6 ms·

AdBlock Plus wins in court

91 points by helly 11y ago

Fastidious 11y ago
Interestingly enough, AdBlock (different from the one the article refers to) blocks 7 ads on that page.
- jsingleton 11y ago
  The BBC is weird. In the UK (bbc.co.uk) there are no ads as it's paid for by the license fee but abroad (bbc.com) there are ads as it's a different (commercial) entity.
  - Robadob 11y ago
    It's also worth noting that, you can't view BBC worldwide content from within the UK either due to regional restrictions. I've heard this is due to the BBC policy forbidding them showing adverts to UK users, yet it's content regularly not freely accessible (without adverts) to UK users either, as its a separate entity. There's been several occasions that BBC worldwide has had articles that I've been unable to read, or find on the standard BBC news website.
baldfat 11y ago
Personally I don't use Ad Blockers just due to the fact my own personal ethics feels I am stealing when I do use it. When I am teaching I have ad blocker installed because I don't want to get in trouble for what advertisement will be shown, especially YouTube. AdBlock Plus and their paid white list is the worst and I don't know why people use them.
- sparaker 11y ago
  I don't use AdBlock Plus but i do use AdBlock. I think its my decision to choose which ads i watch and which i don't. It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not.
  - Kiro 11y ago
    > It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not. So what's your view on sites blocking people with AdBlock?
    - Perdition 11y ago
      They can try if they want but it will cost them lots of money for no benefit.
    - nathanlied 11y ago
      Perfectly acceptable. I believe it's within everyone's right to filter what hits their browser (and what their browser gets in the first place) as much as it is the website's right to serve whomever they want. They should attempt to use technical means, though, as it's unlikely that a simple 'Do you use adblock?' prompt is going to work very well.
      - a3n 11y ago
        As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I whitelisted Reddit when they noticed my ad blocker and they politely asked me to think about it. It can be done. One solution among probably many.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Their website, their right, their choice. Of course, people protesting/boycotting/etc. those who block people who block ads is also their right and their choice.
    - kazinator 11y ago
      > So what's your view on sites blocking people with AdBlock? It's the web equivalent of an a entitled-feeling child throwing a tantrum. People who use ad-blocking software, and temporarily disable it on your page just to view the content, are not going to click on the ads. Furthermore, if you take additional measures to make them click on the ads ("please visit our sponsor first"), that constitutes click fraud. Users who click on an ad just to view the content are not interested in what is being advertized at all, and will not convert to buyers. Morally, it is within a hair's breadth of sending Javascript to the user's browser which simulates that user clicking on the ad (so that it looks like a real visit, as the ad syndicate knows), which would be blatant click fraud.
- mp3geek 11y ago
  If you want to disable "Acceptable Ads" in Adblock Plus, its still there. Nothing stopping you.
- easytiger 11y ago
  > Personally I don't use Ad Blockers just due to the fact my own personal ethics feels I am stealing when I do use it. Sadly, I'm going to have to assert that's indicative of a dull mind. Controversial I'm sure but
- webjprgm 11y ago
  Do you also consider TIVO to be stealing?
- chengiz 11y ago
  I had no idea ABP accepted money from advertisers to be put on their whitelist. I know they have to make money somehow but this just seems suspiciously like extortion to me.
- summerdown2 11y ago
  How do you feel about disabling javascript by default, and making things click-to-play? I ask because I think the line between "advert used for site finance," and "drive-by malware" can sometimes be blurry. For example: http://www.cnet.com/news/malware-delivered-by-yahoo-fox-google-ads/ http://www.cnet.com/news/malware-delivered-by-yahoo-fox-goog... I think that when I click on a link I agree to see the content they provide. I'm not sure I really want to agree to third-party stuff without knowing what it is - and I'm very sure I don't want to start loading third party scripts automatically.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    I used no javascript extensions for a while BUT it was not worth the hassle to me.
  - eli 11y ago
    Fair enough, but if your browser is susceptible to drive-by malware, you're going to have a bad time on the internet whether you block ads or not. I think hacked sites are a far more common malware vector than ads.
    - imglorp 11y ago
      Ad providers are prime hacking targets because it's a vector to deliver malware to reputable sites showing reputable ads. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ad+network+hacked&t=ffnt https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ad+network+hacked&t=ffnt
      - eli 11y ago
        I'd be curious if anyone has data on this, but I think hacking sites is a much more common vector. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wordpress+hacked+malware&t=ffnt https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wordpress+hacked+malware&t=ffnt If an Ad Blocker is the only thing standing in the way of you and an exploit, you're gonna have a bad day.
        nate_meurer 11y ago
- Grue3 11y ago
  >AdBlock Plus and their paid white list is the worst and I don't know why people use them. Because they actually fight to protect our freedoms in courts. A "paid white list" is a small price to pay (considering you can turn it off entirely).
- blfr 11y ago
  You can disable that white list of "unobtrusive advertising" by unchecking a single tick box. I use it because it works and has worked for a long time. I tried µBlock but it was leading to weird short lockups of my Firefox after a longer session.
- a3n 11y ago
  It's not that simple. Except for the simplest ones that might just be an image, ads are not just ads like in magazines and on TV. Ads use your resources to download more content. They use your resources for animation and sound. They also track you. Content providers are free to not serve you content if they detect ad blockers. If they have trouble detecting ad blockers, they are free to not be in business. They are free to move to a subscription model. They are operating willingly on the current open web. It's not your problem.
- kazinator 11y ago
  Am I stealing if I pick out the nice apples from the bin at the grocery store, and leave behind the ones with rotten spots?
  - cfinke 11y ago
    Ad-blocking is more akin to eating the good parts of an apple and then not paying the grocery store because you didn't want the rotten spots.
    - teaneedz 11y ago
      Only if the store sold Apples under the expectation that everyone could eat their Apples first before paying and genetically modified the Apples to have hidden rotten parts.
    - kazinator 11y ago
      No it isn't, because no payment is required to view the page in question. How it works is that your browser downloads a page. That page contains scripts and links. Thanks to blocking software working on your behalf, the browser picks and chooses what of that cruft it should activate and what it should ignore. Nobody has a right to make your computer fetch unwanted content and throw it in your face. It's like looking at a tray of hors d'oeuvres, and choosing a few that you like, avoiding ones you don't find palatable. Anyway, not long ago, I obtained a full refund for a bag of apples that were rotten, even though I ate some of it. That is normal.
      - cfinke 11y ago
        > No it isn't, because no payment is required to view the page in question. The "payment" is the implicit agreement to view the ads. > How it works is that your browser downloads a page. That page contains scripts and links. Thanks for the lesson on how Web browsers work. I wish I knew all of that when I worked at Netscape; maybe it would still be around.
        nate_meurer 11y ago
- kazinator 11y ago
  Does your personal ethics allow you to go to the washroom during a commercial break?
erikb 11y ago
TIL: Firefox has configurable tracking protection! https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-firefox https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-fir...
- mahouse 11y ago
  I enabled it and I still see social buttons. :(
  - discreditable 11y ago
    It's fairly spartan compared to other anti-tracking services. I haven't been able to find a policy regarding what is included in the list.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
d_theorist 11y ago
Good. Although I prefer Ghostery. The main thing for me isn't even blocking ads as such. The main thing is blocking the absurd amount of crappy javascript that clogs up my browser, in which I have no interest. I find the unfiltered web insufferable these days.
- uxp 11y ago
  I used to love Ghostery, until I learned that their business model is to resell your browsing habits and profile back to advertisers. If you want a suggestion for an alternative, I really don't have one. I'm currently using µBlock, which isn't bad, but requires a bit more setup than Ghostery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock
  - aroch 11y ago
    >until I learned that their business model is to resell your browsing habits and profile back to advertisers. ...If you voluntarily opt into that program (Ghostrank), after reading the straight-forward description. I don't understand why people find their business model so abhorrent when its entirely opt-in and they don't weasel around what ghostrank does. Surely you must find every service on the internet that you use for free, particularly Google, to be horrible as well?
    - d_theorist 11y ago
      Yes. I have no problem with their model. They are completely open about it and it does me no harm. Ghostery does exactly what I need.
  - Kenji 11y ago
    I also use µBlock. It made me realize what a huge crapload of JavaScript the websites include. On most sites, you can have like 70% of the external-domain content blocked and the site keeps working as intended. Hackernews is beautiful in that regard, literally just stuff from ycombinator.com and news.ycombinator.com. I love this simplicity.
honest_joe 11y ago
This is sad day for content creators. If the site is full of ads you are not comfortable to view do NOT VISIT such sites again. It's stealing, it's manipulating the statistics. We can't get good content because corporations taught people to not pay for content and now we will not get good content because people will slice the income of those who use ads.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  What? Really? How about "If you want to support ad-driven sites then just don't use AdBlock Plus"
  - honest_joe 11y ago
    Normal people would do that. Hell there are even sites that have whitelists of sites that you should support.
- struppi 11y ago
  Do you switch channels on your TV when the commercials start and switch back when the show resumes? Blocking online ads is basically the same. i.e. perfectly legitimate. Only you hurt the creator more online, since the advertisers can now measure the views+clicks. Which is also perfectly fair - They should not have to pay for ads nobody sees. This would also be fair on TV - But there it's impossible to measure.
  - honest_joe 11y ago
    First of all I do not watch TV. I assume that's why netflix is so popular. Please pardon me i am not sure if it has an ads in it or not but i assumed since it's a content on demand it does not. Also simply blocking something because you can but you should not is cheating.
    - lagadu 11y ago
      Cheating? How is it that controlling what my software, running in my hardware, running on my power does or does not do is cheating? Should I not have control over what's mine? If a website finds that their business model became unsuited for modern times, it's their responsibility to change it, not mine.
eli 11y ago
I don't read German, but I believe the main complaint in the case was AdBlock Plus charging money as part of its ad "whitelisting" service. ABP said it was to cover the cost of verifying the ads are safe and responsible. Publishers called it extortion (e.g. pay us this money if you want your ad impressions back).
- profinger 11y ago
  IMO, if I downloaded something that is supposed to block the ads, I don't want the damn ads. I've not used ABP in a while but I'd be pretty pissed if it started loading ads again just because the people had paid for it. They had to figure out some way to make money, though, I guess.
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    Use uBlock. Unlike ABP, it doesn't have a whitelist of "acceptable ads" a.k.a. companies that paid them.
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    I think you are asked upon installation whether you want to allow whitelisted ads (this was how it worked the last time I used Adblock, anyway; I use uBlock now). Some users want this because they see viewing ads as a way to support the "free" websites they use. You can find more information here: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads Copying from that page, the rules for ads to not be blocked include: 1. Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar) 2. Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images Ad placement: a. Ads should never obscure page content (e.g. require users to click a button to close the ad before viewing the page). b. For pages featuring a reading text ads should not be placed in the middle, where they interrupt the reading flow. However, they can be placed above the text content, below it or on the sides. The same applies to search results pages: paid search results cannot be mixed with organic results. c. When ads are placed above the content of a main page, they should not require the user to scroll down. The available vertical space is likely to be at least 700 pixels. Advertising should not occupy more than one-third of that height. Paid search results on search pages are allowed to occupy more space, but they should never outnumber organic results. d. When placed on the side ads should leave enough space for the main content. The available horizontal space can be expected to be at least 1000 pixels, and advertising should not occupy more than a third of that width. 3. Advertising should be clearly marked as such with the word "advertising" or its equivalent, and it should be distinguishable from page content, for instance via a border and/or different a background color. 4. Marking and placement requirements do not apply for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs embedded in the content of the page. Additional criteria for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs: a. Redirects originating from the hyperlink should not present any other webpage than the destination page. b. In texts, not more than 2 percent of the words can be hyperlinked for monetization purposes. c. Hyperlinks should not be formatted or behave differently than other links. d. Hyperlinks should not be misleading, in either content or placement. Personally, I never want to see ads, and I've always blocked all ads. But I can empathize with the people who are fine with seeing this kind of ad.
leejoramo 11y ago
To the pro-advertisers reading this, I feel your pain. I have long standing clients who depend on ad revenue, such as print publications that early on successfully transition to the web, who are now really struggling. However, I aggressively use ad blockers. Here is why: * the majority of the ads I see on the Internet are of the sort that I use to find in the back of magazines. Crap I would never read is now force feed to me front and center * nearly every single web page is OVERLOADED with ads. Take a look at a print copy of the New Yorker, Sports Illustrated, etc. Feature articles often have few or even NO ads. In fact, feature articles often start with two pages of JUST content. * the way the ads work often kills my battery life. NOT COOL. You have no right to kill my battery life. * You track us with no way to really opt out with out using ad blockers. * You use the tracking info to target people. Including targeting children and at-risk (mentally impaired) adults. It is very different to have a scam artist with a small ad in the back of a magazine, compared to a phishing web ad that is trying to take advantage of an elderly grandma whose bank account is a click away. * you burn my bandwidth. this is bad on WiFi, evil on cell data. You have no right to rack up cellular charges on my behalf. * I don't trust the Kirby vacuum sales person in my home, I don't trust your javascript laden ads on my computer. While I blanket block ads on the Internet, I do allow ads on sites that only use simple graphics and text for ads. And who demonstrate that they respect me as a reader and potential client. edit: clarified I was referring to the "print" editions of the New Yorker & SI
- irl_zebra 11y ago
  The worst for me is when I open something on my phone and start reading and a huge ad appears and takes up my whole screen telling me to put in my email to subscribe to the website. Then I have to scroll around to find the little X to close it. It's maddening. Only slightly less worse is the same thing happening on my laptop after I have had a few seconds to start reading the first paragraph, then the whole page dims and a full-page ad appears. Adblock gets rid of this stuff and it's why I use it and will continue to do so in the future, but I do leave the whitelist on for unobtrusive advertising. I just wish AdBlocker could get rid of that awful Forbes "Thought of the Day" page that always opens. Unfortunately the best it can do it get rid of the ad on that page, but still annoying.
jpmattia 11y ago
Maybe OT, but does anyone have decent estimates for what percentage of users are blocking ads? Would also be interesting to know percentage vs browser.
aikah 11y ago
Adblockers are not that popular yet, but each time I show adblock and co to someone, that persons just doesn't go back and recommends adblock and co to his family,friends and coworkers. The rise of adblocking solutions WILL be exponential, the heck now some businesses make all their browsers block ads.. It's today that advertisers or sites relying on ad revenue need to find solutions. One could bare people using adblockers from seeing content("free" pornsites are starting doing that). but then it will just be an escalation in technology. Adblockers will become smarter and ultimately defeat detection techniques. One can appeal to user's "conscience" by displaying a message stating one relies on ad revenue. I think it's a good compromise if one promises that his ads are discrete like simple pictures or text. Frankly, years of ad abuse, loud auto-play video ads and flash ads that take over the whole window have made users weary of online advertising.
- discreditable 11y ago
  >heck now some businesses make all their browsers block ads As one such business (a school) which blocks ads on company computers, I can say it has drastically reduced our malware-related incidents from teachers/staff. My gut feeling is that search result ads and false download buttons were the source of many of our infections. Users do not think before they click, and it seems like most of them that expect to be able to find useful software behind an advertisement often pay a price.
deepnet 11y ago
I read a lot on a screen. This is tiring. Adverts make it impossible to read the web - they are designed to catch the eye - even when still they are eye catching. To concentrate on text near an advert takes extra mental resources and I tire very much quicker. Not to mention loading hangs as pages wait for badly overloaded ad-servers before they show the page. So I am getting exhausted so websites can get $0.003 - this model is a lame duck. My attention is worth a lot more than $0.003 so figure out a better way because I cannot afford look at that dross. Text Ads in a similar font - that attract my interest because they are relevant - no problem - your site is unblocked. Subtly Sponsor content I want then I will look favorably on your brand.

91 points by helly 11y ago

Fastidious 11y ago

Interestingly enough, AdBlock (different from the one the article refers to) blocks 7 ads on that page.

jsingleton 11y ago
The BBC is weird. In the UK (bbc.co.uk) there are no ads as it's paid for by the license fee but abroad (bbc.com) there are ads as it's a different (commercial) entity.
- Robadob 11y ago
  It's also worth noting that, you can't view BBC worldwide content from within the UK either due to regional restrictions. I've heard this is due to the BBC policy forbidding them showing adverts to UK users, yet it's content regularly not freely accessible (without adverts) to UK users either, as its a separate entity. There's been several occasions that BBC worldwide has had articles that I've been unable to read, or find on the standard BBC news website.

baldfat 11y ago

Personally I don't use Ad Blockers just due to the fact my own personal ethics feels I am stealing when I do use it. When I am teaching I have ad blocker installed because I don't want to get in trouble for what advertisement will be shown, especially YouTube. AdBlock Plus and their paid white list is the worst and I don't know why people use them.

sparaker 11y ago
I don't use AdBlock Plus but i do use AdBlock. I think its my decision to choose which ads i watch and which i don't. It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not.
- Kiro 11y ago
  > It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not. So what's your view on sites blocking people with AdBlock?
  - Perdition 11y ago
    They can try if they want but it will cost them lots of money for no benefit.
  - nathanlied 11y ago
    Perfectly acceptable. I believe it's within everyone's right to filter what hits their browser (and what their browser gets in the first place) as much as it is the website's right to serve whomever they want. They should attempt to use technical means, though, as it's unlikely that a simple 'Do you use adblock?' prompt is going to work very well.
    - a3n 11y ago
      As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I whitelisted Reddit when they noticed my ad blocker and they politely asked me to think about it. It can be done. One solution among probably many.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Their website, their right, their choice. Of course, people protesting/boycotting/etc. those who block people who block ads is also their right and their choice.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    > So what's your view on sites blocking people with AdBlock? It's the web equivalent of an a entitled-feeling child throwing a tantrum. People who use ad-blocking software, and temporarily disable it on your page just to view the content, are not going to click on the ads. Furthermore, if you take additional measures to make them click on the ads ("please visit our sponsor first"), that constitutes click fraud. Users who click on an ad just to view the content are not interested in what is being advertized at all, and will not convert to buyers. Morally, it is within a hair's breadth of sending Javascript to the user's browser which simulates that user clicking on the ad (so that it looks like a real visit, as the ad syndicate knows), which would be blatant click fraud.
mp3geek 11y ago
If you want to disable "Acceptable Ads" in Adblock Plus, its still there. Nothing stopping you.
easytiger 11y ago
> Personally I don't use Ad Blockers just due to the fact my own personal ethics feels I am stealing when I do use it. Sadly, I'm going to have to assert that's indicative of a dull mind. Controversial I'm sure but
webjprgm 11y ago
Do you also consider TIVO to be stealing?
chengiz 11y ago
I had no idea ABP accepted money from advertisers to be put on their whitelist. I know they have to make money somehow but this just seems suspiciously like extortion to me.
summerdown2 11y ago
How do you feel about disabling javascript by default, and making things click-to-play? I ask because I think the line between "advert used for site finance," and "drive-by malware" can sometimes be blurry. For example: http://www.cnet.com/news/malware-delivered-by-yahoo-fox-google-ads/ http://www.cnet.com/news/malware-delivered-by-yahoo-fox-goog... I think that when I click on a link I agree to see the content they provide. I'm not sure I really want to agree to third-party stuff without knowing what it is - and I'm very sure I don't want to start loading third party scripts automatically.
- baldfat 11y ago
  I used no javascript extensions for a while BUT it was not worth the hassle to me.
- eli 11y ago
  Fair enough, but if your browser is susceptible to drive-by malware, you're going to have a bad time on the internet whether you block ads or not. I think hacked sites are a far more common malware vector than ads.
  - imglorp 11y ago
    Ad providers are prime hacking targets because it's a vector to deliver malware to reputable sites showing reputable ads. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ad+network+hacked&t=ffnt https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ad+network+hacked&t=ffnt
    - eli 11y ago
      I'd be curious if anyone has data on this, but I think hacking sites is a much more common vector. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wordpress+hacked+malware&t=ffnt https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wordpress+hacked+malware&t=ffnt If an Ad Blocker is the only thing standing in the way of you and an exploit, you're gonna have a bad day.
      - nate_meurer 11y ago
Grue3 11y ago
>AdBlock Plus and their paid white list is the worst and I don't know why people use them. Because they actually fight to protect our freedoms in courts. A "paid white list" is a small price to pay (considering you can turn it off entirely).
blfr 11y ago
You can disable that white list of "unobtrusive advertising" by unchecking a single tick box. I use it because it works and has worked for a long time. I tried µBlock but it was leading to weird short lockups of my Firefox after a longer session.
a3n 11y ago
It's not that simple. Except for the simplest ones that might just be an image, ads are not just ads like in magazines and on TV. Ads use your resources to download more content. They use your resources for animation and sound. They also track you. Content providers are free to not serve you content if they detect ad blockers. If they have trouble detecting ad blockers, they are free to not be in business. They are free to move to a subscription model. They are operating willingly on the current open web. It's not your problem.
kazinator 11y ago
Am I stealing if I pick out the nice apples from the bin at the grocery store, and leave behind the ones with rotten spots?
- cfinke 11y ago
  Ad-blocking is more akin to eating the good parts of an apple and then not paying the grocery store because you didn't want the rotten spots.
  - teaneedz 11y ago
    Only if the store sold Apples under the expectation that everyone could eat their Apples first before paying and genetically modified the Apples to have hidden rotten parts.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    No it isn't, because no payment is required to view the page in question. How it works is that your browser downloads a page. That page contains scripts and links. Thanks to blocking software working on your behalf, the browser picks and chooses what of that cruft it should activate and what it should ignore. Nobody has a right to make your computer fetch unwanted content and throw it in your face. It's like looking at a tray of hors d'oeuvres, and choosing a few that you like, avoiding ones you don't find palatable. Anyway, not long ago, I obtained a full refund for a bag of apples that were rotten, even though I ate some of it. That is normal.
    - cfinke 11y ago
      > No it isn't, because no payment is required to view the page in question. The "payment" is the implicit agreement to view the ads. > How it works is that your browser downloads a page. That page contains scripts and links. Thanks for the lesson on how Web browsers work. I wish I knew all of that when I worked at Netscape; maybe it would still be around.
      - nate_meurer 11y ago
kazinator 11y ago
Does your personal ethics allow you to go to the washroom during a commercial break?

erikb 11y ago

TIL: Firefox has configurable tracking protection! https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-firefox https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-fir...

mahouse 11y ago
I enabled it and I still see social buttons. :(
- discreditable 11y ago
  It's fairly spartan compared to other anti-tracking services. I haven't been able to find a policy regarding what is included in the list.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

d_theorist 11y ago

Good. Although I prefer Ghostery. The main thing for me isn't even blocking ads as such. The main thing is blocking the absurd amount of crappy javascript that clogs up my browser, in which I have no interest. I find the unfiltered web insufferable these days.

uxp 11y ago
I used to love Ghostery, until I learned that their business model is to resell your browsing habits and profile back to advertisers. If you want a suggestion for an alternative, I really don't have one. I'm currently using µBlock, which isn't bad, but requires a bit more setup than Ghostery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock
- aroch 11y ago
  >until I learned that their business model is to resell your browsing habits and profile back to advertisers. ...If you voluntarily opt into that program (Ghostrank), after reading the straight-forward description. I don't understand why people find their business model so abhorrent when its entirely opt-in and they don't weasel around what ghostrank does. Surely you must find every service on the internet that you use for free, particularly Google, to be horrible as well?
  - d_theorist 11y ago
    Yes. I have no problem with their model. They are completely open about it and it does me no harm. Ghostery does exactly what I need.
- Kenji 11y ago
  I also use µBlock. It made me realize what a huge crapload of JavaScript the websites include. On most sites, you can have like 70% of the external-domain content blocked and the site keeps working as intended. Hackernews is beautiful in that regard, literally just stuff from ycombinator.com and news.ycombinator.com. I love this simplicity.

honest_joe 11y ago

This is sad day for content creators. If the site is full of ads you are not comfortable to view do NOT VISIT such sites again. It's stealing, it's manipulating the statistics. We can't get good content because corporations taught people to not pay for content and now we will not get good content because people will slice the income of those who use ads.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
What? Really? How about "If you want to support ad-driven sites then just don't use AdBlock Plus"
- honest_joe 11y ago
  Normal people would do that. Hell there are even sites that have whitelists of sites that you should support.
struppi 11y ago
Do you switch channels on your TV when the commercials start and switch back when the show resumes? Blocking online ads is basically the same. i.e. perfectly legitimate. Only you hurt the creator more online, since the advertisers can now measure the views+clicks. Which is also perfectly fair - They should not have to pay for ads nobody sees. This would also be fair on TV - But there it's impossible to measure.
- honest_joe 11y ago
  First of all I do not watch TV. I assume that's why netflix is so popular. Please pardon me i am not sure if it has an ads in it or not but i assumed since it's a content on demand it does not. Also simply blocking something because you can but you should not is cheating.
  - lagadu 11y ago
    Cheating? How is it that controlling what my software, running in my hardware, running on my power does or does not do is cheating? Should I not have control over what's mine? If a website finds that their business model became unsuited for modern times, it's their responsibility to change it, not mine.

eli 11y ago

I don't read German, but I believe the main complaint in the case was AdBlock Plus charging money as part of its ad "whitelisting" service. ABP said it was to cover the cost of verifying the ads are safe and responsible. Publishers called it extortion (e.g. pay us this money if you want your ad impressions back).

profinger 11y ago
IMO, if I downloaded something that is supposed to block the ads, I don't want the damn ads. I've not used ABP in a while but I'd be pretty pissed if it started loading ads again just because the people had paid for it. They had to figure out some way to make money, though, I guess.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  Use uBlock. Unlike ABP, it doesn't have a whitelist of "acceptable ads" a.k.a. companies that paid them.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  I think you are asked upon installation whether you want to allow whitelisted ads (this was how it worked the last time I used Adblock, anyway; I use uBlock now). Some users want this because they see viewing ads as a way to support the "free" websites they use. You can find more information here: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads Copying from that page, the rules for ads to not be blocked include: 1. Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar) 2. Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images Ad placement: a. Ads should never obscure page content (e.g. require users to click a button to close the ad before viewing the page). b. For pages featuring a reading text ads should not be placed in the middle, where they interrupt the reading flow. However, they can be placed above the text content, below it or on the sides. The same applies to search results pages: paid search results cannot be mixed with organic results. c. When ads are placed above the content of a main page, they should not require the user to scroll down. The available vertical space is likely to be at least 700 pixels. Advertising should not occupy more than one-third of that height. Paid search results on search pages are allowed to occupy more space, but they should never outnumber organic results. d. When placed on the side ads should leave enough space for the main content. The available horizontal space can be expected to be at least 1000 pixels, and advertising should not occupy more than a third of that width. 3. Advertising should be clearly marked as such with the word "advertising" or its equivalent, and it should be distinguishable from page content, for instance via a border and/or different a background color. 4. Marking and placement requirements do not apply for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs embedded in the content of the page. Additional criteria for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs: a. Redirects originating from the hyperlink should not present any other webpage than the destination page. b. In texts, not more than 2 percent of the words can be hyperlinked for monetization purposes. c. Hyperlinks should not be formatted or behave differently than other links. d. Hyperlinks should not be misleading, in either content or placement. Personally, I never want to see ads, and I've always blocked all ads. But I can empathize with the people who are fine with seeing this kind of ad.

leejoramo 11y ago

To the pro-advertisers reading this, I feel your pain. I have long standing clients who depend on ad revenue, such as print publications that early on successfully transition to the web, who are now really struggling. However, I aggressively use ad blockers. Here is why: * the majority of the ads I see on the Internet are of the sort that I use to find in the back of magazines. Crap I would never read is now force feed to me front and center * nearly every single web page is OVERLOADED with ads. Take a look at a print copy of the New Yorker, Sports Illustrated, etc. Feature articles often have few or even NO ads. In fact, feature articles often start with two pages of JUST content. * the way the ads work often kills my battery life. NOT COOL. You have no right to kill my battery life. * You track us with no way to really opt out with out using ad blockers. * You use the tracking info to target people. Including targeting children and at-risk (mentally impaired) adults. It is very different to have a scam artist with a small ad in the back of a magazine, compared to a phishing web ad that is trying to take advantage of an elderly grandma whose bank account is a click away. * you burn my bandwidth. this is bad on WiFi, evil on cell data. You have no right to rack up cellular charges on my behalf. * I don't trust the Kirby vacuum sales person in my home, I don't trust your javascript laden ads on my computer. While I blanket block ads on the Internet, I do allow ads on sites that only use simple graphics and text for ads. And who demonstrate that they respect me as a reader and potential client. edit: clarified I was referring to the "print" editions of the New Yorker & SI

irl_zebra 11y ago
The worst for me is when I open something on my phone and start reading and a huge ad appears and takes up my whole screen telling me to put in my email to subscribe to the website. Then I have to scroll around to find the little X to close it. It's maddening. Only slightly less worse is the same thing happening on my laptop after I have had a few seconds to start reading the first paragraph, then the whole page dims and a full-page ad appears. Adblock gets rid of this stuff and it's why I use it and will continue to do so in the future, but I do leave the whitelist on for unobtrusive advertising. I just wish AdBlocker could get rid of that awful Forbes "Thought of the Day" page that always opens. Unfortunately the best it can do it get rid of the ad on that page, but still annoying.

jpmattia 11y ago

Maybe OT, but does anyone have decent estimates for what percentage of users are blocking ads? Would also be interesting to know percentage vs browser.

aikah 11y ago

Adblockers are not that popular yet, but each time I show adblock and co to someone, that persons just doesn't go back and recommends adblock and co to his family,friends and coworkers. The rise of adblocking solutions WILL be exponential, the heck now some businesses make all their browsers block ads.. It's today that advertisers or sites relying on ad revenue need to find solutions. One could bare people using adblockers from seeing content("free" pornsites are starting doing that). but then it will just be an escalation in technology. Adblockers will become smarter and ultimately defeat detection techniques. One can appeal to user's "conscience" by displaying a message stating one relies on ad revenue. I think it's a good compromise if one promises that his ads are discrete like simple pictures or text. Frankly, years of ad abuse, loud auto-play video ads and flash ads that take over the whole window have made users weary of online advertising.

discreditable 11y ago
>heck now some businesses make all their browsers block ads As one such business (a school) which blocks ads on company computers, I can say it has drastically reduced our malware-related incidents from teachers/staff. My gut feeling is that search result ads and false download buttons were the source of many of our infections. Users do not think before they click, and it seems like most of them that expect to be able to find useful software behind an advertisement often pay a price.

deepnet 11y ago

I read a lot on a screen. This is tiring. Adverts make it impossible to read the web - they are designed to catch the eye - even when still they are eye catching. To concentrate on text near an advert takes extra mental resources and I tire very much quicker. Not to mention loading hangs as pages wait for badly overloaded ad-servers before they show the page. So I am getting exhausted so websites can get $0.003 - this model is a lame duck. My attention is worth a lot more than $0.003 so figure out a better way because I cannot afford look at that dross. Text Ads in a similar font - that attract my interest because they are relevant - no problem - your site is unblocked. Subtly Sponsor content I want then I will look favorably on your brand.