6 ms·

"eyeo does mention that smaller websites can be whitelisted for free. In fact, they claim that around 90 percent of their partners are given this service free o

"eyeo does mention that smaller websites can be whitelisted for free. In fact, they claim that around 90 percent of their partners are given this service free of charge. But that means diddly when we all know that nearly all global ad revenue goes to just two companies: Google and Facebook." So 90% of websites get it for free, and mainly Google and Facebook have to pay. I think the author intends for me to be outraged, but I'm not. I'm also not having any reaction to the "acceptable ads" the author thinks I'm supposed to find unacceptable. They're clickbait, sure, but they fit the "no animations, no sounds, and no flashy colors" criteria.

ndiscussion 9y ago
I have basically no sympathy for Google and Facebook here. I think they get what they deserve with their practices. Perhaps it didn't come across clearly, but the main problem (imo) is the conflict of interest this introduced between eyeo and its users.
- yborg 9y ago
  The fact that a product named, plainly, "AdBlock Plus" that doesn't make clear that the "Plus" means "Plus all ads from the 2 largest purveyors of Internet advertising" is worth pointing out.
  - whyever 9y ago
    You are being hysterical. The plus is there for historical reasons, way before acceptable ads were a thing.
    - dang 9y ago
      We ban accounts that do personal attacks and name-calling, so could you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do that here? Your comment would be fine with just the second sentence.
  - hungryfoolish 9y ago
    As long as those ads are not annoying. I'm guessing that the ads from google and fb still need to pass the acceptable ads guidelines.
- ryanmerket 9y ago
  Facebook doesn’t pay. They hacked around ABP and blocked THEM from working on Facebook.com.
Finnucane 9y ago
It seems that the problem is people have different reactions to ads. Some want no ads at all, some don't mind ads as such, but are wary of ads with heavy js and video payloads that cause slowdowns and are potentially malign. There doesn't seem to be a good solution that allows the user to easily modulate what they'll accept.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  An added complication is that one party will buy ad space from Google, and then turn around and sell it on to another party that may put up quite different ads from what was initially claimed.
- qplex 9y ago
  Don't forget all the tracking and the profiling. They hardly ask your consent for that. I really wouldn't feel bad about any adblocking. And for anyone that wants to run ads : just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks.
  - davidfischer 9y ago
    > And for anyone that wants to run ads : just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks. I thought so too. Once you reach a certain size, even 1st party ads get blocked.
    - davvolun 9y ago
      Yeah, but... > Once you reach a certain size Top 5 annoying ads of all time for me are autoplaying Youtube ads -- which I would think would be self-hosted.
  - parametrek 9y ago
    > just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks. In what universe do you live? Every little forum that self-hosts ads is already in the blocklists.
  - 9y ago
dasil003 9y ago
I don't think the issue is about the minutiae of who's paying whom. It's more the idea that a service which was created to serve the users by blocking ads, is subverted into yet another ad-tech vendor, skimming cream for themselves based on strip-mining the brand equity of what was once a principled venture.
RivieraKid 9y ago
> I think the author intends for me to be outraged, but I'm not. Problem is that Google and Facebook are partial monopolies. It's not fair.
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  Google and Facebook being partial monopolies might be a bad thing, but that would mean it's even less of a bad thing that they're the only ones who have to pay Adblock Plus while the non-monopolies don't have to pay, wouldn't it?
  - RivieraKid 9y ago
    If the choice is between paying nothing to get whitelisted and paying pocket change, then the latter is preferable of course. But there's a third option, adblockers that can't be bribed by these partial monopolies. I've always used ABP without thinking about it but today I switched to uBlock Origin and it's been amazing, no sponsored links, no annoying popups. In my view, advertising doesn't create value, the world would be a better place without it.
- exolymph 9y ago
  They're monopolies by user choice, which is a fundamentally different dynamic from monopolies of old. https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/

ndiscussion 9y ago

I have basically no sympathy for Google and Facebook here. I think they get what they deserve with their practices. Perhaps it didn't come across clearly, but the main problem (imo) is the conflict of interest this introduced between eyeo and its users.

yborg 9y ago
The fact that a product named, plainly, "AdBlock Plus" that doesn't make clear that the "Plus" means "Plus all ads from the 2 largest purveyors of Internet advertising" is worth pointing out.
- whyever 9y ago
  You are being hysterical. The plus is there for historical reasons, way before acceptable ads were a thing.
  - dang 9y ago
    We ban accounts that do personal attacks and name-calling, so could you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do that here? Your comment would be fine with just the second sentence.
- hungryfoolish 9y ago
  As long as those ads are not annoying. I'm guessing that the ads from google and fb still need to pass the acceptable ads guidelines.
ryanmerket 9y ago
Facebook doesn’t pay. They hacked around ABP and blocked THEM from working on Facebook.com.

Finnucane 9y ago

It seems that the problem is people have different reactions to ads. Some want no ads at all, some don't mind ads as such, but are wary of ads with heavy js and video payloads that cause slowdowns and are potentially malign. There doesn't seem to be a good solution that allows the user to easily modulate what they'll accept.

digi_owl 9y ago
An added complication is that one party will buy ad space from Google, and then turn around and sell it on to another party that may put up quite different ads from what was initially claimed.
qplex 9y ago
Don't forget all the tracking and the profiling. They hardly ask your consent for that. I really wouldn't feel bad about any adblocking. And for anyone that wants to run ads : just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks.
- davidfischer 9y ago
  > And for anyone that wants to run ads : just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks. I thought so too. Once you reach a certain size, even 1st party ads get blocked.
  - davvolun 9y ago
    Yeah, but... > Once you reach a certain size Top 5 annoying ads of all time for me are autoplaying Youtube ads -- which I would think would be self-hosted.
- parametrek 9y ago
  > just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks. In what universe do you live? Every little forum that self-hosts ads is already in the blocklists.
- 9y ago

dasil003 9y ago

I don't think the issue is about the minutiae of who's paying whom. It's more the idea that a service which was created to serve the users by blocking ads, is subverted into yet another ad-tech vendor, skimming cream for themselves based on strip-mining the brand equity of what was once a principled venture.

RivieraKid 9y ago

> I think the author intends for me to be outraged, but I'm not. Problem is that Google and Facebook are partial monopolies. It's not fair.

jimmaswell 9y ago
Google and Facebook being partial monopolies might be a bad thing, but that would mean it's even less of a bad thing that they're the only ones who have to pay Adblock Plus while the non-monopolies don't have to pay, wouldn't it?
- RivieraKid 9y ago
  If the choice is between paying nothing to get whitelisted and paying pocket change, then the latter is preferable of course. But there's a third option, adblockers that can't be bribed by these partial monopolies. I've always used ABP without thinking about it but today I switched to uBlock Origin and it's been amazing, no sponsored links, no annoying popups. In my view, advertising doesn't create value, the world would be a better place without it.
exolymph 9y ago
They're monopolies by user choice, which is a fundamentally different dynamic from monopolies of old. https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/