Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Advertising Businesses

AdBlock Plus Updates Acceptable Ads Policy 523

AmiMoJo writes: By default the popular AdBlock Plus plug-in allows some "acceptable" ads to be displayed. A blog post announcing updates to policy describes the goals of the update: easier to understand, more robust and more explicit about what is and isn't acceptable. The new criteria are listed on another page, and the option to disable acceptable ads remains.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AdBlock Plus Updates Acceptable Ads Policy

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I don't give a fuck what their justifications are. There are not any ads that are acceptable. That's it. End of story.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Speak for yourself. Ads are the reason why a lot of good content can stay afloat on the web without asking for money directly, I get that.
      I wouldn't mind decent, simple text or image ads on the Internet. As long as they don't try to force feed me their ads down my throat, shove distracting, animated shit in my face or potentially harm my computer with uncontrolled Flash ads, I don't see why we couldn't all get along.

      I hope the ad industry and site operators are finally starting to realize that annoying the

      • by aaaaaaargh! ( 1150173 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @11:27AM (#51154131)

        Ads are the reason why a lot of good content can stay afloat on the web

        Where is this "good content"? I can't find it and, frankly speaking, would have no problem if all ad-sponsored business would disappear from the web tomorrow, including this site.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 20, 2015 @11:52AM (#51154225)

          Where is this "good content"?

          With such constant disappointment on the web, I can't understand why you'd keep using it.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 20, 2015 @12:04PM (#51154277)

            What do you mean "disappointment"? I use the web for bad content, for entertainment and wasting time, like everybody else.

            The fallacy of many web-sponsored startups is to believe that their "content" is good or even worth anything, just because people look at it for free. Mostly it's not. (There are exceptions, of course.) If Facebook would die tomorrow, nobody would give a shit about it, people would simply move on to another site. The same holds for most of the other adware sites. If you have a good product, people will buy it. Ad-supported "content" is just a soap bubble.

            Besides, I'm not sure if your old enough to know that, but the Web was great before companies and ads came to it. Instead of /. you would waste your time on Usenet - without ads.

        • Acceptable advertising varies by culture. Personally, I can't tolerate much of it. Other people might be able to spend every day in Times Square without batting an eye. It also seems to vary by medium within a culture. I am not sure how you can cater advertising to the user in terms of magnitude, but my gut feeling is that people that use Adblock should just be left alone by advertisers until they get a better sense of what the users find non-offensive.

          That said, I do know there are advertisements that

          • I have every right to use my computer in any legal way I see fit. If I want to block ads I can do that. Nothing immoral or illegal about it in any way.

            If sites that depend on ads to exist go away because too many people block their ads, that's life. We all make choices. If I block ads, I take on whatever risk (if you can call it that) is associated. I find the risk of "losing" a site much less than the real risk of being fed a stream of ads that may possibly be laden with malware, although I'm willing to vi

        • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

          Where is this "good content"? I can't find it and, frankly speaking, would have no problem if all ad-sponsored business would disappear from the web tomorrow, including this site.

          "Good content" in this case is content you enjoy, including things that you are too ashamed to admit you enjoy. Even "the top 10 fart jokes you already know" is good content if you enjoyed reading it.
          Entertainment is seriously underrated.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 20, 2015 @11:31AM (#51154149)

        Ads are the reason why a lot of good content can stay afloat on the web without asking for money directly,

        You might be surprised to learn that there was an internet for several decades before the advertisers showed up, and that it had a dramatically higher signal to noise ratio then. I know, because I was there.

        I'll take that internet over the one we have now, any day. If the advertisers go away again, that will be a good thing. The actual useful content will remain: things like wikipedia that I and others will voluntarily contribute to support. But your average click-bait idiot trap pages, they can die and the world will be better off for it.

        • by lucm ( 889690 )

          You might be surprised to learn that there was an internet for several decades before the advertisers showed up, and that it had a dramatically higher signal to noise ratio then.

          True that. I used to read the Baseline magazine (http://www.baselinemag.com/), it was full of interesting articles, and I was even looking at the few ads because they were relevant.

          Now it's just empty click-baiting content filled with blinking banners, fake pop ups and lousy ad-injected slideshows. Not sure who's benefits from that, but it's not the reader.

          • Not to mention all the tracking and JavaScript bullshit. The web sucks now, and tools like ABP, privacy badger and HTTPS everywhere are becoming an absolute necessity.
          • And as soon as it was offered to the general public we started getting banner ads > flashing banner ads > popups > popunders > popups / unders that opened more popups / unders when closed > shit like bonzai buddy that didn't even need the browser open to splatter shitware all over your monitor > scripted ad pages that won't let you close them.... ETC. ETC. ETC.

            Rose tinted glasses much?
            Yeah, the "internet" was a shit-ton better before the general public was allowed on it, but it had drastic

        • by tepples ( 727027 )

          You might be surprised to learn that there was an internet for several decades before the advertisers showed up

          Was it possible to get Internet access at home back then? I was under the impression that before advertisers showed up, the Internet was available on university campuses, and that was about it.

          • by KGIII ( 973947 )

            Define internet? We've been able to dial into a computer or a networked computer for a very long time - even using acoustic coupler cradle modems. If you had access then you could, perhaps, dial in to a university network from remote but a lot of the internet was dialing into some guy's computer across town and he had a BBS running. Long distance charges may apply. So, what you'd do is connect to one system that would enable you to connect to another system and then, with propagation, you could even do stuf

        • by Kkloe ( 2751395 )
          being a wikipedia editor is a good merit for anything?
        • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

          Sure, it had a higher signal to noise ratio.
          But in absolute terms, it also had much less signal. And the lower SNR of today is compensated by better search technology. For me, it's a win.

          And now that you are talking about Wikipedia, it certainly has great content. However, I don't like the direction it is taking with its donation campaigns as they look a lot like ads. They use overlays, interstitials, large banners. If you read the details, they clearly try to get as much money from you as possible using ma

      • by lucm ( 889690 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @11:54AM (#51154235)

        force feed me their ads down my throat

        You mean, like the awful "Slashdot Top Deals" ad that comes up a second after the page is loaded, bringing down the menu on the right and getting me to mistakenly click on it?

        It's been years since I've been first offered that "Disable advertising" checkbox (since I'm an amazing contributor) and I have never used it, but with this new Slashdot Deals ad I might do it soon.

        • by Teun ( 17872 )
          I don't know what you're complaining about.

          I've disabled the adblocker here and yes that top banner shows up but it doesn't resize/ reposition the page in any bothersome way.
          Besides, what menu on the right, that little invitation to turn off advertising and your karma score??
          • by tepples ( 727027 )

            What happens is that the page loads, with "Disable Advertising" at the top and the message inbox just below that. But as I'm reaching up to follow a link to the message in the inbox, two more boxes appear right above it: "Slashdot Top Deals / Pay What You Want: White Hat Hacker Bundle" and "Get the Slashdot Newsletters / Sign Up!" Only the first of these two boxes has an X to make it go away.

        • by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @01:54PM (#51154767)

          Deals aren't blocked by the checkbox...

          • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

            Deals aren't blocked by the checkbox...

            Yes. I was so happy when I figured out blocking the StackSocial API with ABP took care of it all.

      • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @12:03PM (#51154273)

        Speak for yourself. Ads are the reason why a lot of good content can stay afloat on the web without asking for money directly, I get that.

        I get it too, when I think about it rationally. The trouble is, I've been so bombarded with ads since I was born (and I'm not that young), be it on newspapers, roadside signs, television, the internet when it started to become commercially attractive... that I have a visceral hate of it, whatever product it plugs and whomever forces it onto me. I find any and all adverts vulgar, disgusting and a gross intrusion on my right to choose what I want to stuff my brain with.

        As a result, I too block all ads on the internet. Yes, I know many sites couldn't live without it, but... well, if they can't, I'd rather they disappeared than have to look at ads.

        Also, when I can't block, skip or hide ads, I *remember* what product was advertised, and by whom, and I make a mental note never to buy that product, and if possible, any other product from that company. That's what decades of wanton advertising has done to me. Talk about well poisoning...

        • Also, when I can't block, skip or hide ads, I *remember* what product was advertised, and by whom, and I make a mental note never to buy that product, and if possible, any other product from that company.

          In my area, the local electric power company runs public service announcements related to safety around its power lines and other facilities. Have fun joining the Amish.

      • Ads are the reason why a lot of good content can stay afloat on the web without asking for money directly, I get that. I wouldn't mind decent, simple text or image ads on the Internet. As long as they don't try to force feed me their ads down my throat, shove distracting, animated shit in my face or potentially harm my computer with uncontrolled Flash ads, I don't see why we couldn't all get along.

        You comment doesn't make sense. First you say "ads are needed!" but then you go and say "unless" and list all the reasons why people install the adblockers in the first place.

        That thing people call "acceptable ads" is as old as the internet advertisement itself. It didn't work 20 years ago - I do not see reasons why it would work today. Greed always wins and all "acceptable ad" networks, however good their intentions initially are, turn to shit sooner or later. Or die, because the toxic competition always

      • by chmod a+x mojo ( 965286 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @01:10PM (#51154585)

        Not only that, but ads should not take up more than 10% of the page. As it is most places ( if someone is unfortunate enough to not have adblock ) the CONTENT takes up 10% of the page with 90% being ads.

        Same with youtube, first time in years I tried it without adblock was recently. Every. Single. Video. Was prefaced by a 15+ second ad that was un-skippable. Nope, back to adblock plus / ublock origin, not going to put up with that shit.

      • When it was banner I never blocked any. But now it is not anymore static banner but scripts executable for which thee can never be any guarantee. I will never ever allow ads which can execute stuff on my PC ever again.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Alright, calm down Captain Righteous. Is anyone forcing you to use Adblock over something else?

      There are not any ads that are acceptable. That's it. End of story.

      Oh, so you're the arbiter of universal objective truth? Because I have some questions...

  • by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Sunday December 20, 2015 @10:48AM (#51153963) Homepage

    I really like this policy. Sites deserve to be able to show ads and make revenue on their content. That is how you get content to stay around and be good. The issue is the terribly intrusive and deceptive ads that suck up bandwidth and annoy everyone. I switched to uBlock Origins a while ago because of the memory AdBlock sucks up, but if they can get that under control I may switch back just for this feature.

    • by thsths ( 31372 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @10:58AM (#51154013)

      Except that it says nothing about deceptive. An add that says "your computer is infected with a virus, click here to remove" could still be classified as acceptable. Even malware is not explicitly forbidden. So I think there is some work to be done.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sites deserve to be able to show ads and make revenue on their content.

      They do deserve "to be able", and they are "able". What they don't deserve is the ability to force a person's computer to display an ad. ,It is misleading to sponsors to show ads to people who don't want to see ads, and who refuse to ever click on ads. This would be no more than wasting bandwidth and (where an amount is charged per impression rather than per click) is a dishonest collection of revenue.

      I make a point to never click on ads, my brain tunes out ads, and where any ad gets through an ad blocker I

    • My issue with this is that it's still an arms race. Creativity will be poured into putting more onoxious crap in regardless of the guidelines. On top of that, how do we know one of the advertising providers won't bring a wheelbarrow full of money to AdBlock and purchase their loophole?

      Although I do agree with the sentiment that some ads are okay to keep sites alive, I definitely love the idea of consumers world-wide sending the message that they need us more than we need them. I fear this approach will

  • Acceptable Ads (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @10:52AM (#51153987)

    Complete list:

    End of list.

    Sorry, dear advertisers. You poisoned the well. Now please get lost.

    • Re: Acceptable Ads (Score:2, Insightful)

      by arielCo ( 995647 )

      So you're paying every site you visit for the service provided to you, which causes operating costs? Since not every site even has an option to pay, you're likely mooching from a high horse.

      • Oh how did this "Internet" thing only work before corporations found out about it?

        • Hobbyists spent their own money or mooched their university maintaining (home)pages that got a *lot* less traffic than now, and the content was rather crappy.

          And this isn't about corporate greed - suppose you start a webcomic, or writing jokes. People like it, and you want more free time to dedicate to it rather than work 9 to 5 or designing commercial posters (a very typical case). Not everyone is willing to fork over for a t-shirt or a book (I don't buy books often). Some can't/won't fork over on Patreon.

  • uBlock Origin (Score:5, Informative)

    by edibobb ( 113989 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @11:00AM (#51154023) Homepage
    uBlock Origin is roughly 12 times better than Adblock Plus. It's significantly faster, has less overhead, has a better user interface, and does not whitelist ad sites.
  • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @11:13AM (#51154085)

    Then:
    Users: hey can you give us less intrusive and annoying ads
    Advertisers: screw you here is your ad

    Now:
    Advertisers: hey please don't block our ads thanks
    Users: screw you

  • Adblock disclosures? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HockeyPuck ( 141947 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @11:21AM (#51154119)

    Does the adblock team disclose how much money they get from advertisers to allow them through their filters?

  • Does it include blocking third party sites? It's the main reason I block ads - and I'm not using adblocker, but third party site blockers like RequestPolicy and DNS blocking.

    I don't mind seeing non-intrusive ads, but I don't like being tracked by third parties.

  • I run a website that uses ads. It's called The Geek Pub. I make things and I create videos and articles so that others can do it themselves too.

    I also sell detailed plan files on the site for anywhere between $1 and $10 depending on how complicated the project is. This is how I would LIKE to make my revenue. But it doesn't work. I have no choice but to show ads. Why? Because I almost daily find a copy of every plan my site sells on bittorrent or file sharing sites. I've even had people post links to them in the comment section of my own site!

    The TRUTH: People want everything for free and they have zero desire to actually support the content creators. They steal our content and post it for the world and then complain about the ads we use to make money. We can't win as content creators.

    • by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @01:38PM (#51154713)
      I mean this in the most respectful manner possible.

      You produce material that does not generate enough sufficient interest from paying consumers to support its production and distribution. You have therefore accepted remuneration from third-parties in return for providing them access to perform psychological manipulation and subliminal coercion upon anyone who finds your material interesting enough to consume at a market value of zero (as in, free).

      Your material has negligible market value. That has no reflection upon you; most art has the same market value but significant social value. That you let those few who appreciate your work be influenced does. Advertising is exceedingly rarely to the benefit of the advertised-to.

      I offer this not as criticism of your choice, but food for thought. The starving artist scenario is an age old quandry.
      • "I mean this in the most respectful manner possible. Your material has negligible market value."

        I'm sorry. Respectfully, I call bullshit. If my content is worth someone's time to put it on a file sharing site, it is worth 99 cents.

    • Try offering it for a penny, as an experiment. I think you'll still find that people will refuse to pay a penny, and it won't be because it's too much for them and it won't be because they don't think your product is worth a penny -- it's just that paying is complicated, dangerous, non-anonymous, and not even available to some (eg children). In fact, odds are less people will buy your file for a penny than for a dollar.

    • Patreon might be a better fit for you. Matters less if people pirate your work, as they are paying to encourage more of it rather than for something.

  • by Jim Sadler ( 3430529 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @12:03PM (#51154275)
    Why not let the end user decide what level of advertising they wish to accept? Maybe one, ten- second ad per hour that occupies one- eighth of the screen or less would be acceptable to some people whereas others might allow two such ads per hour. Others might wish zero advertising under all conditions. The danger is that advertising will destroy the net much as it destroyed broadcast TV. A 30-minute show, with 8-minutes of advertising, made TV unbearable to the point that people stopped watching broadcast TV and the advertisers became ever more desperate as the number of eyeballs that saw the ads fell.
  • So today I thought for shits and giggles I'll browse at -1.

    Only 6 incomprehensible psychobable posts by APK.
    Only 1 mention of the size of someone's penis.

    Very disappointed in Slashdot, this is a poor effort by shitposters everywhere.

  • by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Sunday December 20, 2015 @12:40PM (#51154453) Homepage
    An acceptable ad comes from the same domain as to web page. Simple as that.
  • Popups. Why can't it block popups that popup on damn near every page? Or those freekin' slide overs, or those pictures that jiggle until you want to put your face through the monitor?
    • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

      We'll need clever CSS to block the new stupid clever CSS bullshit. I don't know when we'll get that. The existing things are usually served from the same host, making them more static (they usually beg you for an email address or something). You can often get the data with a view source, and the technique I use is to use Remove It Permanently or some other addon to remove element by element. You can also just block the elements with uBlock Origin, which works great for dealing with the mewling on wikip

  • by ChadL ( 880878 ) * on Sunday December 20, 2015 @02:08PM (#51154817) Homepage
    The criteria are all about what the ad looks like... I care more about if its attempting to get around cookie destruction, doing browser history digging, accepting obfuscated JS from malvertisers, etc. It does say it doesn't allow Flash/Shockwave/etc, which is better then nothing, but not really good enough... I'm going to stick with NoScript (and not running adblock).
  • "You pay us enough money"
  • Advertising exists primarily for one and only one reason. Commodities.

    When a vendor offers a product or service indistinguishable from that of other vendors, he must find a way to make it *seem* special and to justify your purchasing it from him.

    Apple, Tesla, Prada, Google, Rolex, Nordstrom, Nike, Facebook, and the Red Cross / Red Crescent offer relatively unique products / services and are themselves respected for that. The burden is on competitors to identify some way that their product is superior. Thus

"How do I love thee? My accumulator overflows."

Working...