5 ms·

> That's only if people agree with your ideology. You don't even have to do that. It behaves exactly the same as ABP if you use the same filter lists. It's j

> That's only if people agree with your ideology. You don't even have to do that. It behaves exactly the same as ABP if you use the same filter lists. It's just also happens to be more efficient than ABP.

skybrian 10y ago
It's not the same. Advertisers can negotiate with AdBlock Plus about what reasonable advertising should be. If we all choose our own block lists there is nobody for them to negotiate with. The war between ad blockers and advertisers continues forever. That's not to say AdBlock Plus does a great job (I don't know) but some people think collective bargaining is a good thing. For more read about countervailing power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_power https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_power
- Zren 10y ago
  > behaves exactly the same as ABP if you use the same filter lists He mentioned that uBlock can use the same "reasonable" filter list as ABP, it's just better to use uBlock since it's more efficient.
- fucking_tragedy 10y ago
  > Advertisers can negotiate with AdBlock Plus about what reasonable advertising should be How they reconcile this with the name "AdBlock" I'll never know.
  - colejohnson66 10y ago
    Supposedly non intrusive ads that are out of your way
    - bigbugbag 10y ago
      Wladimir should rename adblock plus to addoesntblock- supposedly-non-intrusive-ads then ;) or maybe adsellads [1] [1]:http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/13/12890050/adblock-plus-now-sells-ads http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/13/12890050/adblock-plus-now-...
- jlarocco 10y ago
  > It's not the same. Advertisers can negotiate with AdBlock Plus about what reasonable advertising should be. If we all choose our own block lists there is nobody for them to negotiate with. The war between ad blockers and advertisers continues forever. We have very different opinions, because I don't see it as a bargaining situation. The reasonable and acceptable level of spam, web advertising, malware, and user tracking is zero. I won't accept any more than that because (very near) zero is easily achieved using the currently available tools.
  - skybrian 10y ago
    Yes, this is a different political position. I don't want all advertising-supported websites to die, which is what would happen if you convinced everyone to do what you do.
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      I don't want them to die either; I want them to adapt, or be replaced by sites that can adapt. There's no hard dichotomy between "sites that charge users" and "sites that run ads"; some sites do neither, and still manage to survive just fine by many other means.
      - phpnode 10y ago
        Take something like Google Search, a service that is ad-supported but is free to use and produces an enormous amount of value for virtually everyone on the internet. What is their business model in a post-adwords world, where they've been forced to adapt? Presumably they'd have to charge for it, which means that the poorest people on the internet would not have access to this amazing tool that we take utterly for granted now. No one likes (poorly targeted, invasive) ads, but is that world preferable?
        morgante 10y ago
        Exactly. There are also huge problems associated with paying for many of these free services. If it were a pay-per-search model then I'd have to make a mental decision every time I do a search. This would impose massive cognitive overhead and present a deadweight loss. If it were a subscription model, building a competitive search engine would suddenly become much harder. Right now, I can freely experiment between different search engines to find the right one for a given query. If I need a subscription, then it would much more firmly entrench the dominant player. People spend a lot of time railing against advertising without considering how many great services have been supported by it for hundreds of years.

skybrian 10y ago

It's not the same. Advertisers can negotiate with AdBlock Plus about what reasonable advertising should be. If we all choose our own block lists there is nobody for them to negotiate with. The war between ad blockers and advertisers continues forever. That's not to say AdBlock Plus does a great job (I don't know) but some people think collective bargaining is a good thing. For more read about countervailing power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_power https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_power

Zren 10y ago
> behaves exactly the same as ABP if you use the same filter lists He mentioned that uBlock can use the same "reasonable" filter list as ABP, it's just better to use uBlock since it's more efficient.
fucking_tragedy 10y ago
> Advertisers can negotiate with AdBlock Plus about what reasonable advertising should be How they reconcile this with the name "AdBlock" I'll never know.
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  Supposedly non intrusive ads that are out of your way
  - bigbugbag 10y ago
    Wladimir should rename adblock plus to addoesntblock- supposedly-non-intrusive-ads then ;) or maybe adsellads [1] [1]:http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/13/12890050/adblock-plus-now-sells-ads http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/13/12890050/adblock-plus-now-...
jlarocco 10y ago
> It's not the same. Advertisers can negotiate with AdBlock Plus about what reasonable advertising should be. If we all choose our own block lists there is nobody for them to negotiate with. The war between ad blockers and advertisers continues forever. We have very different opinions, because I don't see it as a bargaining situation. The reasonable and acceptable level of spam, web advertising, malware, and user tracking is zero. I won't accept any more than that because (very near) zero is easily achieved using the currently available tools.
- skybrian 10y ago
  Yes, this is a different political position. I don't want all advertising-supported websites to die, which is what would happen if you convinced everyone to do what you do.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    I don't want them to die either; I want them to adapt, or be replaced by sites that can adapt. There's no hard dichotomy between "sites that charge users" and "sites that run ads"; some sites do neither, and still manage to survive just fine by many other means.
    - phpnode 10y ago
      Take something like Google Search, a service that is ad-supported but is free to use and produces an enormous amount of value for virtually everyone on the internet. What is their business model in a post-adwords world, where they've been forced to adapt? Presumably they'd have to charge for it, which means that the poorest people on the internet would not have access to this amazing tool that we take utterly for granted now. No one likes (poorly targeted, invasive) ads, but is that world preferable?
      - morgante 10y ago
        Exactly. There are also huge problems associated with paying for many of these free services. If it were a pay-per-search model then I'd have to make a mental decision every time I do a search. This would impose massive cognitive overhead and present a deadweight loss. If it were a subscription model, building a competitive search engine would suddenly become much harder. Right now, I can freely experiment between different search engines to find the right one for a given query. If I need a subscription, then it would much more firmly entrench the dominant player. People spend a lot of time railing against advertising without considering how many great services have been supported by it for hundreds of years.