Slashdot Mirror
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 don't give a fuck what their justifications are. There are not any ads that are acceptable. That's it. End of story.
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"
Complete list:
End of list.
Sorry, dear advertisers. You poisoned the well. Now please get lost.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
uBlock Origin is roughly 12 times better than Adblock Plus. It's significantly faster, has less overhead, has a better user interface, and does not whitelist ad sites.
Then:
Users: hey can you give us less intrusive and annoying ads
Advertisers: screw you here is your ad
Now:
Advertisers: hey please don't block our ads thanks
Users: screw you
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Does the adblock team disclose how much money they get from advertisers to allow them through their filters?
I run a website that uses ads. It's called The Geek Pub. I make things and I create videos and articles so that others can do it themselves too.
I also sell detailed plan files on the site for anywhere between $1 and $10 depending on how complicated the project is. This is how I would LIKE to make my revenue. But it doesn't work. I have no choice but to show ads. Why? Because I almost daily find a copy of every plan my site sells on bittorrent or file sharing sites. I've even had people post links to them in the comment section of my own site!
The TRUTH: People want everything for free and they have zero desire to actually support the content creators. They steal our content and post it for the world and then complain about the ads we use to make money. We can't win as content creators.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Why not let the end user decide what level of advertising they wish to accept? Maybe one, ten- second ad per hour that occupies one- eighth of the screen or less would be acceptable to some people whereas others might allow two such ads per hour. Others might wish zero advertising under all conditions. The danger is that advertising will destroy the net much as it destroyed broadcast TV. A 30-minute show, with 8-minutes of advertising, made TV unbearable to the point that people stopped watching broadcast TV and the advertisers became ever more desperate as the number of eyeballs that saw the ads fell.
An acceptable ad comes from the same domain as to web page. Simple as that.
I don't respond to AC's.
Or just buy some freakin ram you derp. What, are you on 4gb in 2015?
That may be true of desktops. But good luck fitting 8 GB into a compact laptop or a convertible laptop/tablet. A lot of such devices can use only the RAM soldered onto the board, and even those that do take SODIMMs likely have a chipset that limits the maximum module capacity.
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
The criteria are all about what the ad looks like... I care more about if its attempting to get around cookie destruction, doing browser history digging, accepting obfuscated JS from malvertisers, etc. It does say it doesn't allow Flash/Shockwave/etc, which is better then nothing, but not really good enough... I'm going to stick with NoScript (and not running adblock).
That just means more sites should be asking for money directly. I don't mind paying for content at all and I do donate/support/subscribe the few sites I care about.
Say sites suddenly switch from taking ads to "asking for money directly." Then you go to your favorite search engine and you see a credit card number field instead of a query field. OK, so you put in your credit card number, pay $20 for a year's subscription, and then do your search. Then every site in the results wants a separate $20 per year subscription because it costs the merchant 35 cents plus 3.5% for a credit card transaction. Micropayments still haven't been figured out.
Your relentless spamming has convinced me- convinced me to never ever try or buy your product. Never.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"I mean this in the most respectful manner possible. Your material has negligible market value."
I'm sorry. Respectfully, I call bullshit. If my content is worth someone's time to put it on a file sharing site, it is worth 99 cents.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
I spent about three days trying to get APK Hosts to work. I downloaded the file, consulted the tutorials, read the not-so-fine manual, and came up bupkiss.
So I downloaded a hosts file from Someone Who Cares and did it myself.
[End Of Line]
Try offering it for a penny, as an experiment. I think you'll still find that people will refuse to pay a penny, and it won't be because it's too much for them and it won't be because they don't think your product is worth a penny -- it's just that paying is complicated, dangerous, non-anonymous, and not even available to some (eg children). In fact, odds are less people will buy your file for a penny than for a dollar.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Patreon might be a better fit for you. Matters less if people pirate your work, as they are paying to encourage more of it rather than for something.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
hosts can't block apk's ads. So there's a big flaw right there.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire