3 ms·

> because adblocking applies to all sites I do wish that uBlock Origin had a opt-in mode per domain. I would disable blocking by default and only enable it on

> because adblocking applies to all sites I do wish that uBlock Origin had a opt-in mode per domain. I would disable blocking by default and only enable it on sites that were particularly obnoxious. This would in theory incentive sites to actually have reasonable ads (because they get some rather than no revenue).

Workaccount2 2y ago
IIRC Adguard? Ad-Bloc? Whoever the OG ad-block extension was tried something similar to this and I believe it was the cause of their downfall. Basically they struck a deal with advertisers to let some ads through that were deemed mild. The backlash was immense. Here is the core problem, and I promise you this is true. Most sites want to maximize ad-revenue. Most users don't want to see a single ad anywhere.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  That is not similar to what the parent user is asking for at all.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  What killed it was not the deal. The deal divided the uses into a group that abandoned it, and a group that decided to support it. The author then decided to take money to not block the mild advertisers. Then he stopped blocking worse and worse ads. At some point at the last step, enough people left that he stopped developing and sold the extension. and then, the buyer decided to use the extension to gather user data to sell to advertisers. At this point it still had enough users to be worthwhile.
- giantrobot 2y ago
  > Most users don't want to see a single ad anywhere. I don't actually mind seeing ads. I actually long for magazine ads. It was (mostly) obvious they were ads, they had to actually advertise a thing, and they didn't try to take me outside of the magazine. There was also a strong correlation between the type of content in the magazine and the ads themselves. Some ads were very creative or visually appealing so the point I still remember them years and decades later. What I do mind is advertisements trying to pull me away from the content I'm currently reading, tracking me all over the web, and showing me ads based on their tracking rather than related to the content I'm reading. I don't want a fucking video overlayed on a text article I'm trying to read. I don't want to be tracked everywhere on the web. If a site collects data about me, especially data I enter willingly into their system, I want a say in the governance of that data. The major problem I see with modern web advertising is a lack of informed consent. Just throwing up a boilerplate "we'll share with partners" is not sufficient for me to make an informed decision to consent to data collection. People can't make informed choices and that data sharing with partners means they're sharing that information with their partners and so on. All of that transitive sharing is done without express consent by the end users. It's not the ad I'm opposed to seeing but all of the bullshit behind the ad I can't see.
mulmen 2y ago
I don’t negotiate with terrorists.
wkat4242 2y ago
Well it has opt-out so you can turn it off to support a site. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a toggle somewhere to reverse the behaviour. But I personally never make an exception for anything ever. So I'm really happy with the default. I do pay a subscription to a few sites but I would never allow ads, even when they are tracking-free.
- kevincox 2y ago
  > I wouldn't be surprised if it has a toggle somewhere to reverse the behaviour. I checked and I'm pretty confident it doesn't. There are lots of people asking for this feature and the conclusion says that allow by default and opt-in to blocking isn't available.
dgb23 2y ago
I don't quite understand. uBlock lets you opt in/out per domain. I regularly turn it off and on for specific sites.
- kevincox 2y ago
  It lets you opt-out per domain. But it doesn't let you have it off by default and opt-in per domain.
  - chuckadams 2y ago
    I believe you can enable the extension itself only for certain domains.

Workaccount2 2y ago

IIRC Adguard? Ad-Bloc? Whoever the OG ad-block extension was tried something similar to this and I believe it was the cause of their downfall. Basically they struck a deal with advertisers to let some ads through that were deemed mild. The backlash was immense. Here is the core problem, and I promise you this is true. Most sites want to maximize ad-revenue. Most users don't want to see a single ad anywhere.

BadHumans 2y ago
That is not similar to what the parent user is asking for at all.
marcosdumay 2y ago
What killed it was not the deal. The deal divided the uses into a group that abandoned it, and a group that decided to support it. The author then decided to take money to not block the mild advertisers. Then he stopped blocking worse and worse ads. At some point at the last step, enough people left that he stopped developing and sold the extension. and then, the buyer decided to use the extension to gather user data to sell to advertisers. At this point it still had enough users to be worthwhile.
giantrobot 2y ago
> Most users don't want to see a single ad anywhere. I don't actually mind seeing ads. I actually long for magazine ads. It was (mostly) obvious they were ads, they had to actually advertise a thing, and they didn't try to take me outside of the magazine. There was also a strong correlation between the type of content in the magazine and the ads themselves. Some ads were very creative or visually appealing so the point I still remember them years and decades later. What I do mind is advertisements trying to pull me away from the content I'm currently reading, tracking me all over the web, and showing me ads based on their tracking rather than related to the content I'm reading. I don't want a fucking video overlayed on a text article I'm trying to read. I don't want to be tracked everywhere on the web. If a site collects data about me, especially data I enter willingly into their system, I want a say in the governance of that data. The major problem I see with modern web advertising is a lack of informed consent. Just throwing up a boilerplate "we'll share with partners" is not sufficient for me to make an informed decision to consent to data collection. People can't make informed choices and that data sharing with partners means they're sharing that information with their partners and so on. All of that transitive sharing is done without express consent by the end users. It's not the ad I'm opposed to seeing but all of the bullshit behind the ad I can't see.

mulmen 2y ago

I don’t negotiate with terrorists.

wkat4242 2y ago

Well it has opt-out so you can turn it off to support a site. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a toggle somewhere to reverse the behaviour. But I personally never make an exception for anything ever. So I'm really happy with the default. I do pay a subscription to a few sites but I would never allow ads, even when they are tracking-free.

kevincox 2y ago
> I wouldn't be surprised if it has a toggle somewhere to reverse the behaviour. I checked and I'm pretty confident it doesn't. There are lots of people asking for this feature and the conclusion says that allow by default and opt-in to blocking isn't available.

dgb23 2y ago

I don't quite understand. uBlock lets you opt in/out per domain. I regularly turn it off and on for specific sites.

kevincox 2y ago
It lets you opt-out per domain. But it doesn't let you have it off by default and opt-in per domain.
- chuckadams 2y ago
  I believe you can enable the extension itself only for certain domains.