6 ms·

Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference

131 points by japaw 11y ago

tyingq 11y ago
Excerpt from the summary for one of the two keynote speeches... "But this has brought along the unintended consequences of viewability challenges, fraud, and ad blocking. What’s more, this myopic pursuit of success has created burnout and disengagement...2016 must mark a significant shift in our thinking" [1] [1] http://www.iab.com/events/iab-annual-leadership-meeting-2016/#agenda http://www.iab.com/events/iab-annual-leadership-meeting-2016...
riebschlager 11y ago
An organization called the "Interactive Advertising Bureau" should understand better than most that this would be a bad move. They'd have to really try hard to dig their heads deeper into the sand. What's the worst thing that could happen as a result of letting Adblock Plus attend? They'd gain a better understanding or ad-blocking technology? Or maybe get some insight into why so many people feel that ad-blocking is necessary? I guess Adblock Plus just doesn't fit well with the IAB brand's "core value proposition".
- dhimes 11y ago
  From the conference notice front page: Ad blocking is the latest crisis du jour, a potentially existential threat to the industry. I would guess you are correct. What's ironic is that adblock plus understands their value proposition and whitelists advertisers if they are not too shitty. I run Adblock plus for this very reason (as opposed to a less forgiving blocker). Also, they just landed Larry Ellison of Oracle as a featured speaker. http://www.iab.com/ http://www.iab.com/
  - ucho 11y ago
    > potentially existential threat to the industry I wonder if it really is a threat. Serving anything related to ads from same domain as content will make it much harder to create reliable blocking rules[1]. If ad blocking requires heuristics like the ones in Readability extension it won't be as popular. [1] as a bonus it instantly kills simplistic host file method
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      The EasyList[0] already has blocking for DOM elements and querystring parameters in addition to domain blocks. So even with hosting ads from the same domain, they get blocked. For example, ABP blocks our same-domain, self-hosted trackers with the default settings even though our domain is not listed there. [0] - https://easylist.adblockplus.org/en/ https://easylist.adblockplus.org/en/
  - JD557 11y ago
    >whitelists advertisers if they are not too shitty. I don't have any source with me right now, but I've heard that they only whitelist advertisers that pay them (I recall some people comparing this to blackmail).
    - dhimes 11y ago
      I didn't know this, but they admit it on their site, and explain it. https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization TL;DR is that if by participating in the "Acceptable Ads" initiative the organization gains 10 million more ad impressions per month, then they have to pay. If they are "smaller" than that, it's free to them. Everybody has to keep their ads acceptable, however; you can't bribe your way out of it.
      - monochromatic 11y ago
        > Everybody has to keep their ads acceptable, however; you can't bribe your way out of it. Riiiiight.
        dhimes 11y ago
        Good point. It only works until somebody decides that they are leaving money on the table.
        lmm 11y ago
        If ABP started letting unacceptable ads through they'd lose all their users. Enlightened self-interest and all that.
        creshal 11y ago
        Well, it'd be immediately visible to the users. While I think it is blackmail, ABP has a lot to lose by not enforcing strict standards.
        nugget 11y ago
        They whitelist Taboola, Outbrain, and other native ad networks. I think the strict standards horse has left the barn.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    > Also, they just landed Larry Ellison of Oracle as a featured speaker. Man, this would make me cancel my ticket. I try to avoid being in the same state as Larry Ellison. The evil just oozes.
  - J_Darnley 11y ago
    > existential threat to the industry I can only hope that it is.
  - pgkl 11y ago
    > Also, they just landed Larry Ellison of Oracle as a featured speaker. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Lawnmower's can't speak. Lawnmowers just mow the lawn.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - RazorX 11y ago
    I find it amusing that their page loads with a popup: https://screencloud.net/v/vOXl https://screencloud.net/v/vOXl
- qb45 11y ago
  > Or maybe get some insight into why so many people feel that ad-blocking is necessary? Or, heavens forbid, feel uncomfortable hearing that this cool tech they are so proud of actually pisses people off?
- kuschku 11y ago
  The issue is that AdBlock Plus isn’t really someone neutral. It’d be easier to get other adblockers to attend, but a company whose business is to blackmail ad companies and get over 30 million USD a year out of that is hard to justify at such a conference.
- nugget 11y ago
  I tend to agree with you but I also think that the IAB is recognizing the unique threat that ABP specifically (as opposed to adblocking generally) poses to the industry. I'll explain what I mean. ABP has a mafia-style business model based on extorting advertisers for inclusion on an acceptable ads list. Whether you agree with the concept of acceptable ads or not, it's pretty clear that ABP's narrative is hollow and their implementation is focused on their own bottom line: nearly every programmatic ad exchange who is willing to pay money is whitelisted as ''acceptable''. It's a client-side tollbooth erected between users and the sites they visit, extracting money from the ecosystem for little value in return. At some point it isn't even ''adblock'' any more because so many ads are whitelisted, and (as a former user) I think ABP clearly passed that point awhile back. Their brand, momentum, and marketing allow them to keep users captive. There's probably opportunity in creating new adblock clients with no whitelist, growing the userbase, and then selling out to someone with an acceptable ads list, as there should be slow but eventual migration (which uBlock's growth points to). At the point that the acceptable ads business model becomes normalized, it's fair to ask, where does it end? You will see every company with client software rolling out adblocking features (with tollbooth, of course). It's senseless, inefficient, and doesn't reward good actors (actually, likely rewards bad actors). I'm not saying that web publishers and their ad tech minions didn't bring this sandstorm upon themselves (I believe they did, and shed no tears for them), but even so, the future of the web is not dueling mobs of client-side adblocking thugs with variable rate cards for ad networks to bypass their intended functionality. At least I hope it's not. I'm no fan of the IAB but I can at least admit to being impressed that someone there had the insight to take this stand, if that's indeed what it is.
Cypher 11y ago
I know the exact reason, the IAB wanted Mark to experience how an ad is blocked. Artistic merit.
- woah 11y ago
  They've given ABP a beautiful analogy.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    They can wax lyrical about how effective blocking is, now that they have done it themselves. Truly, an industry in decline.
    - cerlone 11y ago
      It's funny that Ad Block posted the image as to "how dare they, who do they think they are!? Why shouldn't I be allowed to do something I want" Yet they do it businesses trying to advertise every day.
chris_wot 11y ago
"The IAB Annual Leadership Meeting is for serious conversation among important digital industry stakeholders." Evidently those who prevent any ads from being served by their oh-so "important digital industry stakeholders" won't be part of any "serious conversation". Adblock, and the many others on the market, will continue to do the non-serious work of blocking ads.
- cerlone 11y ago
  I would do the same as IAB. What adblock says to companies is "We feel your advertising is no good so we will blanket block it for millions of viewers a day" HOWEVER, if you contact, let us review your advert and then WE decide it's not a bad add, we'll let it be shown to the millions of visitors that were supposed to see it anyway... We'll just take a percentage of the money. There's certainly a need for this sort of adblocking service on some level but from a money-making side of thing, their business model is just downright dirty. Just imagine if I stood in the middle of the road at the end of your street and said "NO cars are coming down here because the residents said so" "However, give me a few bucks because I decided you look like a decent person and you can come through" In a real world situation, this would be classed as blackmailing and you'd be arrested for something.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    Reviewing whether an ad network meets their Acceptable Ads policy takes time. Are you suggesting they should not charge for their time? Or that they should not have an Acceptable Ads policy at all?
    - tyingq 11y ago
      I suspect it's the pricing model. Reportedly, the charge is "30% of your ad revenue". There's also no concrete definition of why some sites are whitelisted for free, and others have to pay.
    - cerlone 11y ago
      You have a valid point that it takes time. However, the cost to time ratio isn't sensible. It's "reported" that Google and some other companies have been paying Ad Block Plus in the region of $120 million per year for their ads to be whitelisted. Secondly, their taking 30% of revenue for the whole period the networks ad's are approved. If they stop paying, their adverts get blocked. The main issue is that they go into it with a blanket statement of all ads are evil and are blocked for the "users sake" but we'll make a decision on behalf of users if we think your paying enough to get the adverts showing. As a user myself, I hate bad adverts but how do they know what I think is an acceptable? They've never asked me. If I said to you, you're not allowed to reply to any thread on Ycombinator until I've decided you can on behalf of the community, oh, and you need to pay me 30% of your wages so I can keep "reviewing" the situation... you'd tell me to bugger off.
meirelles 11y ago
I think is understandable IAB's position. The only reason which makes sense to me to pay such high fee to get in is chase some big guys into "acceptable ads" program. Charging money to whitelist is a little questionable attitude to me. Something between hypocrisy and irony.
- coldpie 11y ago
  Reviewing ads to verify that they meet their Acceptable Ads policy takes time. Time is money, so they charge for that time. Seems OK to me. That said, I use uBlock Origin because I think it's better written and also I morally object to advertising, so there is no such thing as an "acceptable ad" to me.
mizchief2 11y ago
Now that Adblock plus is basically an extortion scheme to bring internet users under their umbrella and force advertisers to pay to gain access to it's users, I can understand why they would be barred.
elsjaako 11y ago
The ad companies simply don't want ABP to come along and tell them stuff they don't want to hear. They also don't want ABP knowing what they are talking about and planning to do. So they used a system to prevent ABP changing their experience. Seems fair enough, nothing hypocritical there.
- bainsfather 11y ago
  Selling someone a ticket and listing them as a participant, then later banning them without an explanation, is pretty bad behaviour, no?
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Bad behavior, yes. But nothing much different from usual. In fact, much less threatening than their usual behavior.
  - elsjaako 11y ago
    I was going for irony, I hope it came across.
    - bainsfather 11y ago
      Ah, that was way too subtle for me - the number of hn posters who argue weird (imo) positions means that I need a sarcasm tag to know someone's not serious.
core2 11y ago
Would it make sense to accept credit card skimmers on Credit Card Conference?
FussyZeus 11y ago
I'm reminded of that comic with the dog sitting in the burning house going "Everything is fine."
cballard 11y ago
This reinforced to me that Adblock is a company, while uBlock Origin is just an open-source project. uBlock doesn't need to go to ad conferences and talk to people, it just filters content. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  And it sometimes bases those filters on personal grudges. Which is why all of SourceForge is blocked by default due to bad behavior last year on a handful of projects out of 400,000 that they discontinued after public outcry. Meaning that there is no forgiveness for giving in to public pressure. At the same time, tons of download sites with all kinds of malware and bundleware are allowed right through.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    I don't remember hearing SF apologize for or announce that they're stopping their malware bundling. The sourceforge block is a little extreme, although it's easy to get past it with the big buttons. Overall, I'm OK with punishing that kind of malicious behavior super hard, although I don't feel strongly about it and understand why you object to it.
    - JohnTHaller 11y ago
      There are two separate things here. First, there's the Dev Share program which is opt in to allow projects to make money. This puts a bundleware installer up first that then downloads the main installer as the primary "Download" button with an alternate main installer only link alongside. Projects like FileZilla do this to support their development. Second, there was a program where some of SourceForge's mirrored projects were distributed in the same fashion. SourceForge does mirroring of open source projects not hosted on SourceForge. SourceForge, in an effort to make more money, used the same bundleware style download installer for projects like GIMP. As GIMP wasn't repackaged in this installer, there was no GPL impact. However, it was distasteful to say the least. After both publishers like GIMP and the wider open source community reacted negatively, SourceForge discontinued the program and announced on their blog that they would not reinstate it. They also stated that they would form an open source community advisory board before implementing any additional open source monetization strategies in the future. SourceForge currently has about 10 projects that opt in to their Dev Share program. Every one is available for download without using the bundleware installer. And their custom bundleware installer is far clearer about what it is than the majority of the commercial bundelware installers out there, though, like all bundleware installers, it does still make use of dark patterns which I am not a fan of (see also: Avast updates, Flash updates, Java updates all of which pre-bundle Google Chrome and trick you into installing via dark patterns). So, all 400,000 projects on SourceForge are blocked permanently with no possibility of unblocking because of a few weeks of legal but unethical bad behavior that SourceForge publicly backtracked from and no longer engages in. Punishing bad behavior makes a lot of sense. But when someone reacts in a positive way to that punishment (stopping it, publicly talking about it, setting up a committee before exploring further options, etc), it makes sense to remove the block. Otherwise, once you're blocked, there's no reason to reform.
aggieben 11y ago
This is sooo yummy. Nomnomnom.
dfuzwer 11y ago
This is a statement, we blocked the blockers. I wouldn't be surprised if the openings speech at the conference proudly announced this decision.

131 points by japaw 11y ago

Excerpt from the summary for one of the two keynote speeches... "But this has brought along the unintended consequences of viewability challenges, fraud, and ad blocking. What’s more, this myopic pursuit of success has created burnout and disengagement...2016 must mark a significant shift in our thinking" [1] [1] http://www.iab.com/events/iab-annual-leadership-meeting-2016/#agenda http://www.iab.com/events/iab-annual-leadership-meeting-2016...

riebschlager 11y ago

An organization called the "Interactive Advertising Bureau" should understand better than most that this would be a bad move. They'd have to really try hard to dig their heads deeper into the sand. What's the worst thing that could happen as a result of letting Adblock Plus attend? They'd gain a better understanding or ad-blocking technology? Or maybe get some insight into why so many people feel that ad-blocking is necessary? I guess Adblock Plus just doesn't fit well with the IAB brand's "core value proposition".

dhimes 11y ago
From the conference notice front page: Ad blocking is the latest crisis du jour, a potentially existential threat to the industry. I would guess you are correct. What's ironic is that adblock plus understands their value proposition and whitelists advertisers if they are not too shitty. I run Adblock plus for this very reason (as opposed to a less forgiving blocker). Also, they just landed Larry Ellison of Oracle as a featured speaker. http://www.iab.com/ http://www.iab.com/
- ucho 11y ago
  > potentially existential threat to the industry I wonder if it really is a threat. Serving anything related to ads from same domain as content will make it much harder to create reliable blocking rules[1]. If ad blocking requires heuristics like the ones in Readability extension it won't be as popular. [1] as a bonus it instantly kills simplistic host file method
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    The EasyList[0] already has blocking for DOM elements and querystring parameters in addition to domain blocks. So even with hosting ads from the same domain, they get blocked. For example, ABP blocks our same-domain, self-hosted trackers with the default settings even though our domain is not listed there. [0] - https://easylist.adblockplus.org/en/ https://easylist.adblockplus.org/en/
- JD557 11y ago
  >whitelists advertisers if they are not too shitty. I don't have any source with me right now, but I've heard that they only whitelist advertisers that pay them (I recall some people comparing this to blackmail).
  - dhimes 11y ago
    I didn't know this, but they admit it on their site, and explain it. https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization TL;DR is that if by participating in the "Acceptable Ads" initiative the organization gains 10 million more ad impressions per month, then they have to pay. If they are "smaller" than that, it's free to them. Everybody has to keep their ads acceptable, however; you can't bribe your way out of it.
    - monochromatic 11y ago
      > Everybody has to keep their ads acceptable, however; you can't bribe your way out of it. Riiiiight.
      - dhimes 11y ago
        Good point. It only works until somebody decides that they are leaving money on the table.
      - lmm 11y ago
        If ABP started letting unacceptable ads through they'd lose all their users. Enlightened self-interest and all that.
      - creshal 11y ago
        Well, it'd be immediately visible to the users. While I think it is blackmail, ABP has a lot to lose by not enforcing strict standards.
        nugget 11y ago
        They whitelist Taboola, Outbrain, and other native ad networks. I think the strict standards horse has left the barn.
- coldpie 11y ago
  > Also, they just landed Larry Ellison of Oracle as a featured speaker. Man, this would make me cancel my ticket. I try to avoid being in the same state as Larry Ellison. The evil just oozes.
- J_Darnley 11y ago
  > existential threat to the industry I can only hope that it is.
- pgkl 11y ago
  > Also, they just landed Larry Ellison of Oracle as a featured speaker. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Lawnmower's can't speak. Lawnmowers just mow the lawn.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- RazorX 11y ago
  I find it amusing that their page loads with a popup: https://screencloud.net/v/vOXl https://screencloud.net/v/vOXl
qb45 11y ago
> Or maybe get some insight into why so many people feel that ad-blocking is necessary? Or, heavens forbid, feel uncomfortable hearing that this cool tech they are so proud of actually pisses people off?
kuschku 11y ago
The issue is that AdBlock Plus isn’t really someone neutral. It’d be easier to get other adblockers to attend, but a company whose business is to blackmail ad companies and get over 30 million USD a year out of that is hard to justify at such a conference.
nugget 11y ago
I tend to agree with you but I also think that the IAB is recognizing the unique threat that ABP specifically (as opposed to adblocking generally) poses to the industry. I'll explain what I mean. ABP has a mafia-style business model based on extorting advertisers for inclusion on an acceptable ads list. Whether you agree with the concept of acceptable ads or not, it's pretty clear that ABP's narrative is hollow and their implementation is focused on their own bottom line: nearly every programmatic ad exchange who is willing to pay money is whitelisted as ''acceptable''. It's a client-side tollbooth erected between users and the sites they visit, extracting money from the ecosystem for little value in return. At some point it isn't even ''adblock'' any more because so many ads are whitelisted, and (as a former user) I think ABP clearly passed that point awhile back. Their brand, momentum, and marketing allow them to keep users captive. There's probably opportunity in creating new adblock clients with no whitelist, growing the userbase, and then selling out to someone with an acceptable ads list, as there should be slow but eventual migration (which uBlock's growth points to). At the point that the acceptable ads business model becomes normalized, it's fair to ask, where does it end? You will see every company with client software rolling out adblocking features (with tollbooth, of course). It's senseless, inefficient, and doesn't reward good actors (actually, likely rewards bad actors). I'm not saying that web publishers and their ad tech minions didn't bring this sandstorm upon themselves (I believe they did, and shed no tears for them), but even so, the future of the web is not dueling mobs of client-side adblocking thugs with variable rate cards for ad networks to bypass their intended functionality. At least I hope it's not. I'm no fan of the IAB but I can at least admit to being impressed that someone there had the insight to take this stand, if that's indeed what it is.

Cypher 11y ago

I know the exact reason, the IAB wanted Mark to experience how an ad is blocked. Artistic merit.

woah 11y ago
They've given ABP a beautiful analogy.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  They can wax lyrical about how effective blocking is, now that they have done it themselves. Truly, an industry in decline.
  - cerlone 11y ago
    It's funny that Ad Block posted the image as to "how dare they, who do they think they are!? Why shouldn't I be allowed to do something I want" Yet they do it businesses trying to advertise every day.

chris_wot 11y ago

"The IAB Annual Leadership Meeting is for serious conversation among important digital industry stakeholders." Evidently those who prevent any ads from being served by their oh-so "important digital industry stakeholders" won't be part of any "serious conversation". Adblock, and the many others on the market, will continue to do the non-serious work of blocking ads.

cerlone 11y ago
I would do the same as IAB. What adblock says to companies is "We feel your advertising is no good so we will blanket block it for millions of viewers a day" HOWEVER, if you contact, let us review your advert and then WE decide it's not a bad add, we'll let it be shown to the millions of visitors that were supposed to see it anyway... We'll just take a percentage of the money. There's certainly a need for this sort of adblocking service on some level but from a money-making side of thing, their business model is just downright dirty. Just imagine if I stood in the middle of the road at the end of your street and said "NO cars are coming down here because the residents said so" "However, give me a few bucks because I decided you look like a decent person and you can come through" In a real world situation, this would be classed as blackmailing and you'd be arrested for something.
- coldpie 11y ago
  Reviewing whether an ad network meets their Acceptable Ads policy takes time. Are you suggesting they should not charge for their time? Or that they should not have an Acceptable Ads policy at all?
  - tyingq 11y ago
    I suspect it's the pricing model. Reportedly, the charge is "30% of your ad revenue". There's also no concrete definition of why some sites are whitelisted for free, and others have to pay.
  - cerlone 11y ago
    You have a valid point that it takes time. However, the cost to time ratio isn't sensible. It's "reported" that Google and some other companies have been paying Ad Block Plus in the region of $120 million per year for their ads to be whitelisted. Secondly, their taking 30% of revenue for the whole period the networks ad's are approved. If they stop paying, their adverts get blocked. The main issue is that they go into it with a blanket statement of all ads are evil and are blocked for the "users sake" but we'll make a decision on behalf of users if we think your paying enough to get the adverts showing. As a user myself, I hate bad adverts but how do they know what I think is an acceptable? They've never asked me. If I said to you, you're not allowed to reply to any thread on Ycombinator until I've decided you can on behalf of the community, oh, and you need to pay me 30% of your wages so I can keep "reviewing" the situation... you'd tell me to bugger off.

meirelles 11y ago

I think is understandable IAB's position. The only reason which makes sense to me to pay such high fee to get in is chase some big guys into "acceptable ads" program. Charging money to whitelist is a little questionable attitude to me. Something between hypocrisy and irony.

coldpie 11y ago
Reviewing ads to verify that they meet their Acceptable Ads policy takes time. Time is money, so they charge for that time. Seems OK to me. That said, I use uBlock Origin because I think it's better written and also I morally object to advertising, so there is no such thing as an "acceptable ad" to me.

mizchief2 11y ago

Now that Adblock plus is basically an extortion scheme to bring internet users under their umbrella and force advertisers to pay to gain access to it's users, I can understand why they would be barred.

elsjaako 11y ago

The ad companies simply don't want ABP to come along and tell them stuff they don't want to hear. They also don't want ABP knowing what they are talking about and planning to do. So they used a system to prevent ABP changing their experience. Seems fair enough, nothing hypocritical there.

bainsfather 11y ago
Selling someone a ticket and listing them as a participant, then later banning them without an explanation, is pretty bad behaviour, no?
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Bad behavior, yes. But nothing much different from usual. In fact, much less threatening than their usual behavior.
- elsjaako 11y ago
  I was going for irony, I hope it came across.
  - bainsfather 11y ago
    Ah, that was way too subtle for me - the number of hn posters who argue weird (imo) positions means that I need a sarcasm tag to know someone's not serious.

core2 11y ago

Would it make sense to accept credit card skimmers on Credit Card Conference?

FussyZeus 11y ago

I'm reminded of that comic with the dog sitting in the burning house going "Everything is fine."

cballard 11y ago

This reinforced to me that Adblock is a company, while uBlock Origin is just an open-source project. uBlock doesn't need to go to ad conferences and talk to people, it just filters content. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md

JohnTHaller 11y ago
And it sometimes bases those filters on personal grudges. Which is why all of SourceForge is blocked by default due to bad behavior last year on a handful of projects out of 400,000 that they discontinued after public outcry. Meaning that there is no forgiveness for giving in to public pressure. At the same time, tons of download sites with all kinds of malware and bundleware are allowed right through.
- coldpie 11y ago
  I don't remember hearing SF apologize for or announce that they're stopping their malware bundling. The sourceforge block is a little extreme, although it's easy to get past it with the big buttons. Overall, I'm OK with punishing that kind of malicious behavior super hard, although I don't feel strongly about it and understand why you object to it.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    There are two separate things here. First, there's the Dev Share program which is opt in to allow projects to make money. This puts a bundleware installer up first that then downloads the main installer as the primary "Download" button with an alternate main installer only link alongside. Projects like FileZilla do this to support their development. Second, there was a program where some of SourceForge's mirrored projects were distributed in the same fashion. SourceForge does mirroring of open source projects not hosted on SourceForge. SourceForge, in an effort to make more money, used the same bundleware style download installer for projects like GIMP. As GIMP wasn't repackaged in this installer, there was no GPL impact. However, it was distasteful to say the least. After both publishers like GIMP and the wider open source community reacted negatively, SourceForge discontinued the program and announced on their blog that they would not reinstate it. They also stated that they would form an open source community advisory board before implementing any additional open source monetization strategies in the future. SourceForge currently has about 10 projects that opt in to their Dev Share program. Every one is available for download without using the bundleware installer. And their custom bundleware installer is far clearer about what it is than the majority of the commercial bundelware installers out there, though, like all bundleware installers, it does still make use of dark patterns which I am not a fan of (see also: Avast updates, Flash updates, Java updates all of which pre-bundle Google Chrome and trick you into installing via dark patterns). So, all 400,000 projects on SourceForge are blocked permanently with no possibility of unblocking because of a few weeks of legal but unethical bad behavior that SourceForge publicly backtracked from and no longer engages in. Punishing bad behavior makes a lot of sense. But when someone reacts in a positive way to that punishment (stopping it, publicly talking about it, setting up a committee before exploring further options, etc), it makes sense to remove the block. Otherwise, once you're blocked, there's no reason to reform.

aggieben 11y ago

This is sooo yummy. Nomnomnom.

dfuzwer 11y ago

This is a statement, we blocked the blockers. I wouldn't be surprised if the openings speech at the conference proudly announced this decision.