3 ms·

I'm curious if any evidence has ever been offered that the "Acceptable Ads" program is corrupt. It seems to me that literally the moment it was announced people

• hartator 11y ago
  Sure, they didn't got any money from that. (!) Ref: http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/06/google-and-others-reportedly-pay-adblock-plus-to-show-you-ads-anyway/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/06/google-and-others-reportedl...
• lost_name 11y ago
  Granted, it's unlikely that they would say anything if they were extorting people as you describe... but from just the other day: https://adblockplus.org/blog/acceptable-ads-explained-monetization https://adblockplus.org/blog/acceptable-ads-explained-moneti... Discussion (somewhat lacking): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11182174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11182174
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
• futunet 11y ago
  What would constitute evidence of corruption? * Allowing the most invasive of all the ad trackers to be members of Acceptable ads? (Criteo: Yes, they're a member) * Allowing the most ubiquitous ad trackers to be members of Acceptable Ads? (Google: Yes, they're a member) * Allowing the advertisements of companies owned by their investors to be members of Acceptable Ads? (Sedo: Owned by Tim Schumacher -- Yes they're a member) * Allowing cheesy "native ads" site-spam to be part of Acceptable Ads? (Taboola. Yes, they're a member.) * Gouging publishers for an absolutely absurd pound of flesh? (The rate is 30% of ad revenue for blocked ads. Insane!) I could go on. There's a lot wrong with the program.