6 ms·
> taking money to allow people to defeat the core purpose of your application. Seriously. This is so bad for users
by danielhgma 11y ago
> taking money to allow people to defeat the core purpose of your application.
Seriously. This is so bad for users
- epistasis 11y agoPerhaps for you, but this does not subvert the core purpose of Crystal for me. I will continue using Crystal, with the default option, since I don't mind seeing minimal, non-intrusive ads that don't completely disrupt my user experience. And I don't have a problem with responsible websites with responsible ads getting paid. In fact, this option to have vetted ads is pretty much ideal for me! Edit: I'm curious, why do people dislike my preference here? I'm not saying anybody else has to like Crystal, just that it's matches my desires.
- nugget 11y agoVetted or acceptable ads is a fake narrative - a smokescreen - it's just a way for these adblock apps to extort ad networks for a payout. In the article it mentions that hundreds of companies including all the big search and display networks, and all of the big native ad networks, are included on the whitelist. Who is left?
- epistasis 11y agoWhile it could be a smokescreen, it certainly doesn't have to be a smokescreen. If it turns out that Crystal is letting intrusive ads through, then they're doing a bad job and I'll stop using it.
- nugget 11y agoWe already know who will be let through - the ABP whitelist is public. It's the majority of the ad tech world including the most intrusive native networks.
- epistasis 11y agoI don't have much experience with ABP, but I'm also having difficulty finding complaints about intrusive ads getting through ABP. Is this something that you've experienced personally, or is it just from the companies reputations that are on the whitelist?
- nugget 11y agoI experienced it personally and switched from ABP to uBlock as a result.
- epistasis 11y agoThanks, that's good to know, I'll keep an eye out for this!
- anabis 11y agoThis caught my attention, as I am allowing "acceptable" ads. 1. What was the ad like? 2. Didn't disabling "acceptable" ads on ABP work?
- nugget 11y ago1. Standard native click bait. 2. I didn't test disabling but assume that it would work as advertised - I didn't want to support a company that would enable whitelisting/acceptable ads as default in order to build up enough users as a means of extorting everyone else in the ecosystem.
- nosuchthing 11y agoSeems almost like extortion.. the advertisers already paid for advertising but now Crystal demands additional payments from the advertisers or else it blocks the ads. The websites don't seem to get any additional payment from Crystal for this "vetting".
- epistasis 11y agoIt could seem like extortion, or it could seem like certification. Websites have proven that they're terrible at vetting ads for security and intrusiveness, they do not care about that. By paying a different company to perform the certification, then there's less of a conflict of interest. Of course, this depends on trusting someone. Trust can be misplaced, but I already know I can't trust websites, so Im looking for someone else.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- outericky 11y agoCertification in your sense is conforming to a certain standard. This is extortion. Basically "conforming" is paying. That's extortion. Pay are demands or no soup for you.
- manigandham 11y agoThe adblocker companies cant be trusted either since they only stand to gain from this behaviour. ABP makes tens of millions from this. The only way trust works is if there's a neutral 3rd party that represents all sides and has respect.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]