2 ms·

>"from failing sites." Again, I wasn't talking about "failing _websites_". I was talking about ad serving _domains_. You've lost track of what the conversati

by jasode 9y ago

>"from failing sites." Again, I wasn't talking about "failing _websites_". I was talking about ad serving _domains_. You've lost track of what the conversation was about and the substance of what I was responding to. Please re-read the previous post to reset.[1] That post by d2wa was claiming a direct cause-&-effect blocking based purely on entries in EasyList. I replied that the article makes no such irrefutable claim and that he was over-reading something that wasn't there. You, on the other hand, are talking about "Better Ad Standards"[2] which is orthogonal to my reply to d2wa. Your repeated citation of it actually muddles the topic because the Google's longstanding approved rules for the correct layout of AdSense already adheres to "Better Ad Standards". To restate the different conversations in pseudo-code... Argument by d2wa: if (EasyList_entry_exists("AdSense")) block(); Argument by you (ec109685): BetterAdStandardsViolation = popup || autoplaysound || prestitialcountdown || largesticky; if (BetterAdStandardsViolation) block(); Also see comment subtree[3] from Raymond Hill (uBlock maintainer that uses EasyList). Based on that, the pseudo-code would be: if (BetterAdStandardsViolation) { if (EasyList_entry_exists) block(); // this line of code unreachable by correct use of AdSense } In summary... EasyList is not the final authority on blocking AdSense. Since Google's existing guidelines for proper AdSense layout already complies with "Coalition for Better Ads", the existence of AdSense in EasyList is not relevant because the EasyList filter is selectively applied to failing websites. In other words, Chrome's ad blocker will not block AdSense the same way as uBlock. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16297718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16297718 [2] https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/ [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16298182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16298182

ec109685 9y ago
Agree with your pseudo code. So are we in agreement then? Google’s ad sense ads will be removed from sites that violate the better ad standard guidelines per google’s official documentation on this feature. If so, the question here that you originally posed would be answered in the negative: “I read the article but it doesn't clarify whether or not Google will hardcode a "whitelist" that will ignore EasyList entries for AdSense, DoubleClick, GoogleAnalytics, etc.”
- jasode 9y ago
  >If so, the question here that you originally posed would be answered in the negative: No. the answer is "positive" in the context of my reply to d2wa of how EasyList is not obeyed. The "whitelist" is achieved by correct use of AdSense. (See pseudo-code example #3 of how EasyList filter code is never reached for AdSense.) It does not work like uBlock.

by jasode 9y ago

ec109685 9y ago

Agree with your pseudo code. So are we in agreement then? Google’s ad sense ads will be removed from sites that violate the better ad standard guidelines per google’s official documentation on this feature. If so, the question here that you originally posed would be answered in the negative: “I read the article but it doesn't clarify whether or not Google will hardcode a "whitelist" that will ignore EasyList entries for AdSense, DoubleClick, GoogleAnalytics, etc.”

jasode 9y ago
>If so, the question here that you originally posed would be answered in the negative: No. the answer is "positive" in the context of my reply to d2wa of how EasyList is not obeyed. The "whitelist" is achieved by correct use of AdSense. (See pseudo-code example #3 of how EasyList filter code is never reached for AdSense.) It does not work like uBlock.