6 ms·

ABP already is part of the dark side with their "acceptable ads." It boggles the mind why a program whose sole purpose is to block ads would not do so out of th

by deprave 10y ago

ABP already is part of the dark side with their "acceptable ads." It boggles the mind why a program whose sole purpose is to block ads would not do so out of the box. Anyone who hasn't yet switched to uBlock Origin should do so ASAP. It's super fast, has a much smaller memory footprint, has a strict policy against "acceptable ads" (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md), licensed under the GPLv3, and hosted in a very active repository on GitHub (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock).

coldpie 10y ago
I've never understood the backlash against the acceptable ads program. They state clearly what policies the ads must adhere to, and review them manually for compliance. Sure, if viewing absolutely no advertising is important to you, then you'll want to turn that feature off or use a different client. But why do you think they're part of the "dark side" for trying to encourage inoffensive ads?
- deprave 10y ago
  Because of the default setting that shows ads in a program called "ad block."
  - coldpie 10y ago
    Your definition of "dark side" seems borderline sociopathic.
    - deprave 10y ago
      Both the Interactive Advertising Bureau and Ghostery accused ABP of extortion due to their business practices. A program that labels itself as an "ad blocker" yet allows, by default, ads from companies who pay money, is part of the dark side.
  - basch 10y ago
    good thing they didnt name it "completely ad block"
    - dghughes 10y ago
      I prefer "Sorta Ad-Block, Kinda".
    - cr1895 10y ago
      Ad Block Plus (ads)
- krapp 10y ago
  >I've never understood the backlash against the acceptable ads program. Simply put, many people believe there is no such thing as an acceptable ad on the web, and that any ad blocker which allows advertising to be shown is by definition malicious, broken software. No advertising, anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances, regardless of the content, or how badly a site depends on it, is acceptable to users of ad blockers. They expect it to block ads, period.
  - morgante 10y ago
    > No advertising, anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances, regardless of the content, or how badly a site depends on it, is acceptable to users of ad blockers. I'm a user of an ad blocker (ABP). Don't put words in my mouth. I believe in compensating creators for their content and would rather compensate them with my time than my money. Don't lump everyone into your political agenda.
    - Gracana 10y ago
      "Many people," not "literally everyone, especially HN user 'morgante.'" I'm certainly in the "fuck all ads forever" camp. There are just way too many downsides to downloading/seeing/playing/executing advertisements. If all the websites that relied on ads today had to disappear or redesign to reduce their operational costs, I think the web would be a much better place.
      - manigandham 10y ago
        > I think the web would be a much better place. Except it wouldnt. Only state-sponsored media and paywalls would exist, which won't be fun.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        krapp 10y ago
        Paywalls would probably be a more stable revenue model than advertising. Everyone else would have make money some other way, but alternatives (like Patreon) already exist.
morgante 10y ago
> ABP already is part of the dark side with their "acceptable ads." It boggles the mind why a program whose sole purpose is to block ads would not do so out of the box. I actually like the acceptable ads system. I don't inherently object to advertising (content has to be paid for somehow, and I'd rather pay with my attention than with my money). I just object to invasive or distracting ads, and ABP does block those. Google Search ads, for example, are fine by me.
- deprave 10y ago
  The "acceptable ads" initiative is how the company behind ABP makes money. It is their primary revenue driver and is the primary differentiator from other products on the market. Yet, they choose to name their product in a misleading way, suggesting they do something which, by default, their product does not do. If ABP was a drug, what would the FDA say? :) We all know that outside tech circles most people don't even know what "acceptable ads" are, assume ABP does what it says on the label, and don't bother changing defaults. That's why ABP's business is so shady.
  - morgante 10y ago
    How does something generating revenue automatically make it immoral or unacceptable? Pharmaceutical companies generate their revenue from selling drugs. That doesn't make selling drugs illegal. Nobody is getting tricked by ABP. For one thing, their homepage literally says "unobtrusive ads aren't being blocked in order to support websites" right above the install button. [0] Moreover, even if a user were to install it and still saw ads they would realize that it's not in fact blocking all ads. Since you apparently hate capitalism, I'm curious how you're paid. [0] https://adblockplus.org/ https://adblockplus.org/
    - Retric 10y ago
      Not OP, but I do things that people pay money for. I find advertising degrading and avoid it where possible. The real issue is most online content is terrible and not worth paying for. Worse even when I do pay, the ads don't go away. (Hulu, premium cable TV, etc.) Because, it's the people with money that subsidize the Advertising model, let them opt out and it collapses.
untog 10y ago
> It boggles the mind why a program whose sole purpose is to block ads would not do so out of the box. Well, maybe the purpose of that particular program is to block awful, obstructive, auto-playing ads, but allow sensible levels of advertising to support web sites.
raddad 10y ago
>Anyone who hasn't yet switched to uBlock Origin should do so ASAP. I looked at it, I tried it, I love it so far. I added uMatrix(1) and uBlock Origin Websocket(2). Now I just need to read the documentation to get the full advantage(3). (1) https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix (2) https://github.com/gorhill/uBO-WebSocket https://github.com/gorhill/uBO-WebSocket (3) To RTFM; https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki

by deprave 10y ago

coldpie 10y ago

I've never understood the backlash against the acceptable ads program. They state clearly what policies the ads must adhere to, and review them manually for compliance. Sure, if viewing absolutely no advertising is important to you, then you'll want to turn that feature off or use a different client. But why do you think they're part of the "dark side" for trying to encourage inoffensive ads?

deprave 10y ago
Because of the default setting that shows ads in a program called "ad block."
- coldpie 10y ago
  Your definition of "dark side" seems borderline sociopathic.
  - deprave 10y ago
    Both the Interactive Advertising Bureau and Ghostery accused ABP of extortion due to their business practices. A program that labels itself as an "ad blocker" yet allows, by default, ads from companies who pay money, is part of the dark side.
- basch 10y ago
  good thing they didnt name it "completely ad block"
  - dghughes 10y ago
    I prefer "Sorta Ad-Block, Kinda".
  - cr1895 10y ago
    Ad Block Plus (ads)
krapp 10y ago
>I've never understood the backlash against the acceptable ads program. Simply put, many people believe there is no such thing as an acceptable ad on the web, and that any ad blocker which allows advertising to be shown is by definition malicious, broken software. No advertising, anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances, regardless of the content, or how badly a site depends on it, is acceptable to users of ad blockers. They expect it to block ads, period.
- morgante 10y ago
  > No advertising, anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances, regardless of the content, or how badly a site depends on it, is acceptable to users of ad blockers. I'm a user of an ad blocker (ABP). Don't put words in my mouth. I believe in compensating creators for their content and would rather compensate them with my time than my money. Don't lump everyone into your political agenda.
  - Gracana 10y ago
    "Many people," not "literally everyone, especially HN user 'morgante.'" I'm certainly in the "fuck all ads forever" camp. There are just way too many downsides to downloading/seeing/playing/executing advertisements. If all the websites that relied on ads today had to disappear or redesign to reduce their operational costs, I think the web would be a much better place.
    - manigandham 10y ago
      > I think the web would be a much better place. Except it wouldnt. Only state-sponsored media and paywalls would exist, which won't be fun.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - krapp 10y ago
        Paywalls would probably be a more stable revenue model than advertising. Everyone else would have make money some other way, but alternatives (like Patreon) already exist.

morgante 10y ago

> ABP already is part of the dark side with their "acceptable ads." It boggles the mind why a program whose sole purpose is to block ads would not do so out of the box. I actually like the acceptable ads system. I don't inherently object to advertising (content has to be paid for somehow, and I'd rather pay with my attention than with my money). I just object to invasive or distracting ads, and ABP does block those. Google Search ads, for example, are fine by me.

deprave 10y ago
The "acceptable ads" initiative is how the company behind ABP makes money. It is their primary revenue driver and is the primary differentiator from other products on the market. Yet, they choose to name their product in a misleading way, suggesting they do something which, by default, their product does not do. If ABP was a drug, what would the FDA say? :) We all know that outside tech circles most people don't even know what "acceptable ads" are, assume ABP does what it says on the label, and don't bother changing defaults. That's why ABP's business is so shady.
- morgante 10y ago
  How does something generating revenue automatically make it immoral or unacceptable? Pharmaceutical companies generate their revenue from selling drugs. That doesn't make selling drugs illegal. Nobody is getting tricked by ABP. For one thing, their homepage literally says "unobtrusive ads aren't being blocked in order to support websites" right above the install button. [0] Moreover, even if a user were to install it and still saw ads they would realize that it's not in fact blocking all ads. Since you apparently hate capitalism, I'm curious how you're paid. [0] https://adblockplus.org/ https://adblockplus.org/
  - Retric 10y ago
    Not OP, but I do things that people pay money for. I find advertising degrading and avoid it where possible. The real issue is most online content is terrible and not worth paying for. Worse even when I do pay, the ads don't go away. (Hulu, premium cable TV, etc.) Because, it's the people with money that subsidize the Advertising model, let them opt out and it collapses.

untog 10y ago

> It boggles the mind why a program whose sole purpose is to block ads would not do so out of the box. Well, maybe the purpose of that particular program is to block awful, obstructive, auto-playing ads, but allow sensible levels of advertising to support web sites.

raddad 10y ago

>Anyone who hasn't yet switched to uBlock Origin should do so ASAP. I looked at it, I tried it, I love it so far. I added uMatrix(1) and uBlock Origin Websocket(2). Now I just need to read the documentation to get the full advantage(3). (1) https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix (2) https://github.com/gorhill/uBO-WebSocket https://github.com/gorhill/uBO-WebSocket (3) To RTFM; https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki