Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AdBlock Plus Updates Acceptable Ads Policy

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the red-light-green-light dept.

AmiMoJo writes: By default the popular AdBlock Plus plug-in allows some "acceptable" ads to be displayed. A blog post announcing updates to policy describes the goals of the update: easier to understand, more robust and more explicit about what is and isn't acceptable. The new criteria are listed on another page, and the option to disable acceptable ads remains.

11 of 523 comments (clear)

  1. Ads are not acceptable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't give a fuck what their justifications are. There are not any ads that are acceptable. That's it. End of story.

    1. Re:Ads are not acceptable. by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speak for yourself. Ads are the reason why a lot of good content can stay afloat on the web without asking for money directly, I get that.
      I wouldn't mind decent, simple text or image ads on the Internet. As long as they don't try to force feed me their ads down my throat, shove distracting, animated shit in my face or potentially harm my computer with uncontrolled Flash ads, I don't see why we couldn't all get along.

      I hope the ad industry and site operators are finally starting to realize that annoying the shit out of your potential customers is not a viable long term strategy.

    2. Re:Ads are not acceptable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Where is this "good content"?

      With such constant disappointment on the web, I can't understand why you'd keep using it.

    3. Re:Ads are not acceptable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What do you mean "disappointment"? I use the web for bad content, for entertainment and wasting time, like everybody else.

      The fallacy of many web-sponsored startups is to believe that their "content" is good or even worth anything, just because people look at it for free. Mostly it's not. (There are exceptions, of course.) If Facebook would die tomorrow, nobody would give a shit about it, people would simply move on to another site. The same holds for most of the other adware sites. If you have a good product, people will buy it. Ad-supported "content" is just a soap bubble.

      Besides, I'm not sure if your old enough to know that, but the Web was great before companies and ads came to it. Instead of /. you would waste your time on Usenet - without ads.

    4. Re:Ads are not acceptable. by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Total bullshit. I've said it elsewhere as AC, but let me repeat it:

      The fallacy of many web-sponsored startups is to believe that their "content" is good or even worth anything, just because people look at it for free. Mostly it's not. (There are exceptions, of course.) If Facebook would die tomorrow, nobody would give a shit about it, people would simply move on to another site. The same holds for most of the other adware sites. If you have a good product, people will buy it. Ad-supported "content" is just a soap bubble.

    5. Re:Ads are not acceptable. by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're the clueless idiot. I can display web pages in my browser as I like. It's my machine and I pay for the bandwidth. I have zero obligation, neither morally nor legally, to watch advertisements or even display them, just as I don't have any obligation to click on links in spam mails sent to me.

      Moreover, I don't have to discover new products. When I want to buy something, I inform myself and then buy the product that best fits my needs. And I am seriously not interested in the flawed business models and whining of self-proclaimed entrepreneurs who have no genuine product to offer.

  2. This is a good policy by dirk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I really like this policy. Sites deserve to be able to show ads and make revenue on their content. That is how you get content to stay around and be good. The issue is the terribly intrusive and deceptive ads that suck up bandwidth and annoy everyone. I switched to uBlock Origins a while ago because of the memory AdBlock sucks up, but if they can get that under control I may switch back just for this feature.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    1. Re:This is a good policy by thsths · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except that it says nothing about deceptive. An add that says "your computer is infected with a virus, click here to remove" could still be classified as acceptable. Even malware is not explicitly forbidden. So I think there is some work to be done.

  3. Adblock disclosures? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does the adblock team disclose how much money they get from advertisers to allow them through their filters?

  4. Re:I run a site that uses ads, let me tell you TRU by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean this in the most respectful manner possible.

    You produce material that does not generate enough sufficient interest from paying consumers to support its production and distribution. You have therefore accepted remuneration from third-parties in return for providing them access to perform psychological manipulation and subliminal coercion upon anyone who finds your material interesting enough to consume at a market value of zero (as in, free).

    Your material has negligible market value. That has no reflection upon you; most art has the same market value but significant social value. That you let those few who appreciate your work be influenced does. Advertising is exceedingly rarely to the benefit of the advertised-to.

    I offer this not as criticism of your choice, but food for thought. The starving artist scenario is an age old quandry.

    --
    "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  5. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Interesting

    hosts can't block apk's ads. So there's a big flaw right there.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire