5 ms·

Based on just a skim of the story: I'm sure that people will complain about this, and I'm sure that there genuinely is much to complain about—advertising is, a

• r00fus 10y ago
  I find the entire idea of "Acceptable Ads" to be the antithesis for an ad blocker. Ads are an infection vector and privacy leak. It's like concept of "acceptable groping" from an HR department. Completely at odds with their stated intent and standard ethics. Sorry, I'm now using uBlock Origin and/or Safari content blockers. I'll go with those organizations who don't have any interest/stake in permitting ads. If I am going to pay for content, I'll do so. If that's not kosher with the content producer, I'll simply abstain.
  • JadeNB 10y ago
    > Ads are an infection vector and privacy leak. Both of these are undeniably true about specific ads, but surely not the genre of advertising in general? I think that magazine ads, for example, are neither infection vectors nor privacy leaks. To the extent that these can be audited, surely preventing malware distribution and respecting my privacy are part of what should be included in the definition of 'acceptable'. (If they are not included, then I would argue that that is a failure of a specific implementation of "acceptable ads", not of the notion of acceptability itself.) > It's like concept of "acceptable groping" from an HR department. Completely at odds with their stated intent and standard ethics. While that is a potent analogy, I would argue that there's a difference: most of us agree that there is no level of groping that's acceptable; whereas I _think_ that, even among those of us who would like a web with no ads, the position that there is no level of advertising that's acceptable is extreme. > Sorry, I'm now using uBlock Origin and/or Safari content blockers. I'll go with those organizations who don't have any interest/stake in permitting ads. I agree, and don't mean to argue against those options. For what it's worth, I also use µBlock; I left ABP over what I perceived as conflicts of interest, and I am not interested in going back. Nonetheless, since some people do use it, surely this divestiture from a conflict of interest is a good thing, even if it's not perfect.
    • givinguflac 10y ago
      I think the point is, if one could guarantee no malware and tracking built into an ad (you can't, no one can) then many more people would be ok with ads all over to a certain extent. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the reference to magazine ads though- magazines are basically gigantic advertisements with some content mixed in. Do you really want that for the web?
    • rootlocus 10y ago
      > Both of these are undeniably true about specific ads, but surely not the genre of advertising in general? I think that magazine ads, for example, are neither infection vectors nor privacy leaks. We're obviously not talking about magazine ads, and an infection vector doesn't necessarily carry an infection (just like not all flies carry disease). > I _think_ that, even among those of us who would like a web with no ads, the position that there is no level of advertising that's acceptable is extreme. There are some people who block all javascript. That's far beyond "no level of advertising". > Nonetheless, since some people do use it, surely this divestiture from a conflict of interest is a good thing, even if it's not perfect. ABP has always sought revenue. Every time I installed it back in the day, a web page with the author and his significant other would pop up saying something like "I want to marry my fiance, please give us money!". Later ABP turned into a bait and switch. They gathered a lot of people who thought were protecting themselves, reducing load times and cleaning up the web, and then they violated their user's trust by making them targets for the highest bidder. I find that infuriating and disgusting.
    • r00fus 10y ago
      > I think that magazine ads, for example, are neither infection vectors nor privacy leaks We are talking about AdBlock here, right? The context is online ads. With the advent of e-ink and other paper-replacement technology perhaps your point about print ads not being vectors for infection or privacy leaks may be premature. What about Ads that induce violent/sexual/medical reactions in their viewers? (e.g. blinking ads causing epilepsy). Ads are unwanted draws of attention at best, and injurious at worst.
    • Symbiote 10y ago
      Even magazine ads aim to manipulate me, usually to purchase something. I find that behaviour completely unacceptable, so I block all adverts when browsing the web, and I avoid them wherever it's practical to do so on other media.
• pvg 10y ago
  The biggest complaint has always been that it's a gigantic conflict of interest. You can't block ads and also make money from allowing ads. It's inherently contradictory. I don't think there's any fixing this six years later by announcing "Also, in an industry first, an ordinary user will be seated as one of the 11 committee members to represent consumers’ demands of the online advertising industry." It's an industry first after six years of the industry Nth of selling out your users. We can't begrudge Adblock Plus's desire to make money. But there's as little reason to accept them blowing smoke up our asses.