I wish more webmasters would head in that direction), but my point was that AdBlock creators don't need to *do* anything to classify them as "acceptable" since they should already slip through unimpeded. GP's dream of seeing ads served from the same domain as the webhost is probably already happening.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[tepples]

animated ads are automatically objectionable

They are objectionable yet so common that avoiding them takes sacrifice. How do you configure a web search engine to filter sites using animated ads or requiring script to view the entire page out of results so that you don't end up wasting time visiting eight sites in a row only to have to click the back button?

Re:Acceptable ads?

[tnk1]

Most sites have ads. You'd probably turn off most of the Internet. And then you'd be required to pay for the rest of it.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[JohnFen]

How do you configure a web search engine to filter sites using animated ads or requiring script to view the entire page out of results so that you don't end up wasting time visiting eight sites in a row only to have to click the back button?

I don't bother with all of that. I use NoScript. If I encounter a site that doesn't work right, I just move on. If the site is interesting enough that it seems worth the effort and blocks scripts, I'll start enabling specific ones until either the site starts working or it requires scripts from sites I know I will never allow.

I don't think I've ever run across the case you site, of having a long string of sites that don't work. I encounter them in singles, and relatively rarely. But perhaps we frequent different sorts of sites.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[antdude]

Bah. Back in Prodigy for DOS says, we had ad banners. A few of them had PC speaker audio! People got pissed. :(

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Darinbob]

Which is BS. In the past people knew what ads they promoted. If they didn't like an ad they would reject it. Celebrities promoting a product knew which product it was. The television show host would know the product and use it by name, "promotional consideration paid for by..." If someone came up to me and offered me $100 to promote their product by wearing a tee-shirt, I'd be damn sure I knew what that product was before agreeing.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Darinbob]

If everyone blocked 100% of the ads, the internet would be a very different place. It would also be a very nice place. Stop comparing those who block ads to being pirates. The web sites are perfectly capable of not displaying the content if adblocks are detected. I'd rather prevent malware and stop obnoxious ads. If that means I can't see some of these sites then I am happy to skip them. Likewise, I do not pirate and have never pirated, I would never say "I had to" pirate a show to watch it because if I don't want to pay for it them I will skip it.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Darinbob]

Any worthwhile sites? I would give money to BBC news on the web if I were allowed to. The only other sites where I've seen paywalls tend to be magazines, and I'm not interested in those. There are a few sites that I have unblocked from adblock, after they have requested this and I knew they were reasonable sites.

Treat it like NPR or PBS. You can support if you want to but you are not required to. No one calls those who don't send money at the annual pledge break freeloaders or pirates. So that's how most of these sites are run; they don't block the content if the ads don't get served up even though they are capable of it. Or treat like broadcast TV, no one is forced to sit down and endure the insipid advertising, we're allowed to leave the room and with DVRs we are allowed to fast forward and skip the ads, and we certainly don't catch any viruses from watching them.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Darinbob]

Advertising is welfare for those lacking worthwhile skills to offer the public.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Darinbob]

But then we'd have to endure even more endless Septembers!

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Darinbob]

Good. Turn off their website. Nothing of value will be lost, and no one will shed a tear. There are a tiny handful of sites I might consider paying for. Very tiny. If I was forced to stop visiting all sites but those I would do it. Maybe cancel the ISP.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Darinbob]

Their ads are costing ME money. Dollars and cents. For the junk mail I get every week, someone other than me has to pay for the post office to deliver it. But for web ads, they are sucking up my bandwidth. Many people are still on dialup as the only thing they can afford, and those ads greatly diminish the quality of browsing the web. People pay overage fees for mobile phones if they exceed their bandwidth limits, and yet many sites have more than half their data coming from advertisements instead of actual content (though I use "content" loosely since the internet has so little of value anymore).

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Darinbob]

I don't want either. If a site forces me to have one of those two choices then I will leave that site.

That's not uncommon. I follow a link to a breaking news story and see a blank page. I'll just skip it rather than deal with the tedium of unblocking scripts one by one until something appears. It was probably click bait anyway.

The whole reason I have adblock is because I kept wondering why my fast computer was so slow even though I was idle. Turns out the browser which was on a completely different screen and blocked by other windows was busy animating ads and running scripts, sucking up memory as well.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Darinbob]

Avoiding the ads takes no sacrifice at all. Install an ad blocker. Your pages will load faster as well. And then step two, install noscript.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[saward]

Unfortunately, nothing like BBC news yet. However, if you sign up and start using our plugin, you won't have to pay anything until sites you visit are partnered. Doing so will help us to convince websites to partner.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[tepples]

Avoiding the ads takes no sacrifice at all.

Other than a sacrifice of your time when you discover that several consecutive results from your search engine all produce pages that fail to load without scripts. Or other than a sacrifice of your ability to reply meaningfully to an e-mail message containing a link that a friend shared with you but which fails to load without scripts.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[Darinbob]

Meh, it's not happening for me. And I know better than to follow links sent to me by my friends.

Re:Acceptable ads?

[epyT-R]

If they had any intrinsic value, someone else will take their places fairly quickly. If not, oh well. I'd rather lose the site than clean adnet malware out of my system.

TBD

[drinkypoo]

Details of how the board will be formed and appointed have not been disclosed, but Eyeo insists that the entire process -- and the vetting of ads -- will be fully transparent.

Hey, maybe it's true. If not, let's sow their ground with salt.

Re:TBD

[fahrbot-bot]

Eyeo insists that the entire process -- and the vetting of ads -- will be fully transparent.

So... they're going to let everything through - like their software. :-)

A Step In The Right Direction

[Jawnn]

Clearly, the profit motive and the obligation to deliver on their product's promise are in conflict for Eyeo, so handing off the chore of deciding "acceptableness" to a third party is a good thing. The proof of course, will be in the pudding. They have yet to disclose how that board will be set up.

Re:A Step In The Right Direction

[leonbev]

I'm not sure if anybody other than the user should be deciding what ads are "acceptable" when using an ad blocker. That's why I like the Adblock extension for Chrome. It doesn't have this "acceptable ads default to on" nonsense built into it, and it's run by a lone guy who accepts donations instead of a for-profit software development company.

No. Give the control to the users

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Let the users define using AdBlock protocol what their individual ad acceptance policy is. "No video" "No audio" "Not more than 100% of the bandwidth of payload data." Whatever. Let the users also define keywords like, "Looking for: digital camera, used pick-up truck" "Interested in: traveling, wine, gadgets"

Take it as a browser agent string from the user, or as app setting from the user, and deliver it to the web sites. Let the web sites obey these policies and deliver ads.

Most uses would let unobstrusive ads through. I have had the privilege to block slashdot ads for ages. I never do. Same goes for other sites I support. Give us the control. Not some unelected third party ombudsmen.

Re:No. Give the control to the users

[steamraven]

I have had the privilege to block slashdot ads for ages. I never do.

I used to do this too, until ads from Slashdot took up a full CPU and a third of my memory. I would love to support Slashdot ads, but they have to behave.

Re:No. Give the control to the users

[aardvarkjoe]

I have had the privilege to block slashdot ads for ages.

We all have, all you have to do is install adblock plus. (Or, now, one of the better adblock plugins). A bonus using external ad blockers: it can block the ads that slashdot's "disable advertising" checkbox doesn't affect.

Re:No. Give the control to the users

[tweak13]

I also use an ad blocker to get rid of the useless "Video Bytes" and "Slashdot Deals" junk that shows up on the main page. Who needs that checkbox when a real ad blocker can do so much more?

Re:No. Give the control to the users

[mjensen]

The main problem with this idea, assuming it could work at all, is classification.

Who/what classifies ads as "No video", "No audio", "digital camera" or such? Nobody wants to spend the time/expense to put classifications on ads, and the classifications are going to be terribly subjective anyway.

Re:No. Give the control to the users

[vux984]

it would be trivial to automate detection of video, audio, animation etc

It would also be possible to block any ad that includes "object" or "iframe" or "script" "blink"...

Black any ad that plays with css positioning etc..

Or go one further, and whitelist; only put adds that use the restricted set of html that a typical forum textbox allows... bold, link, font color, image, etc. And that's IT. If the ad contains anything else, block it.

As for keywords, let the ad companies meta tag their ads. Give them 400 characters, and let them go nuts. Let users report any abuse. If an advertiser is found to be abusing the meta tags... blacklist the entire advertising company.

Re:No. Give the control to the users

[ancientt]

Too late.

The genie is out of the bottle. Now consumers are realizing that they don't have to see things they don't want to. In the old days the browser did whatever the site owner wanted, so we got pop-ups and java advertisements and auto playing flash. The internet started out being a place where ideas were conveyed mostly by text because putting a double handful of advertisements would make the page take several minutes to load with a 2400 baud modem. Those websites that tried to put a lot of advertising failed because nobody was willing to wait for them to load. Then Phoenix (look up the history of Firefox if you don't remember it) came out and it didn't run javascript or Flash and it blocked pop-ups and it loaded everything in tabs in a single window and it freakin' took off. As internet connection speed increased across the board for the average consumer, more and more advertising could be loaded in the few seconds it took the page to load. As a result, ads started taking up more bandwidth than content and loading more pop-ups than any consumer was willing to swallow, which in turn made pop-up blocking ever so much more desirable, so much so that eventually all the browsers started supporting it, and then eventually by default.

So the consumers won, as they always do, because whatever gets them the content they want without the stuff they don't gains popularity until it becomes the standard. But consumers wanted javascript and java and Flash and it became standard even in the new Phoenix, next called Firebird, now Firefox. Bandwidth and processing speed continued to rise, allowing yet more advertising to be loaded and new techniques to cause pop-unders and interstitial ads. Add-ons came along to block all advertising as a direct result and Firefox continued to rise, then the same came out for Chrome and even Internet Explorer because with a broadband connection there was no other way to limit the flood of advertising that could be loaded in time consumers were willing to wait for content.

Decent people didn't want to block advertising because they wanted to screw over content providers, but they didn't want to deal with the crap. The technology to force people to see something they didn't want was obliterated because the consumers always win. In a war between people wanting content and advertisers wanting to force unwanted ads, the tides turned so much that every advertiser is being blocked regardless of how respectful or unobnoxious they behave.

We've come the point where advertising has to be insanely pushy to get past the average adblocker. The only ads that work are the ones that are going to be blocked in a few months because they're trying so hard to force themselves on the consumer. The consumer will, eventually, always win anyway. Advertising as the standard way to provide funding for content is dying and the war has gone on too long for the tide to turn now.

I still see and feel sympathy for the indignant content providers who just wanted a fair business trade where some reasonable amount of advertising is acceptable by the consumer. It's too late because the consumer won't ever go back to allowing the obnoxious advertising or incidentally the reasonable content providers. I know, it sucks, because good content is dying as a result.

Eventually, there will be another balance. Some way to fund websites will succeed. Here's hoping it isn't every site requiring its own app.

Re:No. Give the control to the users

[nitehawk214]

Well that is kind of dumb. If I was looking for a pickup truck or a digital camera, I would simply go to google and run a search for those things. Not put them as terms in an app that may or may not bother me with those things while I am busy looking at something else.

Re:No. Give the control to the users

[devslash0]

The problem with giving control to the users is the same as with democracy. Only a small percentage of people really cares, most will agree to whatever they are presented with and there is too much space for manipulation by specific groups. Also, if anything goes wrong, there is no single person to blame and to ask for a fix. Instead the responsibility disperses among the crowd.

Do not get me wrong though. I am a big free software and freedom supporter. However, I believe that the management of such an important thing as clean internet experience should not be left to the chance and should stay sealed and centralised in a hands of a competent individual. Any form of external control should be explicitly prohibited. This means no 'independent' boards. The moment you give them any power is the moment you start losing your own product. All big companies care about is having they own member on the board and executing what is best for their own business which in case of AdBlock would be truly disastrous.

Re:No. Give the control to the users

[Tom]

In principle, yes.

In reality, it would be abused immediately. If we were to implement an "interested in" user-agent header, advertisers would begin collecting them roughly three minutes afterwards, and then tell their clients which to use to reach the largest audience, no matter what it is they are actually advertising.

how about a truly independent board?

[originalGMC]

I don't see a reason to use that software. Acceptable or not, if I don't agree with your independent board decision, I still want the advert gone. Ghostery is pretty good, works on android / chrome and even IE on older machines. Great software - and it uses an independent board of 1 to make those acceptable advert decisions. Export my black/white lists just like my favorites when porting to a new machine.

Re:how about a truly independent board?

[phantomfive]

I still want the advert gone.

Then set your ad-block pro to block all adverts, including "acceptable." Not a problem.

Re:how about a truly independent board?

[gstoddart]

Right up until they decide that some classes of ads will always bypass the stuff, and then it becomes a problem.

Short answer: don't run one single ad blocked/privacy extension. Run a bunch, block as much crap as you can.

Re:how about a truly independent board?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use both ublock and abp (on different boxes of course). I like the gui better in abp. But for speed ublock is pretty good. They both use the same block lists too.

A few things I do not like about ublock is you can not disable a single item blocking easily (nice simple checkbox in abp). To help tune in a site the way you like it. Its logging page is in some ways better. But logging only works if the tab is open and it is not totally clear which list is doing the blocking. When you have well over 80k in blocking items it can be difficult. I do however like the stats. Nearly 10-15% of the internet is adverts.

Overall I am liking ublock. But there are some rough edges. But the speed bump was nice.

Re:how about a truly independent board?

[tepples]

Short answer: don't run one single ad blocked/privacy extension. Run a bunch, block as much crap as you can.

A bunch including a DNS-level tool such as a hosts file manager, correct?

Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin

[Anonymous Coward]

or just uncheck 'allow acceptable ads' in the settings dialog.

Malware

[phantomfive]

I hope they include malware in their criteria for "acceptable."
There's no major ad network that doesn't serve malware (AFAICT).

Re:Malware

[tepples]

First I'd like to understand how you'd define "malware" or "malicious software", and please explain how a policy including "no SWF objects and no Java applets" would allow malicious software to slip in.

Re:Malware

[phantomfive]

explain how a policy including "no SWF objects and no Java applets" would allow malicious software to slip in.

There are javascript exploits.

Re:Malware

[tepples]

There are javascript exploits.

But how much risk do they create compared to the following three issues?

• There have also been HTML, CSS, font, and image exploits.
• Browser publishers are responsible for fixing JavaScript exploits. Have these exploits been reported to browser publishers?
• Would you prefer that sites use the <video> tag for animating their ads rather than the often more bandwidth-efficient yet script-dependent <canvas> element?

Re:Malware

[phantomfive]

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Re:Malware

[tepples]

My point is that there have been exploits in all parts of a web client stack. Therefore, you have to show how JavaScript exploits pose greater risk than exploits in something else.

Re:Malware

[phantomfive]

Why would I have to show that? You asked:

explain how a policy including "no SWF objects and no Java applets" would allow malicious software to slip in.

If that's the only policy you have, then you're going to be vulnerable still, that's pretty clear.

Re:Malware

[tepples]

You claim that "no SWF objects and no Java applets" is insufficient. In your opinion, what policy short of disconnecting from the Internet is sufficient to block malicious software and why?

Re:Malware

[phantomfive]

If a website allows scripts to be placed on their pages from unknown parties without even looking at the scripts, then it's going to invite malware.
I trust Yahoo.com to not write malware on their own pages (except in rare cases of a rogue programmer or something). I don't trust the ads the show with insufficient vetting.

So basically what I am saying is that they need to do a better job vetting ads.

So, now I needed

[Snotnose]

Ad-block block. sigh.

Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin

[TWX]

I think you forgot to check, "Post Anonymously"...

Still, I appreciate the sentiment, thanks for the chuckle.

Can it get rid of...

[6Yankee]

...this Slashdot Paid Posts crap?

Ad Block Plus has been around for ages

[Earthquake Retrofit]

Why has the mass media finally 'discovered' it? Because Apple. Does this mean that advertisers believe Apple users are suckers?

Re:Ad Block Plus has been around for ages

[mccrew]

Why has the mass media finally 'discovered' it? Because Apple.

Yep, because Apple.

I think Apple is more friendly to ad blocking because they are already sucking all the profits out of the mobile ecosystem with device sales, while their chief rival makes approximately zero from device sales and is dependent on advertising revenue. They are trying to leverage their high-value platform to deny revenue to their competitor.

Re:Ad Block Plus has been around for ages

[Lunix Nutcase]

Why has the mass media finally 'discovered' it?

Why do you falsely presume that people have only *just now* discovered it to begin with? Nothing in the summary or in the linked article even remotely said or implied any such thing that AdBlock Plus was something new. But, the fact that Apple finally put in content blocking into iOS has been a major source of news mostly because advertisers have been bawwwing like babies. But that doesn't mean that no one in the media knew about AdBlock Plus.

Re:Ad Block Plus has been around for ages

[AmiMoJo]

Seems like a risky game to play, given that their services heavily depend on ad funded sources for data. According to Wikipedia, Siri uses:

- OpenTable, Gayot, CitySearch, BooRah, Yelp, Yahoo Local, Yandex, ReserveTravel, and Localeze for restaurant and business questions and actions;
- Eventful, StubHub, and LiveKick for events and concert information;
- MovieTickets, Rotten Tomatoes, and the New York Times for movie information and reviews;
- Bing Answers, Wolfram Alpha and Evi for factual question answering;[35]
- Bing, Yahoo, and Google for web search.

I guess trying to hurt Google must be worth it to them, which says more about the success of Android than anything else.

Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 10 cannot stop you from blocking their telemetry addresses in your home router. Not to put too fine a point on this, but anyone who values privacy should be using BSD or Linux. Apple and Microsoft are not going to respect the notion of privacy other than in passing.

Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin

[Overzeetop]

I gave up on using hosts - well, pi-hole actually, but the same thing - blocking at the DNS level. Frankly, it's a huge headache to keep up on either blocking all the site you want to block, or constantly having to manually update whitelists to get through when you do want to see that gets axed by the major aggregators (like blocking all of microsoft.com by default), and there are some ads on site I prefer to go to that simply don't get blocked because they're self-served (i.e. Google, Facebook).

This just in:

[slashdice]

Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, and William Kennedy Smith introduce independent board to oversee Acceptable Rape program.

Not a brilliant business model

[marcle]

So you've come up with a business model that says you need me to view ads to pay your expenses? Not terribly original as business models go, and most definitely not my problem. Go ahead and block me from your site for refusing to view those ads, I don't have a problem with that. No web site is indispensable.

Wait, you don't want to block me from your web site, you need my page views, but you still want me to feel guilty for blocking ads?

Methinks you haven't thought out that business model very well. Have you tried opening a restaurant where paying for the meal is optional? All you have to do is stand near the exit with a sad face and beg your customers to pay on the way out. Now that one ought to make you a bundle!

Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin

[Snufu]

AdBlock Maybe.
AdBlock Uwish.
AdPassed CuzReasons
AdBlock Plus. Now with more Ads!

They're too tame

[joh]

What adblock should do is blocking ALL ads and all tracking religiously (no exceptions, treat every ad or tracker as a bug to fix) and then instead inject own ads they sell. Limit that to one ad per page (none on pages that had no ads to begin with, on pages with only a single ad let this through), small, no tracking at all, no flash, no video, no sound. Deliver ads to devices based on rough location (as determined by the IP address) and the URL of the page, no more personalisation by tracking. Add an opt-in system with an account where users can voluntarily submit preferences for ads to get more relevant ads if they want to.

This would be revolutionary and could help to beat the online advertising business back on track. It would allow less (but more expensive) ads, more page views for websites, less bandwidth waste, and more honest and meaningful targeting. It would be rather a kind of "page sponsoring" than the firehose approach that we have now, but this doesn't have to be bad, for nobody.

I mean, things like trying to trick users into clicking on an ad by accident or devaluing your advertising by drowning it in a flickering sea of crap does neither help the users nor those who advertise or the websites themselves. Online advertising is being ABUSED and all but some scum companies suffer from it. Both websites and advertisers (that is the companies who want to show ads to people they think they have something to sell to) have to organize against that kind of abuse. Websites need to get much, much more selective about what they allow their content to be framed by and if they can't spend that kind of effort on it they have to outsource it.

And yes, someone has to do something drastic or we will never see things changing here, and everyone will suffer just longer from it. There is no real reason for advertising being a too dirty business, it's what made the press and radio and TV affordable and helped countless businesses to stay in business and customers find companies to buy things from.

Re:They're too tame

[CanadianMacFan]

What does the website get out of this? Sounds like nothing. You've taken all of their ads away and put yours in which you keep the money. The website isn't getting the money from the ad. The user is going to think if they click on the ad that the website might benefit.

I was thinking that AdBlock might change their model so that they offer a free version that blocks everything except for one standard size ad. It wouldn't be a Flash or JavaScript on. Just a simple image banner ad. AdBlock would get money by offering a paid upgrade which would allow the user to remove that ad. This way at least the website gets a little bit of revenue from the free version.

Why would I NOT want to block some ads?

[danbob999]

Really, this is the question Adblock Plus needs to answer.
I want them to block as much ads as possible, with as little false-positive as possible, and all this on the most automatic/simple way as possible.

They succeed pretty well as long as I uncheck their "allow acceptable ads" setting. I still don't get why this setting exists to begin with.

Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads?

[joh]

Well, maybe not this way, but don't you think there should be a way to have websites earn some money so that they can pay people to bring you the content you want to get without having to outright pay them? I mean, either that or you get only websites made by people in their spare time and out of his own pocket (and traffic stops being cheap as soon as lots of people start to like what you do) or websites that are being paid by companies that don't even tell you about it (and then dictate the content too).

Or paywalls, which always have the problem that you have to pay for something you don't know yet if it is worth what you pay for it. Well, or pay them from taxes and let the government serve the content to you for free. Ads are bad, but everything else may be even worse.

Of course individually you can just block the ads while others don't and so pay for your content with their sanity, so you can have your cake and eat it too. I would be quiet about it though since the more people you convince of that being a great idea the worse it will work.

(This does not mean I recommend against ad-blocking, I do it too since many years. We need to put pressure at the industry so it starts to think about handling this better. But just "no ads!!!" isn't going to add much sense to that problem. Can you imagine TV or radio with no ads? Who is paying for this then? The government? Freedom has a price. In Russia advertising has been outlawed for private TV. The people loved it. TV has become a bit one-sided though. The problem isn't ads, it's crappy ads, cheap ads and too many of them and relentless stalking. Ads need to be more expensive so we can have less of them and instead of tracking we need opt-in preferences.)

Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads?

[danbob999]

Well, maybe not this way, but don't you think there should be a way to have websites earn some money

Of course. They are free to put ads. Or charge for access. But I am also free to block their ads.

Let's face it. People like you try to pretend that we block ads because they are annoying. But let's face it, we won't unblock them just because they stop flashing. We block them because we can, and it is perfectly legal to do so. Maybe if ads weren't so annoying, there would be less of us blocking them to begin with. But now that we have ad-blockers, and that we use them, we won't go back.

Can you imagine TV or radio with no ads?

Sure. I watch most of my stuff with no ads. I prefer paying for content than having ads.
Also, I have the right (and use it) to mute/fast-forward/leave the room during TV ads. I don't feel bad about blocking ads, just like I don't feel bad muting TV or not reading ads in newspapers.

Freedom has a price. In Russia advertising has been outlawed for private TV

That was a quick Godwin.

Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads?

[amicusNYCL]

Really, this is the question Adblock Plus needs to answer.

The ad-blocking company needs to explain to you why you would want to block ads? Are you paying attention? You realize they make the ad-blocker, right?

I still don't get why this setting exists to begin with.

Did you pay them to download and install the ad-blocker? That's why it exists.

Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads?

[david_thornley]

Your point of view isn't universal. I've lived for a long time in a sea of ads, and I've gotten to the point where I don't mind them normally, and am willing to allow screen space for them to support websites I like. If I had some assurance that the web would become usable and safe without an ad blocker, I'd stop using mine.

Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads?

[danbob999]

How much money do you think a web site makes with you visiting it for a year? The problem I see with ads is that they are highly inefficient. They do not give a significant amount of money for users who, like me, never click on ads anyways. So I might as well block them then see them and never click.

Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads?

[david_thornley]

I haven't been following the details of ads, since I really don't care. At least some used to be pay per display, and some used to be pay per click-through. Are they pretty much all pay per click-through nowadays? If so, then we're not hurting anything by blocking the ads.

Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads?

[danbob999]

They pay for both. But pay per display revenue is minimal.

It's harder with laptops

[tepples]

Windows 10 cannot stop you from blocking their telemetry addresses in your home router.

Which means you have to carry around your home router and a battery to power it whenever you want to use your laptop with open public Wi-Fi or your cellular MiFi device.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but anyone who values privacy should be using BSD or Linux.

Provided that a laptop in your preferred form factor is available with BSD or Linux installed. The 10" 2-in-1s in Best Buy come with Windows 8.1 (with Windows 10 upgrade available for the cost of bandwidth) and have a whole bunch of things not working in Debian.

Re:It's harder with laptops

[khellendros1984]

Probably the guy you responded to should have said "anyone who values privacy [above all else]", rather than omitting the bracketed text. You can always construct a set of use-cases where Linux won't be feasible, and no one in their right mind would argue otherwise. They might use a no-true-Scotsman argument that anyone who prizes a 10" 2-in-1 form factor over privacy doesn't truly value privacy, but that's a whole different argument.

Re:It's harder with laptops

[david_thornley]

Unfortunately, one common use case that contraindicates Linux is wanting to run programs that aren't on Linux. Much of what I run on my laptop runs only on Windows (or maybe Mac OSX), and that's why I have a Windows laptop. If I were able to run everything I wanted on Linux, or find satisfactory replacements, I'd have an Ubuntu laptop.

Re:It's harder with laptops

[khellendros1984]

That's part of the point that I was trying to make. Basically, that "just use Linux" has a ton of practical problems (whether originating from hardware or software) some users, but not others...but only commenting on a little hole in the way someone phrased something is kind of cheap, and doesn't really add much to the discussion. As I said, only an idiot would claim any solution to be truly one-size-fits-all; it's too easy to come up with a counter-example. It's more interesting to assume that the other person isn't an idiot and continue the discussion from that point, IMO.

Re:It's harder with laptops

[tepples]

The 10" 2-in-1s [like ASUS Transformer Book T100] have a whole bunch of things not working in Debian

Debian is but one choice. Linux Mint or Ubuntu or openSUSE work with about everything

Key word: "about". I looked at the instructions for getting Linux Mint up on a Transformer Book, and it appears you have to buy a compatible USB NIC and plug it in so that you can download the driver for the built-in Wi-Fi. I looked up Ubuntu, and Wi-Fi is "buggy" and suspend is "not working". Nor has anyone had luck with openSUSE. Google couldn't turn up anything about PC-BSD on the T100; I can't tell whether this means it "just works" or just that nobody has tried it. I wouldn't bet on the former.

Re:It's harder with laptops

[tepples]

Unfortunately, one common use case that contraindicates Linux is wanting to run programs that aren't on Linux.

If you care more about your privacy, you could try replacing the Windows-only applications with comparable applications that are free software or at least that work correctly in Wine.

White list

[tompaulco]

No committee, no user group, no consortium. Just give each user a white list for sites they want to accept ads from here. To get you started, I've paste mine below.





Thank you for your attention.

Re:White list

[idbeholda]

This.

Re:White list

[nitehawk214]

It already works this way, the problem is Eyeo wants to get a cut of the ad revenue. Sorry, suckers, it isn't like someone else can't do adblock.

Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin

[Coren22]

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. It is amazing that this story hasn't attracted the evil that is APKs shitposting.

AdBlock Plus To Introduce Acceptable Rape Program

[OsranaKurwa]

AdBlock Plus To Introduce Independent Board of Pedophiles To Oversee Acceptable Rape Program

...where mega-uber rich corporations gain carte blanche entitlement to break into your house and rape the minds of your children in order to rape your wallet.

It's the TRACKING, Stupid!

[tanstaaf1]

Is Adblock proposing to disallow any and all TRACKING and reading of cookies from other sites? Didn't think so. How many people are stupid enough to think Adblock has their real best interests at heart? We don't have to have sex with strangers as a condition of walking public streets. Why do we have to put up with this shit from pimps such as Google and Facebook ... and Adblock... at all?

Re:It's the TRACKING, Stupid!

[gnupun]

Is Adblock proposing to disallow any and all TRACKING and reading of cookies from other sites? Didn't think so.

You can block cookies from other sites yourself:
Firefox -> Settings -> Privacy -> uncheck "Accept third-party cookies"

Is there OpenSource Ad block software?

[tanstaaf1]

Is it any good? I get it that it costs money, or at least a lot of donated time (and even then some real costs), to deliver a good piece of software. I would be willing to donate to support such software if it is a good alternative to Adblock's attempt to pimp me off. In any case, privacy is too important to leave it at the mercy of profit. Some of the open source/ free software projects should maybe be put on hold until the community has a top notch, no BS ad-blocker out the door? I mean, do we really need an upgraded Linux kernel half as much as we need our privacy back and these pimps and voyeurs shat down?

Re:Is there OpenSource Ad block software?

[SilentChasm]

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/

uBlock Origin is open source. It has worked fairly well for me and is supported in most browsers. What it blocks though, like most programs, is based on the blocklists you load into it so you may have to find some to your liking if the defaults don't block enough for you. I haven't noticed any problems with the defaults lists in terms of advertisements getting through and I think it should be fairly effective when combined with Ghostery.

Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host

[phantomfive]

Yeah, I think it can do all of that.

Acceptable Ads my ass

[hardburlyboogerman]

NO ad is acceptable in my eyes - that is why I use ad blockers in the first place

Re:It OGRE. ABP is Kill

[Kkloe]

this is the same what I am thinking, and\or the people on the board will start getting bribed

I concur: Basic static ads okay by me

[bdwoolman]

I started blocking ads and killing scripts a long time ago -- when they became animated and risky . I don't mind Google's text ads particularly. But stuff moving and jumping in the corner of my eye ruins my concentration and interferes with my enjoyment of whatever content I am reading.

The orienting response makes it impossible to ignore such movement. (Marketing psychologists know this.) As long as it keeps still -- like a good old-fashioned magazine ad --I will live with it. And, if of interest, perhaps click through. I also insist on a simple link. No risky dog and pony shows thank you. When advertisers learn some manners I will turn off my ad censors. This might take some time.

me, me, me !

[Tom]

Can I get elected to that board? How? Just so they have one person there who consistently says "no" to any and all ads that they want to label "acceptable".

The only acceptable ad is one that I, the recipient consider acceptable. In such case, I will search it. When I buy a new car, I am interested in product information about cars. At no other times do I want to see advertisement for cars. It really is that simple.

The plus...

[chrish]

They should rename it "Adblock Plus Ads".

uBlock Origin woooooo!

Re:Win10 sux & for Win7? Remove tracking easil

[Coren22]

Why would you open a command prompt to open powershell? Wouldn't it be easier to just open powershell directly?

Start - Programs - Accessories - Windows Powershell - Right click on Windows Powershell and select run as administrator.

But as you are the computer god, you already knew that, and were doing it the other way for security right?

Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts

[Coren22]

It is good to see you removed the DNSBL in your list. So does that mean you finally see how it was wrong?

8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. caps

What? What do you even mean by any of those? So now you are going to impliment a DNSBL on your mail server to stop spam and phishing (which can come from any host, including Gmail)? How does hosts protect against caps? Does it cause all capital letters to automatically convert to lowercase?

15.) Give you easily controlled data

What?

Determining "their own pages" programmatically

[tepples]

If a website allows scripts to be placed on their pages from unknown parties without even looking at the scripts, then it's going to invite malware.
I trust Yahoo.com to not write malware on their own pages

Implicit in this is a policy of rejecting scripts and the like that are hotlinked from a different website. But how would a browser determine whether a request belongs to "a different website"? You can't just go by whether the public suffix matches, especially when a site serves its own static resources from its CDN on a different, cookieless domain.

Re:Determining "their own pages" programmatically

[phantomfive]

Problems!
I solve those problems by blocking all ads. As long as malware pops up in ads from time to time, I will continue to do so.

Re:Determining "their own pages" programmatically

[tepples]

How does your system determine whether a newly seen URI is that of an ad?

Re:Determining "their own pages" programmatically

[phantomfive]

Good question! I don't actually know. If you find out, tell me.

Re:Still trolling? My next post puts you away

[Coren22]

You mean like how you got confused between DNSBL which is a DNS black list used by mails servers, and a DNS block which is a tool of governments used to suppress things they don't like.

I didn't get confused by anything, you were confused in your terminology, when it was pointed out to you, you flew into an attack rage like you tend to do, and apparently are still doing.

Re:Are you STUPID, or what?

[Coren22]

Um, adblock blocks all ads as well, that feature you point to is optional, it can be turned off. It however is an attempt to come to a compromise by getting rid of crappy ads, and allowing ads that aren't so obnoxious.

Re:You constantly troll me: Result? Inside

[Coren22]

So, in other words "I have no response to your extremely well thought out argument, so I am going to post incoherent garbage that has already been debunked numerous times just to make it look like the answers haven't been given yet."

Oh, and you should respond to the AC responses to another of these shitposts:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

They might just be on to something.

Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin

[Darinbob]

Not a concern when you stop browsing the web and get back to work. You slackers!

Re:Sexconker uses hosts

[Darinbob]

"Sexconker - the name you can trust!"

Re:Sexconker uses hosts

[sexconker]

I'm here to confirm that I absolutely do use HOSTS files to block shit.

Why is any of that a problem? They are apps.

[SuperKendall]

Seems like a risky game to play, given that their services heavily depend on ad funded sources for data.

Pretty much nothing you mentioned would be accessed by general users much on the web; mostly through apps where the advertising (if any) is not blocked.

Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host

[Ash-Fox]

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dns blocking
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

My DNS daemon at home can do all of that though.

P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently

My DNS daemon does it more efficiently by returning NXDOMAIN for blocked hosts. None of the computers on my network even attempt to establish a TCP connection to anything. Nobody even has to configure their computers to do anything when they use my Wi-Fi / LAN, it's 'just works'.

(hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

My DNS daemon is only taking up 2MiB of system memory currently on the router and takes up no memory on the PCs on my network. My DNS server is also more efficient by being able to block complete domains owned by malware authors instead of just specific subdomains too.

What's best?

Clearly my setup as the technical advantages here.

Re:No ads are acceptable

[Ash-Fox]

Adapt or die is the solution that needs to be applied to the fossil fuel industry as well.

They adapted by changing the laws in their favour so they wouldn't die, seems to be working fine to me.