5 ms·

>Which is it, the super secret consortium that won't even let you download the full list of bad sites, or Easy List/Privacy? Why don't they just use EasyList an

by mastax 9y ago

>Which is it, the super secret consortium that won't even let you download the full list of bad sites, or Easy List/Privacy? Why don't they just use EasyList and report offenders there instead of this new consortium? The lists serve different purposes. EasyList is a lit of ad-serving URLs to block. The uh, consortium list is a black/white list of which sites don't follow the standards. The standards are not about bad ads, but about sites that use ads in bad ways. The standards can't be automatically enforced since software can't reliably determine if an ad is a popunder or otherwise intrusive due to placement. Sites would quickly use CSS/JS hacks to work around the classifier.

kodablah 9y ago
EasyList is also a list of ad-serving sites to block and a list of elements to hide. Can you help me understand why the blacklist can't be just placed in a normal ad blocking list like EasyList? If it's by site anyways, I'm not sure the actual difference for the blocker itself. It's not like the EasyList standards can be automatically enforced by software either. I think "serve different purposes" could be rephrased to "serve different overseers". I can't find a reason for the tech difference.
- falcolas 9y ago
  They don't want to block ads on sites, unless the site is on the other list. That is, if site foo.com and bar.com both serve ads, but foo.com is on the "blacklist", the ad blocking will be enabled on foo.com. However, ad blocking will remain disabled on bar.com. It's not Google's intention to block all ads on all sites - only ads on "bad" sites. If they can reduce the number of adblock installs by reducing the overall number of invasive ads, they can keep their own ad business from folding.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    Ah, I see now, EasyList is selectively applied after first determining whether the site "deserves" it. That's an evil use of the hard work of EasyList maintainers IMO. I wonder if I can find a way to make Chrome think every site is "bad". If not, uBO still for me.
    - username223 9y ago
      Yeah, this seems like it already is, or will soon become, solidly evil. If Google decides to flag your site, all of a sudden you don't get ad revenue from anyone. An AdWords sales-drone can then contact you to explain how you can remove yourself from Google's "naughty" list, e.g. by giving them more inventory, or giving their competitors less.
    - bzbarsky 9y ago
      I will bet you that once this rolls out Chrome is going to make it pretty hard to use something like uBO effectively...
Consultant32452 9y ago
That's very kind of them to provide a convenient "white list" of ad-serving URLs for me to block.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  That whitelist is very likely an API endpoint or otherwise locked down, which will help them log every single url requested by your browser for "debugging purposes". Rather similar to how smartscreen works on windows
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by mastax 9y ago

kodablah 9y ago

EasyList is also a list of ad-serving sites to block and a list of elements to hide. Can you help me understand why the blacklist can't be just placed in a normal ad blocking list like EasyList? If it's by site anyways, I'm not sure the actual difference for the blocker itself. It's not like the EasyList standards can be automatically enforced by software either. I think "serve different purposes" could be rephrased to "serve different overseers". I can't find a reason for the tech difference.

falcolas 9y ago
They don't want to block ads on sites, unless the site is on the other list. That is, if site foo.com and bar.com both serve ads, but foo.com is on the "blacklist", the ad blocking will be enabled on foo.com. However, ad blocking will remain disabled on bar.com. It's not Google's intention to block all ads on all sites - only ads on "bad" sites. If they can reduce the number of adblock installs by reducing the overall number of invasive ads, they can keep their own ad business from folding.
- kodablah 9y ago
  Ah, I see now, EasyList is selectively applied after first determining whether the site "deserves" it. That's an evil use of the hard work of EasyList maintainers IMO. I wonder if I can find a way to make Chrome think every site is "bad". If not, uBO still for me.
  - username223 9y ago
    Yeah, this seems like it already is, or will soon become, solidly evil. If Google decides to flag your site, all of a sudden you don't get ad revenue from anyone. An AdWords sales-drone can then contact you to explain how you can remove yourself from Google's "naughty" list, e.g. by giving them more inventory, or giving their competitors less.
  - bzbarsky 9y ago
    I will bet you that once this rolls out Chrome is going to make it pretty hard to use something like uBO effectively...

Consultant32452 9y ago

That's very kind of them to provide a convenient "white list" of ad-serving URLs for me to block.

mrguyorama 9y ago
That whitelist is very likely an API endpoint or otherwise locked down, which will help them log every single url requested by your browser for "debugging purposes". Rather similar to how smartscreen works on windows

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]