5 ms·

There's a setting in Adblock Plus that allows you to turn the "unintrusive ads" whitelist off. You don't need a separate add-on. I haven't felt the need to chan

by mhaymo 12y ago

There's a setting in Adblock Plus that allows you to turn the "unintrusive ads" whitelist off. You don't need a separate add-on. I haven't felt the need to change the setting.

miah_ 12y ago
Ya, I'd rather not give them money if their policy is to allow some ads if given $.
- mhaymo 12y ago
  ABP's free. Getting on the whitelist is also free for "all small- and medium websites and blogs". https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads-agreements https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads-agreements If you're ok with blocking ads, I don't see how allowing companies to pay a fee to have them unblocked hurts anyone. If it feels icky then maybe ad blocking is icky.
  - zz1 12y ago
    Yes, but whitelist is supposed to be for unobtrusive and not tracking ads. Then Google pays and… it is on whitelist! I cannot help but think that by using ABP instead of Adblock Edge you are giving ABP developers means to blackmail advertising companies. And not getting the protection you want in the first place.
    - mhaymo 12y ago
      That's not my understanding of how it works. You cannot pay to get obtrusive or tracking ads on the whitelist. If you are a large company (how exactly that's defined isn't clear), you need to pay to get your unobtrusive ads whitelisted. https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads
      - throwaway2048 12y ago
        Google ads are tracking ads, and the ability to track is not listed as an unacceptable criterion.
      - tripzilch 12y ago
        > You cannot pay to get obtrusive or tracking ads on the whitelist. > If you are a large company (how exactly that's defined isn't clear), you need to pay to get your unobtrusive ads whitelisted. Yeah that's a pretty clear conflict of interest, isn't it? And it's violated right there with Google because the type of tracking ads that Google Ads are shouldn't have been allowed. For a non-paying party. As long as they stay true to their self-imposed rules for "acceptable ads".
  - BrainInAJar 12y ago
    > If it feels icky then maybe ad blocking is icky. Or perhaps the ads themselves are the icky part, and internet complacency in finding other business models is the problem
  - serf 12y ago
    > If you're ok with blocking ads, I don't see how allowing companies to pay a fee to have them unblocked hurts anyone. If it feels icky then maybe ad blocking is icky. Couldn't be further from the truth. Ad revenue is icky by itself, in nearly any form. The fact that an industry sprung up to counter it (ad block software) points to the fact that the general public likely agrees with that. If you don't feel that the psychological tracking and trickery of John Q. Public in order to sell him a new toilet paper holder is 'icky', then I don't know what to tell you. I do, and it seems many others share my feelings.
Karunamon 12y ago
As far as I'm concerned, this is like a malware author asking an antivirus company to not detect some things. And the company acquiescing, because there's no real harm. But in the end, it's all still malware. In other words, it's a pretty massive conflict of interest. If I wanted to look at ads, I wouldn't have installed an ad blocking plugin. Combined with the "private" list that nobody can see, there is plenty of reason to use a fork that has no such conflicts.
- mhaymo 12y ago
  It's not a private list: https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#list https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#list https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    There are two "allow" methods, one from the acceptable ads list, which is public, and another via an "x-adblock-key" that can be provided in an HTTP header. There is no list of which sites use the key.
  - y4mi 12y ago
    as wreegab pointed out earlier > So in fact there is really a public list and a private list it appears (through the x-adblock-key header), while the public list is presented as all there is to "acceptable ads". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8103119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8103119
    - martin56 12y ago
      No, there is no private list, it's just the public one. You can check out the key header whitelist here: http://cheme.com/ http://cheme.com/ Visit this site with "Acceptable Ads" enabled and disabled and you will see the difference. Notice the "data-adblockkey" in the source. This was publically announced in their "Acceptable Ads proposal" forum here and later added to the public list: https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=17699 https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=17699

by mhaymo 12y ago

There's a setting in Adblock Plus that allows you to turn the "unintrusive ads" whitelist off. You don't need a separate add-on. I haven't felt the need to change the setting.

miah_ 12y ago

Ya, I'd rather not give them money if their policy is to allow some ads if given $.

mhaymo 12y ago
ABP's free. Getting on the whitelist is also free for "all small- and medium websites and blogs". https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads-agreements https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads-agreements If you're ok with blocking ads, I don't see how allowing companies to pay a fee to have them unblocked hurts anyone. If it feels icky then maybe ad blocking is icky.
- zz1 12y ago
  Yes, but whitelist is supposed to be for unobtrusive and not tracking ads. Then Google pays and… it is on whitelist! I cannot help but think that by using ABP instead of Adblock Edge you are giving ABP developers means to blackmail advertising companies. And not getting the protection you want in the first place.
  - mhaymo 12y ago
    That's not my understanding of how it works. You cannot pay to get obtrusive or tracking ads on the whitelist. If you are a large company (how exactly that's defined isn't clear), you need to pay to get your unobtrusive ads whitelisted. https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads
    - throwaway2048 12y ago
      Google ads are tracking ads, and the ability to track is not listed as an unacceptable criterion.
    - tripzilch 12y ago
      > You cannot pay to get obtrusive or tracking ads on the whitelist. > If you are a large company (how exactly that's defined isn't clear), you need to pay to get your unobtrusive ads whitelisted. Yeah that's a pretty clear conflict of interest, isn't it? And it's violated right there with Google because the type of tracking ads that Google Ads are shouldn't have been allowed. For a non-paying party. As long as they stay true to their self-imposed rules for "acceptable ads".
- BrainInAJar 12y ago
  > If it feels icky then maybe ad blocking is icky. Or perhaps the ads themselves are the icky part, and internet complacency in finding other business models is the problem
- serf 12y ago
  > If you're ok with blocking ads, I don't see how allowing companies to pay a fee to have them unblocked hurts anyone. If it feels icky then maybe ad blocking is icky. Couldn't be further from the truth. Ad revenue is icky by itself, in nearly any form. The fact that an industry sprung up to counter it (ad block software) points to the fact that the general public likely agrees with that. If you don't feel that the psychological tracking and trickery of John Q. Public in order to sell him a new toilet paper holder is 'icky', then I don't know what to tell you. I do, and it seems many others share my feelings.

Karunamon 12y ago

As far as I'm concerned, this is like a malware author asking an antivirus company to not detect some things. And the company acquiescing, because there's no real harm. But in the end, it's all still malware. In other words, it's a pretty massive conflict of interest. If I wanted to look at ads, I wouldn't have installed an ad blocking plugin. Combined with the "private" list that nobody can see, there is plenty of reason to use a fork that has no such conflicts.

mhaymo 12y ago
It's not a private list: https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#list https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#list https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...
- Karunamon 12y ago
  There are two "allow" methods, one from the acceptable ads list, which is public, and another via an "x-adblock-key" that can be provided in an HTTP header. There is no list of which sites use the key.
- y4mi 12y ago
  as wreegab pointed out earlier > So in fact there is really a public list and a private list it appears (through the x-adblock-key header), while the public list is presented as all there is to "acceptable ads". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8103119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8103119
  - martin56 12y ago
    No, there is no private list, it's just the public one. You can check out the key header whitelist here: http://cheme.com/ http://cheme.com/ Visit this site with "Acceptable Ads" enabled and disabled and you will see the difference. Notice the "data-adblockkey" in the source. This was publically announced in their "Acceptable Ads proposal" forum here and later added to the public list: https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=17699 https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=17699