AdBlock Plus Updates Acceptable Ads Policy
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.
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"
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.
Does the adblock team disclose how much money they get from advertisers to allow them through their filters?
Where is this "good content"?
With such constant disappointment on the web, I can't understand why you'd keep using it.
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.
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
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.
hosts can't block apk's ads. So there's a big flaw right there.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire