Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Adblock Plus Blocked From Attending Online Ad Industry's Big Annual Conference (arstechnica.co.uk) 442

An anonymous reader writes: Adblock Plus has been uninvited to the upcoming IAB Leadership Summit and is having its registration fee refunded. The company was informed of the cancellation in an email with little explanation. A company blog post reads in part: "Unfortunately, the top brass at the US IAB don't want us coming to their Leadership Summit next week in Palm Desert, California. We attended last year, and we signed up again for their 2016 meeting including paying the hefty entrance fee. We were fully confirmed and they even listed us on their website as a participant. Then this week we got one of those sudden emails that land in your inbox innocently, then floor you with something weird, unbelievable or ridiculous when you click on them. This one came from an unfamiliar IAB address, and it informed us that our registration for the summit was canceled and our fee refunded."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adblock Plus Blocked From Attending Online Ad Industry's Big Annual Conference

Comments Filter:
  • by sehlat ( 180760 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:06PM (#51338133)

    "La la la la la la la I can't hear you!"?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:39PM (#51338429)

      This one came from an unfamiliar IAB address

      From: apk@iab.com

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:43PM (#51338477)

        LOL. APK has also been discouraged from attending this conference (indeed, any conference or gathering of more than two people) for years, due to his aggressive attitude towards, um, advertisements.

        • by WarJolt ( 990309 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:54PM (#51338587)

          They are fools. Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by amicusNYCL ( 1538833 )

          APK hasn't been spamming Slashdot lately, there's no reason to make fun of him at this point. If he has decided to stop posting his advertisements here then do your part and leave him alone. If he wants to make meaningful comments like other Slashdot users (stop laughing) then that's fine, let him. No reason to poke him if he's not spamming.

          • by flopsquad ( 3518045 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @04:49PM (#51339125)

            No reason to poke him if he's not spamming.

            Indeed, these people know not the forces with which they meddle.

            I bet they don't even realize that, like the dreaded Candyman, if you say "APK" five times at the top of a Slashdot thread, he will appear in your HOSTS file and can never be deleted.

            The only way to get rid of him is sudo rm -rf --no-preserve-root / and then pull out the hard disk and burn it on a pyre of sage and thermite.

          • of course he's welcome to participate. I would suggest he post under a different name tho (as he probably has done all along). It's fair to say that his spam posts have reached the point of performance art, and his notoriety is deserved, and it's ok to poke fun at that.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          >, due to his aggressive attitude towards, um, grammar, formatting, communications, and sanity.

          FTFY

  • IAB (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:09PM (#51338155) Journal
    IAB represents the advertisers, so it's not surprising they're upset at adblock. Ad blocking has just been going up and up [pagefair.com].
    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      And their action shows that they can't take a "No" at the door.

    • Re:IAB (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:25PM (#51338281) Homepage

      Sure, but you'd think they'd at least be willing to listen to WHY they've pissed people off so badly to the point more people are using this stuff.

      I mean, you can choose to not be aware of the fact that you serve malware and compromise people's computers like some self entitled ass ... or you can try to figure out WTF you're doing wrong.

      In this case, it sounds like a bunch of clueless idiots not being willing to understand why people are now actively taking steps to block them.

      AdBlock isn't "the enemy".

      Terrible ad practices and non-existent accountability for delivering malware is. Bad management of our personally identifying data is. Not understanding we no longer wish to be tracked by 20 entities on every web site we visit is.

      The IAB feels entitled to this stuff. Which means the rest of us will, without any remorse, actively deny it to them.

      I don't owe brightcove or scorecard research a damned thing, and I never will. The sooner they stop acting like spoiled children the more they might understand the mess they're in.

      • Re:IAB (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:33PM (#51338367) Journal

        It's a gathering of evil sociopaths. They don't care about why people don't like what they produce. We should be happy these monsters are in advertising, because otherwise they'd probably be driving around in vans kidnapping people, torturing and murdering them, and then eating the remains in cannibalistic orgies. These are evil people.

        • It's a gathering of evil sociopaths. They don't care about why people don't like what they produce. We should be happy these monsters are in advertising, because otherwise they'd probably be driving around in vans kidnapping people, torturing and murdering them, and then eating the remains in cannibalistic orgies. These are evil people.

          Sounds like the plot of a game that should really be made. Or at least a book.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      Yes, I would expect that the Nazi Party would disinvite the Anti-Defamation League.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      And this is/was their opportunity to work with Adblock (as the representative/proxy for the people who block the ads) to figure out a way to make ads acceptable to people so they don't want/need to block them.

      Like a lot of people, I'm not against tasteful advertising. I will stop blocking when it comes [back]. But block the content I navigated to see, shove auto-playing audio and video down my throat, and create just generally annoying ads with lots of flashing, etc., and yes, I am going to block your ads

    • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      Not really. ABP seems to be more open to discussion than other adblockers. They have an "acceptable ads" policy with guidelines and an optional whitelist.
      If they don't want people to go full "fuck off", they better play along.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:16PM (#51338205)

    they have adblockblock installed.

  • Sounds like North Koreans... "you are spy!"
  • ABP folks, this is a strong indicator of success. Time to consider charging users for licenses in some way. You're winning. Good luck. Almost every individual human entity using the Internet is on your side, even though they may not know it yet. I'm shooting $20 your way today.

    • Why are you sending money to Adblock, Inc? They are making millions off of selling their "whitelist" access to advertisers. Silly person, no one is going to pay for Adblock when you can get ublock and other alternatives for free.
    • i'm not. ads are a pain, and clicking through is auto-reflex now... but in the same measure, who's going to generate revenue for the companies behind these websites? say we reach the state you're looking for, everybody has blocked 100 percent of ads, or a large percentage. who's going to pay to put an ad on a site that nobody sees? how do you propose reddit generate revenue? all those aggregator sites?

      do we go to a subscriber model? that's even more of a pain in the ass. we've already heard the death kn

      • by OhPlz ( 168413 )

        The whole ad funded anything model doesn't make sense. Does anyone watch the stupid ads before youtube clips? Does anyone even see them? Why do companies pay to force these ads in front of people who don't want to see them? I've never bought anything based on a youtube ad. How much less would products and services cost if the companies weren't wasting so much on advertising?

        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @04:17PM (#51338765)

          Yes, people do. I'll even watch the occasional one that's interesting. I watched the one from the government claiming that the bridge out of the city isn't about to crash down into the river, because it's (darkly) hilarious that I live in a place where governments buy ads like that.

          One thing you realize when you watch a few of those ads is that the content is right up front, in that first five seconds you can't skip. They're going for literal "impressions," eyeballs transferring their name and logo to brains. Apparently that's all you need to convince people to buy your crap.

      • If advertizing CDNs took resposibility and accountability for the content they serve, and vetted every single ad, fewer people would block ads. I'm all for these sites generating revenue with ads, but I'm not about to allow malicious ads to infect my system with some random nasty bug. Using ad-blockers is the equivalent of using a condom. Don't want a virus, protect yourself. That's all people are doing.
      • Sponsored content, properly marked as such, with useful information about a product is far more effective than annoying ads.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mujadaddy ( 1238164 )

        who's going to generate revenue for the companies behind these websites?

        how do you propose reddit generate revenue? all those aggregator sites?

        Revenue isn't a fundamental right. The network was better when it was all hobbyists & researchers.

    • Why are you giving them money, or using AdBlock Plus for that matter? The company that makes ABP already makes plenty of money by crippling their own product by default. Not to mention the engine they're using is laggy as hell on mobile. Just move over to UBlock Origin with everyone else.
  • by Mike Van Pelt ( 32582 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:20PM (#51338249)

    I don't block ads. I don't have a problem with ads as such. I do block scripts unless I feel the domain has some degree of trustworthiness. No ad servers have any degree of trustworthiness whatsoever.

    Sites like forbes.com, which will not show you anything but their "Give us carte blanche to ream you with malware laden ads or you can't see our domain" splash page can die in a fire for all I care. I'm not doing it.

    • I do the same. I just run noscript. I have for many years.

      This really has the same effect as ad blocking since most ads these days are JS.

      Simple choice for advertisers though... just make your ad text or image based and you are fine.

    • If you are fine with viruses and having your bank account compromised go right ahead.

      It is dangerous NOT TO run as malware gets on pcs through ads these days. Forbes is a reason to use it. It is sad but I need to protect myself and as soon as advertisers start flipping out the sooner they can police themselves.

      After all why should they change. They get free money and do not care about infecting users.

    • by cshay ( 79326 )

      Forbes won't dare show that page to the Googlebot. Change your useragent and Forbes.com is a pleasant read.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:24PM (#51338265)

    I use AdBlock. I wish I didn't have to. I do not mind websites using advertising to finance them making quality content I want to read. As a former open source developer, I know it takes real money to make quality content -- "for fun and for free" is a fantasy pirates made up to justify downloading something they ought to pay for.

    For years, I could block annoying animated ads without resorting to adblock. First, I changed Netscape binaries to make the string “netscape2” “notscape2” so that animated gifs would not loop. Then, when I moved to Firefox, I used about:preferences to stop animated gifs from looping and used the flashblock plugin to block animated flash ads. But now, the annoying animated ads are using Javascript. Since NoScript has issues with blocking legitimate content, I have installed various forms of adblock (I have used adblock, adblock plus, and ublock)

    They work, but they by default blacklist all sites, which I don't like. Sites with non-intrusive ads should be rewarded with page views. Sites with intrusive ads should be punished with all ads blocked from their site. I end up whitelisting a site I haven't been to and reloading the page; I will un-whitelist them if there is a single animated ad on the page.

    The web is killing the publishing industry, and I do not agree with the notion that we are entitled to content without paying them, either directly or by looking at ads. But animated ads are just to distracting for me -- I can not read an article which has them -- and have no analog in print media, so I need to block them. I just wish I could do so by blocking only the animated ads.

    • by clampolo ( 1159617 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:42PM (#51338475)
      They have forced us to do it. 1) There are some web pages where you can hear your computer's fans start to scream because there is so much javascript crap that starts running. 2) Some pages take an eternity to load up because of the megabytes of ads that need to be downloaded It's a lot easier to just block everything.
      • There are some web pages where you can hear your computer's fans start to scream because there is so much javascript crap that starts running.

        I, too, have visited Cracked.com.

    • > and I do not agree with the notion that we are entitled to content without paying them,

      So let's discriminate against the poor instead. /sarcasm Great strategy for sharing knowledge!

      Repeat after me, It is not my problem to support your broken business model.

      It is not about entitlement, it is about the right to view, or not view. Are you one of those people that feel unethical when you got to the bathroom / kitchen / fridge / etc. when an ad appears? Using software (or hardware) to control what appears

      • I think we would get better content if we got rid of ads. Consider the stuff you typically find on broadcast TV, to the for-pay stuff you see. There's not much on free tv anymore.
    • by Skewray ( 896393 )
      I now use Ghostery and whitelist only Project Wonderful. And a flash-blocker, of course.
    • by jdavidb ( 449077 )

      The web is killing the publishing industry, and I do not agree with the notion that we are entitled to content without paying them, either directly or by looking at ads

      I'll continue to view whatever I can get my hands on and blocking ads. If they have a problem with that they can look into implementing technical solutions to require me to pay or whatever, or they can pursue some legal thing, or send a thug to break my kneecaps (basically the same as legal solutions), or go out of business and leave the web to everybody else.

    • The web is killing the publishing industry

      Is it? That means that the web is more profitable than traditional publishing, and there's nothing to worry about.

      Conversely, if adblocking is killing [the profitability, and hence sustainability of ] the web, then the web isn't really killing the publishing industry, and there's nothing to worry about.

      Explain to me how it can be possible for the web to kill the publishing industry while being unprofitable.

      • by swb ( 14022 )

        Explain to me how it can be possible for the web to kill the publishing industry while being unprofitable.

        I think you can somehow insert Goldman Sachs into the equation and then everybody loses money....except Lloyd Blankfein.

  • Who likes Ads? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by no-body ( 127863 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:30PM (#51338315)

    Aren't they a permanent annoyance?

    One goes to a site for a certain purpose - to look/find/do something.
    Then there are movements, popups, slideshows aside from the permanent - please give feedback/survey later-ones...
    Visual beggars for attention, distractions, from the original purpose requiring extra effort and time to avoid/ignore/eliminate.

    Who likes/needs those?

    Suckers! On a very large part of the Internet, defying the original purpose of this great idea.

    Born to be killed.

  • by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:37PM (#51338401)

    ...they got ad blocked.

    YEEEEEAAAAAHHHHH!

  • by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:38PM (#51338423)

    IAB where advertisers learn from the Porn industry on how to implement effective click bait by using jail bait.

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:39PM (#51338431)

    The problem with online ads now is how much CPU/battery/data they use up. Since people are desensitized to them now, the advertisers respond by making the ads more interactive, flashier and in-your-face, which eats all these resources. Your computer needs to run a million JavaScript snippets that go out to all sorts of web addresses to collect content, update cookies, etc.

    I don't run ad blockers at some, simply because I'm not really bothered by them that much. But on my work PC, which is on a very slow connection (proxy server in another country,) I have to run them to make browsing tolerable. The problem is that if ads go away, people will need to pay for content. I doubt many people are under the illusion that Google is giving its massive amount of (very helpful) services for free. Given how helpful Google is to my daily work, I'd gladly pay a monthly fee for a "do not track me" version. But how many others would do the same?

    • The problem is that if ads go away, people will need to pay for content.

      Good. Then the amalgamated pile of shit that teh intertoobz has become will shrink by quite a lot. Because most of the internet ain't worth shit.

      • by gnupun ( 752725 )

        Really? Are you ready for an internet consisting of only user forums (like slashdot) and the remaining 1000 paid-only sites?

        A good chunk of the internet contains low-quality and free content (like those free newspaper stands in downtown). If you want high quality content, go to a bookstore or music store and pay $$$.

        • Really?

          Really.

          Are you ready for an internet consisting of only user forums (like slashdot) and the remaining 1000 paid-only sites?

          My core use of the internet is mainly science and hobbyist sites. No Facebook, no Twitter, My antisocial media is Slashdot. I've bought from eBay, but not exclusively.

          A good chunk of the internet contains low-quality and free content (like those free newspaper stands in downtown). If you want high quality content, go to a bookstore or music store and pay $$$.

          And that book isn't going to make me look at ads for things I'm not wanting either.

          This is not like "Die Internet, DIE!!" What i'm saying is that the standard model of put up a website, get some advertisement network to serve up ads, some innocent, and some malware, is badly broken. You can be served with so much junk, your browser

  • by Wolfger ( 96957 ) <wolfger@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @03:40PM (#51338449) Homepage
    ...because in Russia, ads block you!
  • The advertising industry has been collaborating with law enforcement [wikipedia.org] on a new piece of technology. The Adblock Plus Blocker! It blocks Adblock Plus from ad industry conferences.

    Will Adblock plus respond with an Adblock Plus Blocker Blocker?
  • If/when these people left the convention to grab a bite to eat, or get drinks, that people came up to them and gave them sales pitches for things (movie scripts, viagra, sex toys, etc.) or if people knocked on their hotel doors late at night, to do the same..

  • by MitchDev ( 2526834 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @04:10PM (#51338705)

    So, the headline states : "Adblock Plus Blocked From Attending Online Ad Industry's Big Annual Conference"

    Online advertisers have a conference where they gather, yet ISIS attacks innocent civilians instead?

  • As an old-schooler, I've been using a modified hosts file [someonewhocares.org]. Are there any distinct advantages to using ad-blocking software over a hosts file?

    • As an old-schooler, I've been using a modified hosts file [someonewhocares.org]. Are there any distinct advantages to using ad-blocking software over a hosts file?

      Ad-blocking software updates the list automatically. Typically some sort of script needs to be used to do this with a host file.

      I've been thinking about switching to the host method myself. I'm looking to use the very host file you posted on my router. Since I am a networking novice, I haven't figured out how to do that yet.

    • ABP does things like block sponsored tweets in Twitter and other ads that don't fit the normal "Use 3rd party server" model.

      I'd be wary of hosts files in general, they're easily bypassed by advertisers and malware companies, either by using dynamic hostnames (xyzrandomstuff123.domainicontrol.com) or IP addresses.

  • There is a reason (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sectokia ( 3999401 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @04:14PM (#51338743)
    The ad companies have a new product which is basically they run your website instead of you, allowing the ads to come from the same domain as regular content, effectively making ad block ineffective, as it won't be able to distinguish between content and ads. They have no interest at all in letting ad block learn about this product. Ad block only go to the event to essentially extort money anyway, saying they will allow non intrusive ads, in reality you just pay them money and you get on their white list.
  • they would want to not invite.

    Doe the IAB have a wish for the internet to continue to be viable according to their model? If so, then it is critical that they come up with a paradigm that gets people to accept advertising. The present day Internet is now darn near unusable. The few occasions I have accidentally fotgotten to turn my ad blocker back on, it felt like I was on a 14.4K modem. NO! I did not pay for a fast line to be served that shit sammich.

    And on my smartphone, It doesn't take much time to r

  • Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. No?
    I wouldn't want to have been the AB+ rep attending, left alone in the corner feeling like a pork pie at a Jewish wedding...
    It was an act of kindness.

  • I'd print that email out, frame it, and hang it on my wall.

    Kudos to you, AB+!

"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa

Working...