12 ms·

AdBlock Plus defeats German publishers in court

187 points by halfimmortal 11y ago

mkesper 11y ago
"giving people the ability to control their own screens by letting them block annoying ads and protect their privacy" Bold statement for a company selling its own ads: http://www.ghacks.net/2011/12/12/adblock-plus-to-allow-acceptable-ads/ http://www.ghacks.net/2011/12/12/adblock-plus-to-allow-accep...
- eli 11y ago
  I guess the emphasis is on "annoying"
- fwn 11y ago
  Why do you think this is bold? Clearly, the argument for more control over what to download isn't connected to selling (or not selling) ads.
- forgotpasswd3x 11y ago
  It's not selling it's own ads, it's allowing some ads to go through if they meet the following criteria: https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria Also, you can turn it off.
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    It's right there in the article, if you'd read it: Although AdBlock Plus states that "no one can buy their way onto the white list", it does charge fees for what it terms "support services", the details of which are not made public. In February, the Financial Times reported that one unnamed media company had said it had been asked to pass on the equivalent of 30% of the extra revenues it would have made by having ads on its platform unblocked. That has led some critics to claim that the Eyeo is engaged in a "racket".
    - true_religion 11y ago
      If it truly happened, what's the harm in the company naming itself. They would have proof--emails or other communication from Adblock Plus.
- steamy 11y ago
  It's also funny and hypocritical of them to block social media buttons and upon clicking on their Chrome extension button, you're invited to share the number of blocked requests on these same platforms.
EpicDavi 11y ago
> "It infringes the freedom of the press." How so? Just because an article is published by the press, does not mean I am obligated to view it. The users who install AdBlock are doing so on their free will, not being forced by governmental or other propaganda groups.
- fwn 11y ago
  I think this view comes from the idea that "freedom of the press" can be understood as "publishers should never feel the economic pressure to change". Besides reducing press to current publishers, this view is confusing a negative right (to publish anything) with a positive one (to make a living with ads).
- danneu 11y ago
  Seems like this is what they're referring to: > Their publishers had sought damages, but said their motivation > was to challenge the software provider's wider business model. > While AdBlock Plus offers its web browser add-on to the public > for free, it makes money by operating a "white list" of adverts that > it allows to get through its filters. For example: > In February, the Financial Times reported that one unnamed > media company had said it had been asked to pass on the > equivalent of 30% of the extra revenues it would have made > by having ads on its platform unblocked.
RegW 11y ago
I believe that everyone is entitled to make a living from what they do, and that ads support much of the creation of the content I want to read. So for sometime I only used AdBlockPlus to block particular ad venders that really got my goat with intrusive material. However, the vendors would switch domain names constantly, and it just got to be taking up to much time to keep adding each new one to the list. Now I just block them all. I guess it is only a matter of time before ad blocking becomes the norm for users, and site owners will forced to bake ads into their pages. Lets hope that when they take back control, they also try push up the quality of the ads they take.
a3n 11y ago
The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users. Publishers and content creators say "If you don't like what you hear from someone on the TV or radio, change the channel." It's free speech, after all. Maybe it's time for publishers and creators to live that credo, and not deliver to consumers that they don't like.
- xyby 11y ago
  Yes, I find it very interesting that the publishers in this trial said their content and their ads are an "inseparable unit" and still they do deliver the content to visitors with adblockers. They could block users with adblockers or they could just circumvent the adblockers. Many sites already show alternative content where blocked ads would have been. All you cannot do is to link through central ad-markets. Thats easily blockable. But a direct link to advertisers can never be blocked. Because the adblocker cannot know if the link to some site was paid for or not. I can understand that Google does not dare to go this way with adsense. If adblock would decide to block ads on googles own websites, billions of yearly revenue would go up in smoke. But other publishers, who are not in bed with adblockers, should probably try linking directy to advertisers. At least as alternative content, when the ad-market ads are blocked. A startup that creates a market for direkt-linking-ads could become huge.
- danieldk 11y ago
  The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users. What could possibly go wrong? :) Let's not forget that e.g. Die Zeit actually has subscribers (i.e. my wife) who might not be amused and end their subscriptions. Why not seek different models for non-subscribers instead. E.g. for my native language (Dutch) Blendle [1] is becoming more and more popular. They are basically a paywall, but offer many newspapers, reasonable curation, a money-back guarantee (if an article is not what you expected), and recommendations based on e.g. Twitter followers. Monthly, I am probably spending the price of a subscription, because they have made it so easy to actually purchase content without ads and other annoyances. [1] https://blendle.com/ https://blendle.com/
Geekette 11y ago
Good for AdBlock Plus! Even if they lost, what's to stop hundreds of (potentially untrackable) clones suddenly popping up to continue helping users block ads? I guess it is easier for big press to push/bully to maintain the status quo, rather than think through a new online revenue model.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Lancey 11y ago
Of course, rather than attempt to fix poor ad practices and encourage users to disable adblockers on their sites, these publishers have decided to go after the software itself. Who can blame users for using an adblocker when it regularly blocks 20+ ads per page?
- TheHypnotist 11y ago
  Not to mention they are chasing what might be the most advertiser friendly adblocker out there.
kbart 11y ago
Advertisers got what they deserved -- annoying pop up windows, animated ads with sound, floating ads, also user tracking created a market for ads blocker. I don't mind non intrusive banner ads and enable them on sites I visit frequently. Make ads user friendly and the problem will be gone (except, maybe, some geeks who will still use ad blockers, but that's minority anyway). Trying to solve problems via courts and not addressing the root cause will not help much.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Indeed. I had an exchange just the other day here on HN with an advertiser. It's a starch reminder that the whole business smells rotten. As I said in my final comment, advertisers will costume themselves as the white knights protecting the businesses they deal with, but they only care about themselves - the users of said businesses are just peasants. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9402372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9402372
  - derefr 11y ago
    *stark reminder. Fun eggcorn!
- austenallred 11y ago
  Is there ad blocker that only blocks the annoying ads, not the ones that we deem "OK?" Or do we just use the actions of the few to punish all ad-supported platforms? I mean I get it, ads are yucky, privacy concerns, etc. But as someone who has used ad revenue as the only means to pay for content a lot of people loved, if too many people decide ads are too taxing for them to view, the content can no longer be supported. I fear that as adblocker becomes more standard (I'm not sure it's only geeks using it; I have plenty of friends who aren't "geeks" who do), ad-supported companies will start to not allow you to see content if you have an adblocker on (like ESPN) or just make more native content. Creating things to read or view costs money. If we say the people that create them don't deserve to make that money back through ad revenue, we also have to be aware of the consequences - that this type of content will largely cease to exist. It's your prerogative at the end of the day, but a lot of the stuff I love wouldn't exist without advertising.
dec0dedab0de 11y ago
Isn't the simple solution to just deliver the ads from the same server as the content? If abp can't tell the difference between an advertisement, and an image that is part of the article, then they can't block it. Sure, it will kill a lot of the things current ad networks are doing, but good riddance.
- lmns 11y ago
  ABP hides ads from the same domain with CSS filters.
  - mckoss 11y ago
    How does it distinguish Ad from Content in that case?
    - gtk40 11y ago
      Just take a look at one of the filter lists: e.g., https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt
      - mckoss 11y ago
        Thanks. So it seems all a publisher has to do is avoid using ad-like terminology in their ad URLs. They can just stick them in /images/id along with regular content images and AdBlocm will have no way to tell them difference.
        thaumasiotes 11y ago
        Yes it will -- just include the ads in /images/id on a blacklist. To prevent the ad from being blocked, you'd need to randomize its url.
- shultays 11y ago
  Websites can detect adblock. They can already block the content if they wish, they chose not to
mahouse 11y ago
From their own website, https://adblockplus.org/blog/restating-the-obvious-adblocking-declared-legal https://adblockplus.org/blog/restating-the-obvious-adblockin... > Now that the legalities are out of the way, we want to reach out to other publishers and advertisers and content creators and encourage them to work with Adblock Plus rather than against us. Let’s develop new forms of nonintrusive ads that are actually useful and welcomed by users; let’s discover ways to make better ads; let’s push forward to create a more sustainable Internet ecosystem for everyone. > You know where to reach us. This is not blackmailing. At all. :-)
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  This is the kind of blackmailing I will support :). Advertisers are invaders, we (the consumers) have a right to push back. EDIT: I didn't know ABP is building a business out of paid whitelisting. I'll need to read more about that. I am, however, still fully supporting publishers being forced by all ad blockers to find a less malicious way of earning money.
  - mahouse 11y ago
    How short-sighted.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Could you elaborate on why exactly is this short-sighted?
      - mahouse 11y ago
        You don't care about that blackmailing, but you will probably start caring when publishers start paying AdBlock cash so they show their ads.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I've read some other comments; I didn't realize that ABP is building a sort of "pay me to show ads" business. This is something I don't like and I will re-evaluate my position on this particular piece of software. I am, however, still supporting the proliferation of ad blockers in general, and forcing publishers to find ways to earn money that don't involve forcing crap down people's throats.
germanier 11y ago
Just heads up, for anyone who hasn't read the article: The publishers mainly went against AdBlock Plus not because it blocks ads (though surely a welcome side effect) but because they offer advertisers to put their ads on a whitelist for a fee.
- btdollar 11y ago
  I went into the article expecting to be having a laugh at publishers but I agree wholeheartedly. ABP is a yelp-style racket. uBlock all the way.
- shmerl 11y ago
  It's just an angle of attack. They couldn't just say "hey, the user has no right to block ads!". But of course they don't like it to begin with.
- nsomaru 11y ago
  @btdollar, just to note, your account is hellbanned.
  - abandonliberty 11y ago
    I thought the strategy was not to tell them?
    - LukeShu 11y ago
      Generally, yes, because hell-banning is for trolls, bots, and those who routinely make bad posts. However, sometimes someone gets hell-banned for one extremely down-voted comment, but in general are making decent comments. It's a common courtesy to inform these people if you run across it.
  - saganus 11y ago
    What does it mean to be hellbanned and why can we see the posts anyway?
    - 11y ago
sarciszewski 11y ago
I use AdBlock Edge, which doesn't offer a whitelist of "acceptable" ads. :)
- gtk40 11y ago
  Same. I switched as soon as I heard about this policy. My only exception is that I still use ABP in IE, as I don't know of a better solution for that browser.
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    I don't use IE anymore (rarely on a Windows box outside of work).
- XzetaU8 11y ago
  ABE will be discontinued on June though.
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    :( Damn, I need to switch to Lynx then.
- sergiotapia 11y ago
  Use uBlock.
Jamie452 11y ago
What if it's in a websites terms of service that adverts must be viewed to access the site - how would that work, and who would be in breach of agreement?
- Zikes 11y ago
  Website TOS is shrink-wrapped. There's no way for me to get to it without violating it in that case, except to whitelist new sites by default, which would make me vulnerable to tracker ads. Shrink-wrapped agreements are legally tenuous at best. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract
- DannyBee 11y ago
  That would work by setting precedent that it was unenforceable :)
unicornporn 11y ago
> Now that the legalities are out of the way, we want to reach out to other publishers and advertisers and content creators and encourage them to work with Adblock Plus rather than against us. Let’s develop new forms of nonintrusive ads that are actually useful and welcomed by users [...] This is one of the reasons I chose another adblocker (uBlock). I have no moral qualms when it comes to blocking ads, but I don't feel too hot about this guy building a business by making other businesses pay him money to let their ads through.
- devonharvey 11y ago
  I also prefer uBlock. Allowing some ads through in order to extort advertisers is not only shady, it interferes with Adblock Plus's only function--blocking ads. Does any user prefer an extension that blocks most, but not all of them?
  - coldpie 11y ago
    Users that recognize that some websites rely on their ad revenue for their existenc eand want to support the continued existence of this business model might prefer not to block all ads, yes. I'm not one of them. I'm ready for ad-supported businesses to die.
- TheHypnotist 11y ago
  But they would have to adhere to what the standard would be for an ad to not be annoying. Everyone wins.
- sergiotapia 11y ago
  Exactly. Stop using AdBlock Plus and use uBlock. One is an ad filter and the other is an ad BLOCKER. Go with the blocker. Which one do you want?
  - GhotiFish 11y ago
    Personally? I want ad filter that creates a huge barrier to entry. A barrier that stipulates that an ad must be honest, non deceptive, non invasive, and that the companies behind them arn't using them to mass aggregate users for later sale. I don't think Ad Block Plus is doing that, to be fair. It IS what I want though. I'd love to give advertisers a way to be honest.
phkahler 11y ago
Funny - "It infringes the freedom of the press." I don't know about Germany, but in the US freedom of the press allows them to publish stuff, it does not force people to read it.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  Agreed. I was pretty appalled by this statement from the publishers. As if my ability to control what I want to see and be exposed to is somehow compromising your ability to get your message out. The last time I checked, the internet is merely one part of an advertising platform. Maybe these publishers should try another avenue to get your message out instead of annoying people with its invasive pop-up ads.
vbezhenar 11y ago
It seems like adblock got huge user base on premise to block ads and now monetizes that user base by selling them ads. Does not look like honest strategy to me. It won't work well for them as well, competitors are already there.
balabaster 11y ago
This is awesome... perhaps AdBlockPlus can work on a box that I can sit between my cable box and my TV to block the ads on that too :P
CodeSheikh 11y ago
AdBlock has become evil by introducing this "whitelist" thing. I wonder who seeded them in recent past...
DannyBee 11y ago
I gotta say, pay-per-whitelist seems a lot like an extortion racket to me. (the rest of the arguments they make, sure, moronic, but ...)
kazinator 11y ago
People who think they can put up a website with some content and make money purely from people visiting it and nothing else are incredibly naive. In this day and age, everyone and his dog wants you to look at their site. There is a content glut. In the context of making money, a website is something which provides an enhanced service front end for an existing business which makes money in some other way. We expect every business we interact with to have some kind of web presence, even if minimally functional. (If nothing more, than at least a static page with the address and opening hours). Maintaining the site is a business expense. Sites which don't have a business attached, are just someone's hobby. Complaining about AdBlock is just "Waaah, you're not paying for me for viewing the results of my hobby." (What's worse; most of the content is self-promotional, so it's more like, "Waah, you're not paying for reading my opinions and my self-promotion.") I don't care if some website perishes because it couldn't make money. The web would be better off if all such sites went away, leaving only the sites that provide a "web presence" for a real business, and the sites of those people who have something to present and the money to put it out there. If you can't fund a web site entirely out of your own pocket, you basically don't belong on the web. You're not able to put "your money where your mouth is", literally. There is commercially valuable content out there that people will pay for. That content proves itself to be that way because it can be put behind a "pay wall", and still sustain the site. People do pay for content; look at the growing subscribership of Netflix, for instance. That provides us with a good litmus test: can your content be pay walled such that your site at least breaks even financially? If not, then it has insufficient commercial value. If you still want people to view it, that means you have an agenda. Your agenda is a promotional one, and it goes something like this: "this content is somehow valuable to me, and I want others to know it and like it." If you have such an agenda, it falls upon you to fund it. Ironically, just like those business whose ads you serve through your site are paying to promote their agenda! Also, there is an irony in web advertizing is that it only generates revenue when people click on the ads. But when people click on ads, what are they doing? They are navigating away from the content to look at something more interesting. The theory is that the original site's content "brought" people to the advertizement. But in fact that is not true. What actually happened is more like this: someone was searching for content, and landed on the site. The site turned out to be garbage, filled with stuff not relevant to the search. But, oh, an interesting ad caught the visitor's eye; and so off that visitor went. Hypothesis: When people actually click on ads, it's because your content is worse than garbage, so that going to the ads is a more attractive alternative. The content is just search engine bait to get people to the ad, nothing more.
ssivark 11y ago
The argument against AdBlock seems disingenuous, like spammers complaining about spam filters.
hackuser 11y ago
I don't object to the ads, I object to being tracked. If they posted ads without tracking me, I wouldn't object.
hobarrera 11y ago
The fact is, AdBlock Plus is standing in a very delicate ground. They're not selflessly defending users from ads: they're actually making money via their whitelist, and giving an advantage to their partners. While many will say it's a fair business practice, we'll still have to see how long it's stand in court (appeals?). AdBlock Edge, on the other hand, is on far firmer ground, IMHO.

187 points by halfimmortal 11y ago

"giving people the ability to control their own screens by letting them block annoying ads and protect their privacy" Bold statement for a company selling its own ads: http://www.ghacks.net/2011/12/12/adblock-plus-to-allow-acceptable-ads/ http://www.ghacks.net/2011/12/12/adblock-plus-to-allow-accep...

eli 11y ago
I guess the emphasis is on "annoying"
fwn 11y ago
Why do you think this is bold? Clearly, the argument for more control over what to download isn't connected to selling (or not selling) ads.
forgotpasswd3x 11y ago
It's not selling it's own ads, it's allowing some ads to go through if they meet the following criteria: https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria Also, you can turn it off.
- mattmanser 11y ago
  It's right there in the article, if you'd read it: Although AdBlock Plus states that "no one can buy their way onto the white list", it does charge fees for what it terms "support services", the details of which are not made public. In February, the Financial Times reported that one unnamed media company had said it had been asked to pass on the equivalent of 30% of the extra revenues it would have made by having ads on its platform unblocked. That has led some critics to claim that the Eyeo is engaged in a "racket".
  - true_religion 11y ago
    If it truly happened, what's the harm in the company naming itself. They would have proof--emails or other communication from Adblock Plus.
steamy 11y ago
It's also funny and hypocritical of them to block social media buttons and upon clicking on their Chrome extension button, you're invited to share the number of blocked requests on these same platforms.

EpicDavi 11y ago

> "It infringes the freedom of the press." How so? Just because an article is published by the press, does not mean I am obligated to view it. The users who install AdBlock are doing so on their free will, not being forced by governmental or other propaganda groups.

fwn 11y ago
I think this view comes from the idea that "freedom of the press" can be understood as "publishers should never feel the economic pressure to change". Besides reducing press to current publishers, this view is confusing a negative right (to publish anything) with a positive one (to make a living with ads).
danneu 11y ago
Seems like this is what they're referring to: > Their publishers had sought damages, but said their motivation > was to challenge the software provider's wider business model. > While AdBlock Plus offers its web browser add-on to the public > for free, it makes money by operating a "white list" of adverts that > it allows to get through its filters. For example: > In February, the Financial Times reported that one unnamed > media company had said it had been asked to pass on the > equivalent of 30% of the extra revenues it would have made > by having ads on its platform unblocked.

RegW 11y ago

I believe that everyone is entitled to make a living from what they do, and that ads support much of the creation of the content I want to read. So for sometime I only used AdBlockPlus to block particular ad venders that really got my goat with intrusive material. However, the vendors would switch domain names constantly, and it just got to be taking up to much time to keep adding each new one to the list. Now I just block them all. I guess it is only a matter of time before ad blocking becomes the norm for users, and site owners will forced to bake ads into their pages. Lets hope that when they take back control, they also try push up the quality of the ads they take.

a3n 11y ago

The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users. Publishers and content creators say "If you don't like what you hear from someone on the TV or radio, change the channel." It's free speech, after all. Maybe it's time for publishers and creators to live that credo, and not deliver to consumers that they don't like.

xyby 11y ago
Yes, I find it very interesting that the publishers in this trial said their content and their ads are an "inseparable unit" and still they do deliver the content to visitors with adblockers. They could block users with adblockers or they could just circumvent the adblockers. Many sites already show alternative content where blocked ads would have been. All you cannot do is to link through central ad-markets. Thats easily blockable. But a direct link to advertisers can never be blocked. Because the adblocker cannot know if the link to some site was paid for or not. I can understand that Google does not dare to go this way with adsense. If adblock would decide to block ads on googles own websites, billions of yearly revenue would go up in smoke. But other publishers, who are not in bed with adblockers, should probably try linking directy to advertisers. At least as alternative content, when the ad-market ads are blocked. A startup that creates a market for direkt-linking-ads could become huge.
danieldk 11y ago
The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users. What could possibly go wrong? :) Let's not forget that e.g. Die Zeit actually has subscribers (i.e. my wife) who might not be amused and end their subscriptions. Why not seek different models for non-subscribers instead. E.g. for my native language (Dutch) Blendle [1] is becoming more and more popular. They are basically a paywall, but offer many newspapers, reasonable curation, a money-back guarantee (if an article is not what you expected), and recommendations based on e.g. Twitter followers. Monthly, I am probably spending the price of a subscription, because they have made it so easy to actually purchase content without ads and other annoyances. [1] https://blendle.com/ https://blendle.com/

Geekette 11y ago

Good for AdBlock Plus! Even if they lost, what's to stop hundreds of (potentially untrackable) clones suddenly popping up to continue helping users block ads? I guess it is easier for big press to push/bully to maintain the status quo, rather than think through a new online revenue model.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Lancey 11y ago

Of course, rather than attempt to fix poor ad practices and encourage users to disable adblockers on their sites, these publishers have decided to go after the software itself. Who can blame users for using an adblocker when it regularly blocks 20+ ads per page?

TheHypnotist 11y ago
Not to mention they are chasing what might be the most advertiser friendly adblocker out there.

kbart 11y ago

Advertisers got what they deserved -- annoying pop up windows, animated ads with sound, floating ads, also user tracking created a market for ads blocker. I don't mind non intrusive banner ads and enable them on sites I visit frequently. Make ads user friendly and the problem will be gone (except, maybe, some geeks who will still use ad blockers, but that's minority anyway). Trying to solve problems via courts and not addressing the root cause will not help much.

scrollaway 11y ago
Indeed. I had an exchange just the other day here on HN with an advertiser. It's a starch reminder that the whole business smells rotten. As I said in my final comment, advertisers will costume themselves as the white knights protecting the businesses they deal with, but they only care about themselves - the users of said businesses are just peasants. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9402372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9402372
- derefr 11y ago
  *stark reminder. Fun eggcorn!
austenallred 11y ago
Is there ad blocker that only blocks the annoying ads, not the ones that we deem "OK?" Or do we just use the actions of the few to punish all ad-supported platforms? I mean I get it, ads are yucky, privacy concerns, etc. But as someone who has used ad revenue as the only means to pay for content a lot of people loved, if too many people decide ads are too taxing for them to view, the content can no longer be supported. I fear that as adblocker becomes more standard (I'm not sure it's only geeks using it; I have plenty of friends who aren't "geeks" who do), ad-supported companies will start to not allow you to see content if you have an adblocker on (like ESPN) or just make more native content. Creating things to read or view costs money. If we say the people that create them don't deserve to make that money back through ad revenue, we also have to be aware of the consequences - that this type of content will largely cease to exist. It's your prerogative at the end of the day, but a lot of the stuff I love wouldn't exist without advertising.

dec0dedab0de 11y ago

Isn't the simple solution to just deliver the ads from the same server as the content? If abp can't tell the difference between an advertisement, and an image that is part of the article, then they can't block it. Sure, it will kill a lot of the things current ad networks are doing, but good riddance.

lmns 11y ago
ABP hides ads from the same domain with CSS filters.
- mckoss 11y ago
  How does it distinguish Ad from Content in that case?
  - gtk40 11y ago
    Just take a look at one of the filter lists: e.g., https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt
    - mckoss 11y ago
      Thanks. So it seems all a publisher has to do is avoid using ad-like terminology in their ad URLs. They can just stick them in /images/id along with regular content images and AdBlocm will have no way to tell them difference.
      - thaumasiotes 11y ago
        Yes it will -- just include the ads in /images/id on a blacklist. To prevent the ad from being blocked, you'd need to randomize its url.
shultays 11y ago
Websites can detect adblock. They can already block the content if they wish, they chose not to

mahouse 11y ago

From their own website, https://adblockplus.org/blog/restating-the-obvious-adblocking-declared-legal https://adblockplus.org/blog/restating-the-obvious-adblockin... > Now that the legalities are out of the way, we want to reach out to other publishers and advertisers and content creators and encourage them to work with Adblock Plus rather than against us. Let’s develop new forms of nonintrusive ads that are actually useful and welcomed by users; let’s discover ways to make better ads; let’s push forward to create a more sustainable Internet ecosystem for everyone. > You know where to reach us. This is not blackmailing. At all. :-)

TeMPOraL 11y ago
This is the kind of blackmailing I will support :). Advertisers are invaders, we (the consumers) have a right to push back. EDIT: I didn't know ABP is building a business out of paid whitelisting. I'll need to read more about that. I am, however, still fully supporting publishers being forced by all ad blockers to find a less malicious way of earning money.
- mahouse 11y ago
  How short-sighted.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Could you elaborate on why exactly is this short-sighted?
    - mahouse 11y ago
      You don't care about that blackmailing, but you will probably start caring when publishers start paying AdBlock cash so they show their ads.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I've read some other comments; I didn't realize that ABP is building a sort of "pay me to show ads" business. This is something I don't like and I will re-evaluate my position on this particular piece of software. I am, however, still supporting the proliferation of ad blockers in general, and forcing publishers to find ways to earn money that don't involve forcing crap down people's throats.

germanier 11y ago

Just heads up, for anyone who hasn't read the article: The publishers mainly went against AdBlock Plus not because it blocks ads (though surely a welcome side effect) but because they offer advertisers to put their ads on a whitelist for a fee.

btdollar 11y ago
I went into the article expecting to be having a laugh at publishers but I agree wholeheartedly. ABP is a yelp-style racket. uBlock all the way.
shmerl 11y ago
It's just an angle of attack. They couldn't just say "hey, the user has no right to block ads!". But of course they don't like it to begin with.
nsomaru 11y ago
@btdollar, just to note, your account is hellbanned.
- abandonliberty 11y ago
  I thought the strategy was not to tell them?
  - LukeShu 11y ago
    Generally, yes, because hell-banning is for trolls, bots, and those who routinely make bad posts. However, sometimes someone gets hell-banned for one extremely down-voted comment, but in general are making decent comments. It's a common courtesy to inform these people if you run across it.
- saganus 11y ago
  What does it mean to be hellbanned and why can we see the posts anyway?
  - 11y ago

sarciszewski 11y ago

I use AdBlock Edge, which doesn't offer a whitelist of "acceptable" ads. :)

gtk40 11y ago
Same. I switched as soon as I heard about this policy. My only exception is that I still use ABP in IE, as I don't know of a better solution for that browser.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  I don't use IE anymore (rarely on a Windows box outside of work).
XzetaU8 11y ago
ABE will be discontinued on June though.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  :( Damn, I need to switch to Lynx then.
sergiotapia 11y ago
Use uBlock.

Jamie452 11y ago

What if it's in a websites terms of service that adverts must be viewed to access the site - how would that work, and who would be in breach of agreement?

Zikes 11y ago
Website TOS is shrink-wrapped. There's no way for me to get to it without violating it in that case, except to whitelist new sites by default, which would make me vulnerable to tracker ads. Shrink-wrapped agreements are legally tenuous at best. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract
DannyBee 11y ago
That would work by setting precedent that it was unenforceable :)

unicornporn 11y ago

> Now that the legalities are out of the way, we want to reach out to other publishers and advertisers and content creators and encourage them to work with Adblock Plus rather than against us. Let’s develop new forms of nonintrusive ads that are actually useful and welcomed by users [...] This is one of the reasons I chose another adblocker (uBlock). I have no moral qualms when it comes to blocking ads, but I don't feel too hot about this guy building a business by making other businesses pay him money to let their ads through.

devonharvey 11y ago
I also prefer uBlock. Allowing some ads through in order to extort advertisers is not only shady, it interferes with Adblock Plus's only function--blocking ads. Does any user prefer an extension that blocks most, but not all of them?
- coldpie 11y ago
  Users that recognize that some websites rely on their ad revenue for their existenc eand want to support the continued existence of this business model might prefer not to block all ads, yes. I'm not one of them. I'm ready for ad-supported businesses to die.
TheHypnotist 11y ago
But they would have to adhere to what the standard would be for an ad to not be annoying. Everyone wins.
sergiotapia 11y ago
Exactly. Stop using AdBlock Plus and use uBlock. One is an ad filter and the other is an ad BLOCKER. Go with the blocker. Which one do you want?
- GhotiFish 11y ago
  Personally? I want ad filter that creates a huge barrier to entry. A barrier that stipulates that an ad must be honest, non deceptive, non invasive, and that the companies behind them arn't using them to mass aggregate users for later sale. I don't think Ad Block Plus is doing that, to be fair. It IS what I want though. I'd love to give advertisers a way to be honest.

phkahler 11y ago

Funny - "It infringes the freedom of the press." I don't know about Germany, but in the US freedom of the press allows them to publish stuff, it does not force people to read it.

at-fates-hands 11y ago
Agreed. I was pretty appalled by this statement from the publishers. As if my ability to control what I want to see and be exposed to is somehow compromising your ability to get your message out. The last time I checked, the internet is merely one part of an advertising platform. Maybe these publishers should try another avenue to get your message out instead of annoying people with its invasive pop-up ads.

vbezhenar 11y ago

It seems like adblock got huge user base on premise to block ads and now monetizes that user base by selling them ads. Does not look like honest strategy to me. It won't work well for them as well, competitors are already there.

balabaster 11y ago

This is awesome... perhaps AdBlockPlus can work on a box that I can sit between my cable box and my TV to block the ads on that too :P

CodeSheikh 11y ago

AdBlock has become evil by introducing this "whitelist" thing. I wonder who seeded them in recent past...

DannyBee 11y ago

I gotta say, pay-per-whitelist seems a lot like an extortion racket to me. (the rest of the arguments they make, sure, moronic, but ...)

kazinator 11y ago

People who think they can put up a website with some content and make money purely from people visiting it and nothing else are incredibly naive. In this day and age, everyone and his dog wants you to look at their site. There is a content glut. In the context of making money, a website is something which provides an enhanced service front end for an existing business which makes money in some other way. We expect every business we interact with to have some kind of web presence, even if minimally functional. (If nothing more, than at least a static page with the address and opening hours). Maintaining the site is a business expense. Sites which don't have a business attached, are just someone's hobby. Complaining about AdBlock is just "Waaah, you're not paying for me for viewing the results of my hobby." (What's worse; most of the content is self-promotional, so it's more like, "Waah, you're not paying for reading my opinions and my self-promotion.") I don't care if some website perishes because it couldn't make money. The web would be better off if all such sites went away, leaving only the sites that provide a "web presence" for a real business, and the sites of those people who have something to present and the money to put it out there. If you can't fund a web site entirely out of your own pocket, you basically don't belong on the web. You're not able to put "your money where your mouth is", literally. There is commercially valuable content out there that people will pay for. That content proves itself to be that way because it can be put behind a "pay wall", and still sustain the site. People do pay for content; look at the growing subscribership of Netflix, for instance. That provides us with a good litmus test: can your content be pay walled such that your site at least breaks even financially? If not, then it has insufficient commercial value. If you still want people to view it, that means you have an agenda. Your agenda is a promotional one, and it goes something like this: "this content is somehow valuable to me, and I want others to know it and like it." If you have such an agenda, it falls upon you to fund it. Ironically, just like those business whose ads you serve through your site are paying to promote their agenda! Also, there is an irony in web advertizing is that it only generates revenue when people click on the ads. But when people click on ads, what are they doing? They are navigating away from the content to look at something more interesting. The theory is that the original site's content "brought" people to the advertizement. But in fact that is not true. What actually happened is more like this: someone was searching for content, and landed on the site. The site turned out to be garbage, filled with stuff not relevant to the search. But, oh, an interesting ad caught the visitor's eye; and so off that visitor went. Hypothesis: When people actually click on ads, it's because your content is worse than garbage, so that going to the ads is a more attractive alternative. The content is just search engine bait to get people to the ad, nothing more.

ssivark 11y ago

The argument against AdBlock seems disingenuous, like spammers complaining about spam filters.

hackuser 11y ago

I don't object to the ads, I object to being tracked. If they posted ads without tracking me, I wouldn't object.

hobarrera 11y ago

The fact is, AdBlock Plus is standing in a very delicate ground. They're not selflessly defending users from ads: they're actually making money via their whitelist, and giving an advantage to their partners. While many will say it's a fair business practice, we'll still have to see how long it's stand in court (appeals?). AdBlock Edge, on the other hand, is on far firmer ground, IMHO.