5 ms·

The only thing to do if you haven't already. uBlock is open source and does the job. This all adBlock making money by blocking ads and then showing their own a

by rloc 10y ago

The only thing to do if you haven't already. uBlock is open source and does the job. This all adBlock making money by blocking ads and then showing their own ads is becoming ridiculous and unethical. So what does Adblock stand for now ?

seven-dev 10y ago
I'm pretty sure all browser extensions are "open source" but I get what you're saying.
- Intermernet 10y ago
  I understand where you're coming from, but "open source" does not mean "I can read the source". If that were the definition, then Windows 2000[1] is open source. [1]: https://the.bytecode.club/showthread.php?tid=147 https://the.bytecode.club/showthread.php?tid=147
  - hannob 10y ago
    True, but Adblock Plus is GPL: https://hg.adblockplus.org/adblockplus/file/tip/COPYING https://hg.adblockplus.org/adblockplus/file/tip/COPYING That qualifies as Open Source under any reasonable definition of the word [1]. So being Open Source is no argument for or against either Adblock Plus or ublock origin, because both are. [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license
  - y0ghur7_xxx 10y ago
    The OSI definition of "open source" is not the only definition. I would argue that most people see "open source" as software where the source is "visible" (no data to back that up). Then you have a gazillion of "Open source licenses", that can be less "free" to more "free", like BSD, GNU, MIT, Apache, the free source license, ...
    - c22 10y ago
      My definition of open source is software where I can modify the source and use the resulting modified software without unnecessary roadblocks or fear of legal reprisal.
- Flimm 10y ago
  By open source, most people mean that the source is free to redistribute legally. The OSI definition is more formal. The source being viewable is not enough to qualify it as being open source.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
criley2 10y ago
>So what does Adblock stand for now ? Same thing it did years ago when it decided that an Adblocker should default to allowing "Show Ads" for any advertiser which paid them a blood ransom: PROFIT
cobby 10y ago
> This all adBlock making money by blocking ads and then showing their own ads is becoming ridiculous and unethical. I think they've mentioned that a site owner signs up on AdBlock Plus marketplace to sell ad space on their _own_ site. It will be just another ad marketplace with one exception: AdBlock will make sure that these ads are shown to people who uses the extension. They also promise to allow only "acceptable ads" on the marketplace.
Disruptive_Dave 10y ago
Adblock = product = make money. Products don't stand for things.
pythia__ 10y ago
Why is it unethical? What ethical principle is being violated? (These are not rhetorical questions.)
- paulcole 10y ago
  On the Internet, unethical = I don't like it
  - RobAley 10y ago
    Well that's all ethics are anywhere. There's no concrete list of universally agreed ethics, by definition people pick and choose what they deem ethical for whatever reasons they want.
  - GunlogAlm 10y ago
    In real life, unethical = I don't like it Do you think there is some ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't "ethical"?
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Misleading to the user - any person who downloads a thing called "adblock" expects it to block ads. (A less charitable person may point out that a program that claims to do one thing and actually does another is known as a "trojan horse") The same way a person who downloads an antivirus expects it to block viruses.
- endemic 10y ago
  I wouldn't call it "unethical;" perhaps "unexpected?" Seems like an appropriate adjective for an ad blocker which displays ads.
- jackhack 10y ago
  Trust. Performing the exact opposite of the stated and expected purpose of the application, for money, is a violation of trust. There is an implied belief that a product should do what it claims (and its name clearly states a purpose -- ad BLOCK), and the plain English reading of the title makes that pretty clear. Imagine a virus scanner that only blocked those viruses that didn't pay up.
morgante 10y ago
You're assuming that everyone shares your world view. I'm a happy Adblock Plus user and I like this move. Advertising, in general, does not bother me. I occasionally even find it valuable. Ads on sites like Google and Facebook are perfectly fine by me—I just don't want big, animated ads or (more frequently) broken ones which prevent me from reading content. In fact, I already go out of my way to disable ABP on sites where the ads are acceptable. Contrary to what people on HN believe, advertising is not inherently evil. Most people are perfectly fine with ads so long as they're not invasive.
- newscracker 10y ago
  > Ads on sites like Google and Facebook are perfectly fine by me—I just don't want big, animated ads or (more frequently) broken ones which prevent me from reading content. Honest question - don't the sidebar ads (on the right) on Facebook look ugly and intrusive to you (more so since they also change often)? Apart from Facebook tracking, I block ads on Facebook because of these too.
  - morgante 10y ago
    > Honest question - don't the sidebar ads (on the right) on Facebook look ugly and intrusive to you (more so since they also change often)? Not at all. I honestly don't even understand how you could think they are. They're literally just a (static) image and a few lines of text. Heck, I often even find Facebook ads to be inherently valuable. Most of them are for services I use and like.
    - majewsky 10y ago
      They aren't very valuable if you are already using and liking the advertised service.
- beefield 10y ago
  > Contrary to what people on HN believe, advertising is not inherently evil. Most people are perfectly fine with ads so long as they're not invasive. I would guess most people have this idea (in most cases illusion) that advertisers are not able to manipulate them. I do not have that illusion, and I do not like people that are manipulating me for their own benefit. I do not know if they are evil, but I think it is fair for me to try to avoid those kind of people.
budu3 10y ago
Not only that but this business model sooner or later is sure to attract regulation from some government agency.
IncRnd 10y ago
Not Adblock. Adblock Plus.
st3v3r 10y ago
So how should they make money?
thomasthomas 10y ago
seems like ad ransom. "we will block your ads but if we get money we will show ads"

by rloc 10y ago

seven-dev 10y ago

I'm pretty sure all browser extensions are "open source" but I get what you're saying.

Intermernet 10y ago
I understand where you're coming from, but "open source" does not mean "I can read the source". If that were the definition, then Windows 2000[1] is open source. [1]: https://the.bytecode.club/showthread.php?tid=147 https://the.bytecode.club/showthread.php?tid=147
- hannob 10y ago
  True, but Adblock Plus is GPL: https://hg.adblockplus.org/adblockplus/file/tip/COPYING https://hg.adblockplus.org/adblockplus/file/tip/COPYING That qualifies as Open Source under any reasonable definition of the word [1]. So being Open Source is no argument for or against either Adblock Plus or ublock origin, because both are. [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license
- y0ghur7_xxx 10y ago
  The OSI definition of "open source" is not the only definition. I would argue that most people see "open source" as software where the source is "visible" (no data to back that up). Then you have a gazillion of "Open source licenses", that can be less "free" to more "free", like BSD, GNU, MIT, Apache, the free source license, ...
  - c22 10y ago
    My definition of open source is software where I can modify the source and use the resulting modified software without unnecessary roadblocks or fear of legal reprisal.
Flimm 10y ago
By open source, most people mean that the source is free to redistribute legally. The OSI definition is more formal. The source being viewable is not enough to qualify it as being open source.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

criley2 10y ago

>So what does Adblock stand for now ? Same thing it did years ago when it decided that an Adblocker should default to allowing "Show Ads" for any advertiser which paid them a blood ransom: PROFIT

cobby 10y ago

> This all adBlock making money by blocking ads and then showing their own ads is becoming ridiculous and unethical. I think they've mentioned that a site owner signs up on AdBlock Plus marketplace to sell ad space on their _own_ site. It will be just another ad marketplace with one exception: AdBlock will make sure that these ads are shown to people who uses the extension. They also promise to allow only "acceptable ads" on the marketplace.

Disruptive_Dave 10y ago

Adblock = product = make money. Products don't stand for things.

pythia__ 10y ago

Why is it unethical? What ethical principle is being violated? (These are not rhetorical questions.)

paulcole 10y ago
On the Internet, unethical = I don't like it
- RobAley 10y ago
  Well that's all ethics are anywhere. There's no concrete list of universally agreed ethics, by definition people pick and choose what they deem ethical for whatever reasons they want.
- GunlogAlm 10y ago
  In real life, unethical = I don't like it Do you think there is some ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't "ethical"?
Karunamon 10y ago
Misleading to the user - any person who downloads a thing called "adblock" expects it to block ads. (A less charitable person may point out that a program that claims to do one thing and actually does another is known as a "trojan horse") The same way a person who downloads an antivirus expects it to block viruses.
endemic 10y ago
I wouldn't call it "unethical;" perhaps "unexpected?" Seems like an appropriate adjective for an ad blocker which displays ads.
jackhack 10y ago
Trust. Performing the exact opposite of the stated and expected purpose of the application, for money, is a violation of trust. There is an implied belief that a product should do what it claims (and its name clearly states a purpose -- ad BLOCK), and the plain English reading of the title makes that pretty clear. Imagine a virus scanner that only blocked those viruses that didn't pay up.

morgante 10y ago

You're assuming that everyone shares your world view. I'm a happy Adblock Plus user and I like this move. Advertising, in general, does not bother me. I occasionally even find it valuable. Ads on sites like Google and Facebook are perfectly fine by me—I just don't want big, animated ads or (more frequently) broken ones which prevent me from reading content. In fact, I already go out of my way to disable ABP on sites where the ads are acceptable. Contrary to what people on HN believe, advertising is not inherently evil. Most people are perfectly fine with ads so long as they're not invasive.

newscracker 10y ago
> Ads on sites like Google and Facebook are perfectly fine by me—I just don't want big, animated ads or (more frequently) broken ones which prevent me from reading content. Honest question - don't the sidebar ads (on the right) on Facebook look ugly and intrusive to you (more so since they also change often)? Apart from Facebook tracking, I block ads on Facebook because of these too.
- morgante 10y ago
  > Honest question - don't the sidebar ads (on the right) on Facebook look ugly and intrusive to you (more so since they also change often)? Not at all. I honestly don't even understand how you could think they are. They're literally just a (static) image and a few lines of text. Heck, I often even find Facebook ads to be inherently valuable. Most of them are for services I use and like.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    They aren't very valuable if you are already using and liking the advertised service.
beefield 10y ago
> Contrary to what people on HN believe, advertising is not inherently evil. Most people are perfectly fine with ads so long as they're not invasive. I would guess most people have this idea (in most cases illusion) that advertisers are not able to manipulate them. I do not have that illusion, and I do not like people that are manipulating me for their own benefit. I do not know if they are evil, but I think it is fair for me to try to avoid those kind of people.

budu3 10y ago

Not only that but this business model sooner or later is sure to attract regulation from some government agency.

IncRnd 10y ago

Not Adblock. Adblock Plus.

st3v3r 10y ago

So how should they make money?

thomasthomas 10y ago

seems like ad ransom. "we will block your ads but if we get money we will show ads"