3 ms·

As clickbaity as the ads are, the actual technology used to show them is much better than most ad networks. Last I looked into outbrain, the ads were simply a

As clickbaity as the ads are, the actual technology used to show them is much better than most ad networks. Last I looked into outbrain, the ads were simply a picture and some text. These linked to the advertised site. All images and scripts were hosted by outbrain themselves so there was no third party scripts running or other dubious content that could be inserted. So in terms of security, outbrains ads were doing a lot better than, say, Google's ad network. Of course what is being advertised is more dubious but that's always been an issue with clicking random ads.

Kiro 7y ago
Yeah, the clickbait itself is enough to criticize without adding unnecessary exaggeration. Now we just look stupid by attributing things that simply are not true. It happens way too often here. People are in pitchfork mode and upvote the most slandering comment, even if it's false.
Bartweiss 7y ago
I definitely understand why "acceptable ads" offends so many people. Between approving clickbait and their steep 30% cut for "large" Acceptable Ads members, it's clearly not simply for the benefit of users. And the rules on "unobtrusive" static images simply don't seem to be honored. But I have to admit that the ABP model is at least a massive improvement over nothing. It "just works" better than more vigorous tools, and it pretty reliably keeps out malware - especially the stuff that can affect you without being clicked. I don't like Outbrain's clickbait ads, but they're at least part of the debate around "is it fair to use sites while knowingly avoiding their monetization?" As far as I'm concerned, that entire debate is a nonstarter if it implies loading whatever wretched JS happens to be served by a page. ABP is sufficient to let us talk about honesty and distraction, which apply to TV or print ads also. Otherwise, I think the conversation begins and ends with security and privacy.

Kiro 7y ago

Yeah, the clickbait itself is enough to criticize without adding unnecessary exaggeration. Now we just look stupid by attributing things that simply are not true. It happens way too often here. People are in pitchfork mode and upvote the most slandering comment, even if it's false.

Bartweiss 7y ago

I definitely understand why "acceptable ads" offends so many people. Between approving clickbait and their steep 30% cut for "large" Acceptable Ads members, it's clearly not simply for the benefit of users. And the rules on "unobtrusive" static images simply don't seem to be honored. But I have to admit that the ABP model is at least a massive improvement over nothing. It "just works" better than more vigorous tools, and it pretty reliably keeps out malware - especially the stuff that can affect you without being clicked. I don't like Outbrain's clickbait ads, but they're at least part of the debate around "is it fair to use sites while knowingly avoiding their monetization?" As far as I'm concerned, that entire debate is a nonstarter if it implies loading whatever wretched JS happens to be served by a page. ABP is sufficient to let us talk about honesty and distraction, which apply to TV or print ads also. Otherwise, I think the conversation begins and ends with security and privacy.