Slashdot Mirror
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.
Sorry, adblock, time to let your product die and we will go on to a product that actually blocks ads
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
I use uBlock Origin. Works better than adblock. Flashblock, uBlock, and Ghostery. Nice fast load times.
Adblock is different from Adblock Plus.
They were sold to Adblock Plus.
In the early days of Chrome one of the reasons I stayed with Mozilla was ad blockers. When Adblock Pro tried that trick on Mozilla I switched to Adblock Edge. I assume Chrome users will do the same or if they can't find a proper ad blocker will then switch browser.
I started blocking ads because animated GIFs were too distracting to my thought processes. Now blocking ads is simple Internet security 101, just way too dangerous not to, and despite 'acceptable ad' programs is still an attack vector with no benefits if left open.
Aside from being defeated by loads of different adblock blockers (as well as the standard http://blockadblock.com/ generated scripts) there are loads of networks like PageFair that bypass AdBlock anyway. So "letting" acceptable ads through strikes me as a best option in a losing battle.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
https://github.com/chrisaljoud...
faster, more efficient, and doesnt have a guilty conscience about blocking ALL the ads.
while you're at it,
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ho...
block advertisers by null routing them.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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 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?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Perhaps there is a way to put the load, and the expectations, on the user.
You go to a website. If you desire a personalized experience, "click here" and then bookmark.
Resulting page is site.tld/longRandomGeneratedUniqueThing/restofurl.whatever
All links on the resulting page are set that way now. The site is responsible for keeping that "thing" associated with your preferences and etc., as well as generating the right links on all the pages you visit there. That's doable.
As long as you come and go from such a formatted URL, the site knows it's the same person.
If you don't do this, you get a non-personalized experience.
No cookies required. But it does require the user to be a little bit proactive if they want the experience to span multiple visits, because they'll have to bookmark. Otherwise, this visit will know it's them all the way across the visit, but when they leave... the info is either gone or buried in their history.
It's a bit clumsy, and it certainly isn't secure in the sense of others not being able to appear as that person and so forth, but "secure" surely isn't a word I'd use for cookie technology, either. It does allow for basic identity, and it does put control of it in the hands of the user. So for cases where the limitations are acceptable, seems like a reasonable approach.
If not this, then something else. But cookies and forwarding the browser all over creation should die in a fire. Somehow.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Go to Firefox or Chrome store and get "uBlock Origin". Then use that.
slashdigg is tired of your shit. seriously just fuck off.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
Yah, your host file software (30k lines of code to manage a text file? WTF?) obviously doesn't work or it would be blocking you. You post more spam and ads for your software on here than other 3rd party ads. If your goal is to help cut down on spam and such, you're doing a really shitty job of it.
You've posted your stupid shit in here 25 times and counting (as of this comment's writing). Just get off the internet already apk.
Copy/Pasting your drivel over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Wait what? You crushed me? http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Looks like you're the one that got "crushed". You never answered any of my reasons why your system is better than DNS except that having a dedicated DNS server will use more electricity. All your rants and more were completely "proved wrong" in that post.
Unfortunately, some people just can't learn from their mistakes. You think your solution is so damn good that you sound like a kid screaming "gimmie my ball back!" at the top of his lungs in the kindergarten playground.
Host files have their place. Sticking millions of entries in it is not use, it's abuse. DNS won. Hosts lost. Get over it.
Too bad you're just going to copy/paste your reply after this again and call everyone trolls.
I feel sorry for you. You've taken something that was good and destroyed it. I'm sure that if you redirected half as much energy into something worthwhile that you do into posting spam all over slashdot that you could accomplish something noteworthy other than being the butt of jokes.
You're terribly easy to provoke, and provably wrong to boot.
Good day.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Ads. Switched to a combo of privacy badger & Adguard.