Chrome AdBlock Joining Acceptable Ads Program (And Sold To Anonymous Company)

basscomm writes: Hot on the heels of the formation of the independent board to oversee "acceptable ads", users of the popular Chrome ad blocking extension, AdBlock, got notice that AdBlock is participating in the program, and that acceptable ads are being turned on by default. At the bottom of the announcement, buried in the fine print is word that AdBlock has been sold, but nobody will say to whom.

Comments

Re:Time to let it die

[nospam007]

" I wouldn't mind ignoring a few ads as I browse to support the sites I use"

I'm sorry but it's just stupid how they work. I bought 2 dozen pairs of socks 2 weeks ago at landsend and now (where I won't need any socks for some time...) I get bombarded with socks ads in my unadblocked browser as well as every goddamn landsend ad that exists.

Symbiotic parasite

[goombah99]

I'm all for acceptable ads and acceptable tracking, afterall we all liked the benefit we got from durable cookies in the early pre-cancerous stages of the internet. that sort of tracking is not inherently bad by itself. But then it metastisized and it became neccessary to block it. So yay for ad blockers.

But that just becomes an arms race. So enter "acceptable ads" in which certain ads are allowed in hopes of creating a viable not escalating equilibrium where the commercialization model of the internet is not soley based on pernicious forms of advertising. I don't know if this new equilibrium can be forced but as the new york times demonstrated the tracking and targeting consumes at least 1/3 of the web bandwidth we pay for, so it's worthy just to check that aspect.

    But when it becomes commercialized like ad block or ghostery one feels like it's a symbiotic parasite. It leaves you vulnerable to smaller subset of actors who did nothing more than pay to have access to you, the meat being sold by ghostery and ad block. it's like paying off the somali pirates or highway robbers to let coiaches pass. I became the product. yet at the same time it gives me a free benefit.

Should I like this tapeworm that helps me shed unwanted pounds of bandwidth destroying ads and infective tracking systems? At the moment, the answer is there is no other answer.

Either way, letting in the big corp. ads deemed acceptable-for-cash or going nuclear on all ads indiscimiately, ultimately narrows the information I get.
However in one case, it limits which ads I see, and in the other it limits the profitability of sites trying to make a living with ad based bussiness models. I'd not want to choke off the free content I get, just to see fewer ads.

I think think acceptable ads, as competition heats up for the service will let me pick gate keepers that force advertisers not to chew up my bandwidth or "excessively" track me.

Re:Symbiotic parasite

[Kjella]

The answer you end up with depends on who you think started it, yes some websites took advertising too far and users hated it. But instead of using the sites that had "acceptable" ads and stop using the sites that had "annoying" ads, the solution was to start blocking ads. Now I don't subscribe to the whole "blocking ads is stealing" tripe but obviously the whole point of ads is that people see them. If everybody blocks them, there no point in paying for them and so the sites don't get any funding and the model breaks down. And it was the low-hanging fruit that mostly got hurt, the scummy sites with annoying ads were also the ones who'd most quickly resort to circumvention techniques to shove the ads in your face anyway.

The assumption here is that at least some users will be nice and accept to see som ads, if you're going to do that why not go for a real opt-in system? Tag all the advertising elements on your page with an <div class="ad">(ad goes here)</div>. Publish an advertising policy, like robots.txt Kindly ask ad blockers to replace ads tagged as such with "This website relies on advertising revenue to operate. You are currently blocking ads. Please click here to unblock and support our site."

If you click it, you get a dialog saying:
"This site has requested you to unblock ads. Their advertising policy is as follows:

Banner ads: Yes
Animated ads: No
Ads with sound: No
Interstitial ads: No
Pop-ups: No
Pop-unders: No

[Unblock ads] [Cancel]

You may at any time block ads again by.... (explanation)"

Of course you could have dick ad blockers that just remove the ads, but I think the popular ones could be convinced to play nice. Sites wouldn't have to get on any approval list tied to any particular blocker and everyone would decide for themselves what sites they want to support. No money for just being click bait, users have to actually like you enough to unblock. Not sure it'd work, but if that won't work then "acceptable ads" won't either.

Can we get a resource here in thread?

[cfalcon]

Adblock and Adblock Plus will now both ultimately take money in exchange for allowing ads. You can tell the agenda from the "default on" position.

So, can we get a list of stuff that DOESN'T do this? Maybe with links to the developers saying why not?

We can't edit posts on slashdot, normally for better, but this means I can't add to this list with responses. Still, respond please if you got'em!

The ONLY ones I know for sure are:

** uBlock Origin **- For Firefox and Chrome, this blocks a lot of privacy related things. This one seems like you can customize it, and the addon page tells you about other ad lists you can also apply. Importantly, the developer (gorhill on github) has had to deal with "acceptable ad" beggars, and shuts them down. The odds of this addon staying clean seem very high based on this.

Chrome store: https://chrome.google.com/webs...
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

I don't know if this works with popular privacy or usability forks of Firefox and Chrome, and maybe some Palemoons and Comodos and Waterfoxes and whatevers can chime in with details.

The old Adblock Edge was a solid Firefox addon, but discontinued with a message to use uBlock Origin. The somewhat similar dramafilled uBlock (without the "origin") I think has no acceptable ads either, but I have a hard time googling that stuff.

** uBlock ** - This and uBlock Origin share a relatively recent codebase, but there are some developer disagreements. I couldn't find any evidence that uBlock uses acceptable ads, however, so definitely listing it:

Chrome Store: https://chrome.google.com/webs...
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

*What else has no acceptable ad option*???

I'd even be ok counting ones that have one that is disabled by default, something that uBlock Origin has fought off successfully.

the lard of hosts for fat ads

[fyngyrz]

The best option, IMHO, is the hosts file, frankly. Be nice if we could work out some solid collaborative way to make my block discoveries help you with yours, etc., but it's just fraught with too many problems and potential black hat undertakings.

Still, it's pretty easy to just have a little app you can paste domains into that just appends your hosts file with Yet Another Reference to the Black Hole Of Data.

Well, under OS X and Linux it is. Not sure about Windows. But years ago, when I was using Windows, it did have a hosts file you could get at. Still true?