3 ms·

Just a reminder that Adblock Plus has a pretty shady business model.

onemoresoop 5y ago
Yeah, they let some ads pass through. That is quite okay as compared to full on storm of ads. If there was no way to block ads Id probably be happy to downsize my internet usage.
diffeomorphism 5y ago
What is supposed to be shady about it? Their definition of "acceptable" seems straightforward and paying for certification seems like a pretty standard business model. If they were to bend their definition for money, that woukd be shady. Do they?
- lolinder 5y ago
  The last time I used AdBlock Plus, I was horrified to discover that they considered Taboola (the clickbait network that, at least at the time, used shocking images to draw attention) to be "acceptable". I was browsing the web with AdBlock Plus and found myself assaulted by an image of someone's fungus-infected toenail or something similarly nauseating. I went to report it as a mistake on their forums only to find there was already a thread about Taboola, and they were firm that Taboola was "acceptable". The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money. I went to uBlock that day and haven't looked back. Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it.
  - diffeomorphism 5y ago
    > The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money. So it is just your imagination. Their definition of "acceptable" is here: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria > Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it. You did not even read it, but just immediately jumped to "shady"/bribery.... > I wanted no part of it. Me neither, but you spreading misinformation is not okay.
    - lolinder 5y ago
      I never said they didn't have a definition. I read it at the time and again yesterday. When I said "whatever definition ... they were using", I was saying that they were not using their own published definition. If they were, Taboola would never have been allowed through. The policy on images is the one that is relevant to my complaint, so let's look at that one: > Static image ads may qualify as acceptable, according to an evaluation of their unobtrusiveness based on their integration on the webpage. The policy was stricter back in 2015 (http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplu...): > Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images It changed to the one with more wiggle room in February 2016, in the middle of a backlash against AdBlock Plus's continued tolerance for Taboola's antics. Here's that thread for context: https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991 https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991 Under either definition, it's hard to argue that Taboola's images were "acceptable". They were explicitly designed to grab attention, bore no relation to the text content of the ad, and frequently were disgusting specifically because gross images draw the eye. Adblock Plus kept insisting that Taboola was cooperating, but users (including myself) kept reporting over and over again that their garbage was getting through. After years of violations that get dismissed as "mistakes" (documented in part on the thread linked above), it's reasonable to assume that the only reason they weren't dropped like a hot potato was because they were paying to not be dropped.

Yeah, they let some ads pass through. That is quite okay as compared to full on storm of ads. If there was no way to block ads Id probably be happy to downsize my internet usage.

diffeomorphism 5y ago

What is supposed to be shady about it? Their definition of "acceptable" seems straightforward and paying for certification seems like a pretty standard business model. If they were to bend their definition for money, that woukd be shady. Do they?

lolinder 5y ago
The last time I used AdBlock Plus, I was horrified to discover that they considered Taboola (the clickbait network that, at least at the time, used shocking images to draw attention) to be "acceptable". I was browsing the web with AdBlock Plus and found myself assaulted by an image of someone's fungus-infected toenail or something similarly nauseating. I went to report it as a mistake on their forums only to find there was already a thread about Taboola, and they were firm that Taboola was "acceptable". The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money. I went to uBlock that day and haven't looked back. Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it.
- diffeomorphism 5y ago
  > The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money. So it is just your imagination. Their definition of "acceptable" is here: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria > Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it. You did not even read it, but just immediately jumped to "shady"/bribery.... > I wanted no part of it. Me neither, but you spreading misinformation is not okay.
  - lolinder 5y ago
    I never said they didn't have a definition. I read it at the time and again yesterday. When I said "whatever definition ... they were using", I was saying that they were not using their own published definition. If they were, Taboola would never have been allowed through. The policy on images is the one that is relevant to my complaint, so let's look at that one: > Static image ads may qualify as acceptable, according to an evaluation of their unobtrusiveness based on their integration on the webpage. The policy was stricter back in 2015 (http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplu...): > Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images It changed to the one with more wiggle room in February 2016, in the middle of a backlash against AdBlock Plus's continued tolerance for Taboola's antics. Here's that thread for context: https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991 https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991 Under either definition, it's hard to argue that Taboola's images were "acceptable". They were explicitly designed to grab attention, bore no relation to the text content of the ad, and frequently were disgusting specifically because gross images draw the eye. Adblock Plus kept insisting that Taboola was cooperating, but users (including myself) kept reporting over and over again that their garbage was getting through. After years of violations that get dismissed as "mistakes" (documented in part on the thread linked above), it's reasonable to assume that the only reason they weren't dropped like a hot potato was because they were paying to not be dropped.