Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Advertising Businesses

AdBlock Plus To Introduce Independent Board To Oversee Acceptable Ads Program 263

Mark Wilson writes: Ad blocking has been in the news quite a lot recently, not least because of iOS 9's new support for advertising avoidance. Perhaps the most famous tool in the arena is Adblock Plus. It's something that many people have become reliant on for cleaning up their online experience but Eyeo — the company behind AdBlock Plus — has been keen to encourage people to permit the display of some advertising through its Acceptable Ads program. That companies can pay to bypass Adblock Plus is nothing new, although Adblock Plus insists that most ads that are deemed 'acceptable' are added for free. Today Eyeo announces that it is going to hand over control of the Acceptable Ads program to a completely independent board.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AdBlock Plus To Introduce Independent Board To Oversee Acceptable Ads Program

Comments Filter:
  • Acceptable ads? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xenotransplant ( 4179011 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @02:46PM (#50629911)
    What are those?
    • Re:Acceptable ads? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @03:02PM (#50630081) Homepage

      I'll tell you my definition of them: If the host in question serves the ad from its own servers, and doesn't use any Javascript or Flash.

      Anything which just links to external ad companies, analytics companies, and expects to run code on my machine is blocked. Because expecting me to trust code execution from a 3rd party is simply not happening.

      If I can't do that, then I'll pretty much block every form of ads I can.

      • If the host in question serves the ad from its own servers, and doesn't use any Javascript or Flash.

        Nowhere near strict enough.

        Is the advert obscene? Does it use obnoxious flashing colours?

      • by slacka ( 713188 )

        Exactly, just compare Weather Underground to reddit without an ad-blocker. Reddit is actually so unobtrusive, that I have whitelisted them for the past year.

        To all these slashdotters flipping out about "acceptable ads", I have a question for you. How many of you pay for that content you're using ad blockers on? All the none-user generated content costs money and bandwidth always costs money. If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place. I'm really happy I have the option to

        • Re:Acceptable ads? (Score:5, Informative)

          by rainmaestro ( 996549 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @04:40PM (#50631159)

          How many ad-containing sites give you the OPTION to pay for the content? That's the real question. I'm perfectly happy to toss a few bucks to the site if I get value from their content, but damn few even give me the option. It is either fund them through dodgy third-party ads or don't support them at all. And when those are my choices, sorry, no funding.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by saward ( 4277563 )

            As you say, 'damn few' do, but some do. Some offer the option to subscribe, or pay a once off fee to remove those ads. My concerns in those cases are that it means remembering a separate account for each such website, signing into those websites each time my session expires in order to remove the ads, and paying a significant sum of money if I do it on too many sites.

            That's why I've started webpass.io [webpass.io], a service that offers websites an easy way to offer the option to pay for content, but that avoids these

            • Man, most startup ideas are pretty sketch, but yours ain't all that bad. Good on you for finding an actual problem to solve.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Your system is useless I'm afraid. It needs a browser plug-in, and even if I was willing to trust your code most mobile browsers don't support plug-ins anyway. Mobile is the platform where I want to avoid ads the most.

            • My concerns in those cases are that it means remembering a separate account for each such website, signing into those websites each time my session expires in order to remove the ads

              That's no problem. Use an ad-blocker, then you don't have to log in.

          • Considering how much of the modern internet consists of worthless clickbait sites, expecting people to pay for those is asking an awful lot. So those sites either go bankrupt or survive by using abusive advertising.

        • All the none-user generated content costs money and bandwidth always costs money. If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.

          Yes, an Internet where people would host what they create themselves or via distributed technologies like bittorrent or freenet (and demand symmetrical connections because of it), where only stuff worthwhile enough to be crowdfunded would survive, where ad-infested reposted shit on content farms would no longer be able to obscure primary sources... i

          • All the none-user generated content costs money and bandwidth always costs money. If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.

            Yes, an Internet where people would host what they create themselves or via distributed technologies like bittorrent or freenet (and demand symmetrical connections because of it), where only stuff worthwhile enough to be crowdfunded would survive, where ad-infested reposted shit on content farms would no longer be able to obscure primary sources... it would be glorious!

            My goodness, it would be like somebody invented a time machine back to the Good Ol' Days, when the information glut was nearly half information. Now most of the information hides behind ten pages of clicky infotainment.

        • Re:Acceptable ads? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @06:58PM (#50632109)

          I pay for my bandwidth. Why should I have to subsidize theirs with mine?

          • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

            Because if you don't, they turn off their web site and do whatever it is that you do for a living to pay for their bandwidth. Depending on the site, you may or may not care, but chances are, you care about some of them.

        • How many of you pay for that content you're using ad blockers on?

          I do, for the few sites that have a mechanism that lets me. Not all the sites (since I block all ads all the time no matter what site is serving them up), but the ones that I go to regularly.

          If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.

          Indeed. I remember when the internet had almost no ads at all on it, and it was a very different place. A very better place.

      • by tepples ( 727027 )

        No Flash Player I'll agree with. But would you really prefer to waste your valuable bandwidth on a prerendered silent video ad when a vector animated ad rendered to a canvas using JavaScript on the client can be sent with far fewer bytes of your monthly cap?

        • Depends. Am I on my laptop or desktop, which are hooked into an uncapped 40Mb/s fiber, or on my phone, which does have limits on its cellular data consumption? My answer would be different between the two.

          • by tepples ( 727027 )

            Am I on my laptop or desktop, which are hooked into an uncapped 40Mb/s fiber, or on my phone, which does have limits on its cellular data consumption? My answer would be different between the two.

            3. Or you're on your laptop tethered to your phone or a MiFi device while a passenger in a vehicle.
            4. Or you're living in a rural area outside of cable and DSL availability, and the only service options are satellite and fixed cellular.
            5. Or you're living in urban Seattle whose right-of-way red tape has blocked attempts to deploy wired broadband, and the only service options are satellite and fixed cellular.

            • There is no broadband in downtown Seattle?

              • by tepples ( 727027 )

                There is no broadband in downtown Seattle?

                Suburbs of Seattle have broadband. But as I understand it, Seattle proper requires a supermajority of landowners in a neighborhood to agree to install a utility, and failure to cast a vote is counted as an oppose vote. See also this thread in a story about Netflix [slashdot.org].

        • I don't care what technique is used to accomplish it, animated ads are automatically objectionable.

          • by tepples ( 727027 )

            animated ads are automatically objectionable

            They are objectionable yet so common that avoiding them takes sacrifice. How do you configure a web search engine to filter sites using animated ads or requiring script to view the entire page out of results so that you don't end up wasting time visiting eight sites in a row only to have to click the back button?

            • How do you configure a web search engine to filter sites using animated ads or requiring script to view the entire page out of results so that you don't end up wasting time visiting eight sites in a row only to have to click the back button?

              I don't bother with all of that. I use NoScript. If I encounter a site that doesn't work right, I just move on. If the site is interesting enough that it seems worth the effort and blocks scripts, I'll start enabling specific ones until either the site starts working or it requires scripts from sites I know I will never allow.

              I don't think I've ever run across the case you site, of having a long string of sites that don't work. I encounter them in singles, and relatively rarely. But perhaps we frequent diff

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Because expecting me to trust code execution from a 3rd party is simply not happening.

        This is an interesting intersection of trust issues.

        You don't trust a 3rd party. Fair enough.

        But the 3rd party doesn't trust the publisher either. Advertisers can't trust publishers to report how many times an ad was viewed, because the publisher has a very strong incentive to "cheat" and claim more ad impressions than really occurred. This is why the advertisers absolutely insist that the ads be delivered from a 3rd party server under their control so that they can trust it to report the correct metri

      • Yep, for me the issue is simply one of safety. I currently don't block ads in particular, but I refuse to allow scripting, which actually ends up blocking most of them as a side-effect. Just the other day Forbes.com was found to be serving ads that were trying to infect visitors through a Flash vulnerability, which of course was launched via scripting.

        I understand that using no-script is probably too high a burden for most users, and honestly, it's a bit of a pain even for me. I'm considering using uBloc

      • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

        So, for you, ads on major services from the likes of Google, Microsoft and Amazon are acceptable where small sites that don't have the resources to run their own ad service can go fuck themselves?
        The "own server" criteria is effective because it can catch a lot of ads, but "own server" ads are not better, just harder to block.
        If external site blocking becomes ubiquitous, the obvious response would be to make the things happen behind the scenes, where the server gets the ad from the external company and rela

    • Re:Acceptable ads? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TWX ( 665546 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @03:04PM (#50630095)
      I'm willing to accept a couple of lines of small text on a page within a box labelled that it's an ad.

      Come to think of it, had we not had ads with audio, ads that popped-up, ads that popped-under, ads that moved around on the screen to avoid the cursor, ads that spawned more ads, ads that hijacked DNS, ads that hijacked Windows Socket Services, I probably would have even been okay with a small number of appropriately-positioned graphical ads, basically the equivalent of a magazine or newspaper's ad content but with the potential for simple animated GIFs. Early on the advertisers fooled me once, I will not give them the opportunity to fool me again, as ad-blocking software, javascript-blocking software, and flash-blocking software will forever be used on any and all browsers that I run.
      • The worst type of ads, in my unsolicited opinion, are the download buttons that are located adjacent to each other. These are the ones that cause most of my customers their headaches. Of course telling them to stop downloading software from dubious sources is not an option, as the customer is never, ever, ever, ever, ever wrong.
        • by TWX ( 665546 )
          Does the customer have to pay monetarily, or at least through downtime, for their error?

          At least make 'em pay through equipment unavailability while it's fixed. Take the gear away from the customer site to fix it without providing a loaner, and attribute the problem to user-infected malware brought down from the world wide web as the problem while it's being serviced on the bench. They may get mad, but if it's documented that they shot themselves in the foot even if accidentally then maybe they'll lear
      • Re:Acceptable ads? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968.gmail@com> on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @04:42PM (#50631185) Journal

        Exactly. During the early days most of us had NO problem with ads because they weren't being assholes. They had simple .txt, maybe a .jpg or if they wanted to be fancy a .gif, and since it was first party it was actually relevant to the site and usually the site host had good experiences shopping there.....then came the MBAs, Masters of Being Assholes.

        First came the pop ups, then came the ads blocking content, then came loud as hell sound blaring, then Java (in fact the reason I originally started advising customers to remove Java was early Java ads) and then came Flash, now look at what we have...want to make a PC so safe you can remove the AV and be just fine? Block ALL ads and watch infections disappear. Last figures I saw had malware ads causing something like 96 out of every 100 infections, nothing else came close.

        And to all those that say "we need ads to have the web, boo hoo" I'll say the exact same thing I said to Jim Sterling that got me banned from The Escapist when he was being their apologist, I produced links showing how many times The Escapist had shown malware ads and said..."are you gonna be responsible for the damage you cause? Are you gonna pay to clean their PCs, have a watch put on their CC numbers? Gonna pay them for the lost hours dealing with resetting passwords and cleaning up the messes YOU CAUSED with your ads?" You want to be treated like REAL journalists and stores? Fine and dandy because they pay when they are hacked sometimes to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars like TJ Maxx when their system got hacked.

        You cannot have your cake and eat it too ad pushers, either you step up to the plate and claim responsibility and pay for the damages when YOUR ADS cause damage or you have a heaping cup of STFU when users do the only smart and sensible thing and block the largest source of malware their PCs can possibly see.

      • I started blocking ads and killing scripts a long time ago -- when they became animated and risky . I don't mind Google's text ads particularly. But stuff moving and jumping in the corner of my eye ruins my concentration and interferes with my enjoyment of whatever content I am reading.

        The orienting response [wikipedia.org] makes it impossible to ignore such movement. (Marketing psychologists know this.) As long as it keeps still -- like a good old-fashioned magazine ad --I will live with it. And, if of interest, perhaps

    • My answer:

      For my desktop and laptop at home, an acceptable ad is one that doesn't try to play audio without permission, isn't too garish, doesn't open its own windows or tabs, allows me to work or whatever normally, and has some method for me to be sure it doesn't contain malware.

      For my phone, an acceptable ad is something that lets me use the site I'm at. It will not permanently obscure part of an already small screen, it will not make it difficult to scroll without touching an ad that will take me t

    • 'Acceptable ads' is an oxymoron.

    • So you just want to steal from people who operate and maintain your favorite sites.
      Or do you make a list of sites that you regulatory visit and send them a check for thanks for running?

      For me ad blocking is about computing safety as a bad add posed as a legit link can lead to a system security or performance problem that eats up my battery life.

      Good ads I don't have issues. I know it is an ad it isn't slowing my system, advertising a legit product or service. And the money from these ads pay for the site in

  • Details of how the board will be formed and appointed have not been disclosed, but Eyeo insists that the entire process -- and the vetting of ads -- will be fully transparent.

    Hey, maybe it's true. If not, let's sow their ground with salt.

    • Eyeo insists that the entire process -- and the vetting of ads -- will be fully transparent.

      So... they're going to let everything through - like their software. :-)

  • by Jawnn ( 445279 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @02:51PM (#50629961)
    Clearly, the profit motive and the obligation to deliver on their product's promise are in conflict for Eyeo, so handing off the chore of deciding "acceptableness" to a third party is a good thing. The proof of course, will be in the pudding. They have yet to disclose how that board will be set up.
    • by leonbev ( 111395 )

      I'm not sure if anybody other than the user should be deciding what ads are "acceptable" when using an ad blocker. That's why I like the Adblock extension for Chrome. It doesn't have this "acceptable ads default to on" nonsense built into it, and it's run by a lone guy who accepts donations instead of a for-profit software development company.

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @02:52PM (#50629975) Journal
    Let the users define using AdBlock protocol what their individual ad acceptance policy is. "No video" "No audio" "Not more than 100% of the bandwidth of payload data." Whatever. Let the users also define keywords like, "Looking for: digital camera, used pick-up truck" "Interested in: traveling, wine, gadgets"

    Take it as a browser agent string from the user, or as app setting from the user, and deliver it to the web sites. Let the web sites obey these policies and deliver ads.

    Most uses would let unobstrusive ads through. I have had the privilege to block slashdot ads for ages. I never do. Same goes for other sites I support. Give us the control. Not some unelected third party ombudsmen.

    • I have had the privilege to block slashdot ads for ages. I never do.

      I used to do this too, until ads from Slashdot took up a full CPU and a third of my memory. I would love to support Slashdot ads, but they have to behave.

    • I have had the privilege to block slashdot ads for ages.

      We all have, all you have to do is install adblock plus. (Or, now, one of the better adblock plugins). A bonus using external ad blockers: it can block the ads that slashdot's "disable advertising" checkbox doesn't affect.

      • I also use an ad blocker to get rid of the useless "Video Bytes" and "Slashdot Deals" junk that shows up on the main page. Who needs that checkbox when a real ad blocker can do so much more?
    • by mjensen ( 118105 )

      The main problem with this idea, assuming it could work at all, is classification.

      Who/what classifies ads as "No video", "No audio", "digital camera" or such? Nobody wants to spend the time/expense to put classifications on ads, and the classifications are going to be terribly subjective anyway.

      • by vux984 ( 928602 )

        it would be trivial to automate detection of video, audio, animation etc

        It would also be possible to block any ad that includes "object" or "iframe" or "script" "blink"...

        Black any ad that plays with css positioning etc..

        Or go one further, and whitelist; only put adds that use the restricted set of html that a typical forum textbox allows... bold, link, font color, image, etc. And that's IT. If the ad contains anything else, block it.

        As for keywords, let the ad companies meta tag their ads. Give them 400 ch

        • Too late.

          The genie is out of the bottle. Now consumers are realizing that they don't have to see things they don't want to. In the old days the browser did whatever the site owner wanted, so we got pop-ups and java advertisements and auto playing flash. The internet started out being a place where ideas were conveyed mostly by text because putting a double handful of advertisements would make the page take several minutes to load with a 2400 baud modem. Those websites that tried to put a lot of advertising

    • Well that is kind of dumb. If I was looking for a pickup truck or a digital camera, I would simply go to google and run a search for those things. Not put them as terms in an app that may or may not bother me with those things while I am busy looking at something else.

    • by Tom ( 822 )

      In principle, yes.

      In reality, it would be abused immediately. If we were to implement an "interested in" user-agent header, advertisers would begin collecting them roughly three minutes afterwards, and then tell their clients which to use to reach the largest audience, no matter what it is they are actually advertising.

  • I hope they include malware in their criteria for "acceptable."
    There's no major ad network that doesn't serve malware (AFAICT).
    • by tepples ( 727027 )

      First I'd like to understand how you'd define "malware" or "malicious software", and please explain how a policy including "no SWF objects and no Java applets" would allow malicious software to slip in.

      • explain how a policy including "no SWF objects and no Java applets" would allow malicious software to slip in.

        There are javascript exploits.

        • by tepples ( 727027 )

          There are javascript exploits.

          But how much risk do they create compared to the following three issues?

          • There have also been HTML, CSS, font, and image exploits.
          • Browser publishers are responsible for fixing JavaScript exploits. Have these exploits been reported to browser publishers?
          • Would you prefer that sites use the <video> tag for animating their ads rather than the often more bandwidth-efficient yet script-dependent <canvas> element?
          • I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make.
            • by tepples ( 727027 )

              My point is that there have been exploits in all parts of a web client stack. Therefore, you have to show how JavaScript exploits pose greater risk than exploits in something else.

              • Why would I have to show that? You asked:

                explain how a policy including "no SWF objects and no Java applets" would allow malicious software to slip in.

                If that's the only policy you have, then you're going to be vulnerable still, that's pretty clear.

                • by tepples ( 727027 )

                  You claim that "no SWF objects and no Java applets" is insufficient. In your opinion, what policy short of disconnecting from the Internet is sufficient to block malicious software and why?

                  • If a website allows scripts to be placed on their pages from unknown parties without even looking at the scripts, then it's going to invite malware.
                    I trust Yahoo.com to not write malware on their own pages (except in rare cases of a rogue programmer or something). I don't trust the ads the show with insufficient vetting.

                    So basically what I am saying is that they need to do a better job vetting ads.
                    • If a website allows scripts to be placed on their pages from unknown parties without even looking at the scripts, then it's going to invite malware.
                      I trust Yahoo.com to not write malware on their own pages

                      Implicit in this is a policy of rejecting scripts and the like that are hotlinked from a different website. But how would a browser determine whether a request belongs to "a different website"? You can't just go by whether the public suffix [publicsuffix.org] matches, especially when a site serves its own static resources from its CDN on a different, cookieless domain [superuser.com].

                    • Problems!
                      I solve those problems by blocking all ads. As long as malware pops up in ads from time to time, I will continue to do so.
  • Ad-block block. sigh.
  • ...this Slashdot Paid Posts crap?

  • by Earthquake Retrofit ( 1372207 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @03:12PM (#50630183) Journal
    Why has the mass media finally 'discovered' it? Because Apple. Does this mean that advertisers believe Apple users are suckers?
    • by mccrew ( 62494 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @03:44PM (#50630527)

      Why has the mass media finally 'discovered' it? Because Apple.

      Yep, because Apple.

      I think Apple is more friendly to ad blocking because they are already sucking all the profits out of the mobile ecosystem with device sales, while their chief rival makes approximately zero from device sales and is dependent on advertising revenue. They are trying to leverage their high-value platform to deny revenue to their competitor.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Seems like a risky game to play, given that their services heavily depend on ad funded sources for data. According to Wikipedia, Siri uses:

        - OpenTable, Gayot, CitySearch, BooRah, Yelp, Yahoo Local, Yandex, ReserveTravel, and Localeze for restaurant and business questions and actions;
        - Eventful, StubHub, and LiveKick for events and concert information;
        - MovieTickets, Rotten Tomatoes, and the New York Times for movie information and reviews;
        - Bing Answers, Wolfram Alpha and Evi for factual question answering;

    • Why has the mass media finally 'discovered' it?

      Why do you falsely presume that people have only *just now* discovered it to begin with? Nothing in the summary or in the linked article even remotely said or implied any such thing that AdBlock Plus was something new. But, the fact that Apple finally put in content blocking into iOS has been a major source of news mostly because advertisers have been bawwwing like babies. But that doesn't mean that no one in the media knew about AdBlock Plus.

  • by joh ( 27088 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @03:37PM (#50630445)

    What adblock should do is blocking ALL ads and all tracking religiously (no exceptions, treat every ad or tracker as a bug to fix) and then instead inject own ads they sell. Limit that to one ad per page (none on pages that had no ads to begin with, on pages with only a single ad let this through), small, no tracking at all, no flash, no video, no sound. Deliver ads to devices based on rough location (as determined by the IP address) and the URL of the page, no more personalisation by tracking. Add an opt-in system with an account where users can voluntarily submit preferences for ads to get more relevant ads if they want to.

    This would be revolutionary and could help to beat the online advertising business back on track. It would allow less (but more expensive) ads, more page views for websites, less bandwidth waste, and more honest and meaningful targeting. It would be rather a kind of "page sponsoring" than the firehose approach that we have now, but this doesn't have to be bad, for nobody.

    I mean, things like trying to trick users into clicking on an ad by accident or devaluing your advertising by drowning it in a flickering sea of crap does neither help the users nor those who advertise or the websites themselves. Online advertising is being ABUSED and all but some scum companies suffer from it. Both websites and advertisers (that is the companies who want to show ads to people they think they have something to sell to) have to organize against that kind of abuse. Websites need to get much, much more selective about what they allow their content to be framed by and if they can't spend that kind of effort on it they have to outsource it.

    And yes, someone has to do something drastic or we will never see things changing here, and everyone will suffer just longer from it. There is no real reason for advertising being a too dirty business, it's what made the press and radio and TV affordable and helped countless businesses to stay in business and customers find companies to buy things from.

    • What does the website get out of this? Sounds like nothing. You've taken all of their ads away and put yours in which you keep the money. The website isn't getting the money from the ad. The user is going to think if they click on the ad that the website might benefit.

      I was thinking that AdBlock might change their model so that they offer a free version that blocks everything except for one standard size ad. It wouldn't be a Flash or JavaScript on. Just a simple image banner ad. AdBlock would get mone

  • Really, this is the question Adblock Plus needs to answer.
    I want them to block as much ads as possible, with as little false-positive as possible, and all this on the most automatic/simple way as possible.

    They succeed pretty well as long as I uncheck their "allow acceptable ads" setting. I still don't get why this setting exists to begin with.

    • by joh ( 27088 )

      Well, maybe not this way, but don't you think there should be a way to have websites earn some money so that they can pay people to bring you the content you want to get without having to outright pay them? I mean, either that or you get only websites made by people in their spare time and out of his own pocket (and traffic stops being cheap as soon as lots of people start to like what you do) or websites that are being paid by companies that don't even tell you about it (and then dictate the content too).

      O

      • Well, maybe not this way, but don't you think there should be a way to have websites earn some money

        Of course. They are free to put ads. Or charge for access. But I am also free to block their ads.

        Let's face it. People like you try to pretend that we block ads because they are annoying. But let's face it, we won't unblock them just because they stop flashing. We block them because we can, and it is perfectly legal to do so. Maybe if ads weren't so annoying, there would be less of us blocking them to begin with. But now that we have ad-blockers, and that we use them, we won't go back.

        Can you imagine TV or radio with no ads?

        Sure. I watch most of

        • Your point of view isn't universal. I've lived for a long time in a sea of ads, and I've gotten to the point where I don't mind them normally, and am willing to allow screen space for them to support websites I like. If I had some assurance that the web would become usable and safe without an ad blocker, I'd stop using mine.

          • How much money do you think a web site makes with you visiting it for a year? The problem I see with ads is that they are highly inefficient. They do not give a significant amount of money for users who, like me, never click on ads anyways. So I might as well block them then see them and never click.

    • Really, this is the question Adblock Plus needs to answer.

      The ad-blocking company needs to explain to you why you would want to block ads? Are you paying attention? You realize they make the ad-blocker, right?

      I still don't get why this setting exists to begin with.

      Did you pay them to download and install the ad-blocker? That's why it exists.

  • White list (Score:4, Informative)

    by tompaulco ( 629533 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @05:26PM (#50631537) Homepage Journal
    No committee, no user group, no consortium. Just give each user a white list for sites they want to accept ads from here. To get you started, I've paste mine below.





    Thank you for your attention.
    • It already works this way, the problem is Eyeo wants to get a cut of the ad revenue. Sorry, suckers, it isn't like someone else can't do adblock.

  • NO ad is acceptable in my eyes - that is why I use ad blockers in the first place

  • Can I get elected to that board? How? Just so they have one person there who consistently says "no" to any and all ads that they want to label "acceptable".

    The only acceptable ad is one that I, the recipient consider acceptable. In such case, I will search it. When I buy a new car, I am interested in product information about cars. At no other times do I want to see advertisement for cars. It really is that simple.

  • They should rename it "Adblock Plus Ads".

    uBlock Origin [github.com] woooooo!

Unix: Some say the learning curve is steep, but you only have to climb it once. -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...