Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Google, Amazon, Microsoft Reportedly Paid AdBlock Plus To Unblock 619

RoccamOccam writes with the following news from The Register: Internet giants Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Taboola have reportedly paid AdBlock Plus to allow their ads to pass through its filter software. The confidential deals were confirmed by the Financial Times, the paper reported today [Paywalled]. From the Register's article: Eyeo GmbH, the German startup behind Adblock Plus, said it did not wish to comment. So far more than 300 million users have downloaded its software, it said. The add-on is free to download, with Eyeo generating revenue through its "whitelisting" programme. Companies can request their ads to be unblocked as long as they comply with AdBlock's "acceptable ads" policy. Large companies pay a fee for the service.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google, Amazon, Microsoft Reportedly Paid AdBlock Plus To Unblock

Comments Filter:
  • Adblock Edge (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:21AM (#48969055)

    'nough said.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Mod parent up, even though he/she/it is an AC. Adblock Edge is a fork of AdBlock Plus that removes all the acceptable ads nonsense.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      uBlock

      Nice and lightweight.

    • Thank you. I will switch in Firefox immediately. What should I use for Crome (which doesn't have Adblock Edge)?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:22AM (#48969063)

    "Companies can request their ads to be unblocked as long as they comply with AdBlock's "acceptable ads" policy. Large companies pay a fee for the service."

    How is this news? Seriously, how?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Dins ( 2538550 )
      In the past the end user can still opt to not see any ads, even if they comply with the "acceptable ads" policy. This would be news if they are making a change so that the end user is forced to see a given ad that the advertiser pays extra for, regardless of their extension settings.
      • by the_other_chewey ( 1119125 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @12:17PM (#48969787)

        In the past the end user can still opt to not see any ads, even if they comply with the "acceptable ads" policy. This would be news if they are making a change so that the end user is forced to see a given ad that the advertiser pays extra for, regardless of their extension settings.

        They are not.

        • by flappinbooger ( 574405 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @04:24PM (#48972779) Homepage

          So... this isn't news?

          I can click a 'switch' and turn off 'acceptable ads' and it's been that way for a long time now.

          So maybe it IS news because I didn't know/realize/take the time to think about the fact that they make money off this.

          Good for them. They deserve to eat too. Adblock Plus is reliable and makes the internet tolerable and safer. Letting through some 'GRAS' ads for cash is fine with me. As long as there is a switch where I can turn them off too...

          (Generally Regarded as Safe)

    • Because most people just click ok on anything they see without reading anything. Ditto with this clickbait news.

  • Things (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:23AM (#48969081)

    Some people get AdBlock to avoid intrusive adverts. I don't see this being a problem for them.

    However some, such as myself, use AdBlock as part of an anti-tracking solution. This concerns me more.

    • The tracker blocking was what made me switch adblocking on. I like the idea that they would only let through ads that don't track me, I want to support companies that rely on advertising, but not at the loss of my privacy. That said I understand why companies resent having to pay someone to allow them to make money by verifying their ads are 'acceptable'.
      • Re:Things (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:59AM (#48969569)

        That said I understand why companies resent having to pay someone to allow them to make money by verifying their ads are 'acceptable'.

        Their users resent them allowing third party Flash/Javascript adds that are frequently attack vectors.

        • True, I certainly fall into that category. But at the same time as a creator of a site when it comes to installing advert systems there's never a choice only serving your viewers non invasive ads. It's unfortunate because site owners suffer because of this. Hopefully this will reach a head some time in the near future and the ad companies/govt will realise that people need to have a choice over whether companies are allowed to track them across the web. Although given the governments love of tracking peopl
      • Re:Things (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @12:05PM (#48969657)

        That said I understand why companies resent having to pay someone to allow them to make money by verifying their ads are 'acceptable'.

        Tough shit: if those companies hadn't tried to ruin the internet in years past with popups, popunders, flashing banner ads, and all kinds of other obscenity, users would never have bothered resorting to adblockers.

        • Tough shit: if those companies hadn't tried to ruin the internet in years past with popups, popunders, flashing banner ads, ...

          You forgot serving malware dropping ads they claim they're not responsible for, while shaming users as thieves for blocking those infection vectors. Flashblock + Adblock edge dropped our employee's infection rate to 1/3. When I can recover damages from website who infect my systems, I'll review the decision to ad block.

        • by bondsbw ( 888959 )

          I would be perfectly fine with an ad blocker that only blocked those kind of ads.

          Actually I would add this: a timeout on any legitimate ads that are loaded before the page finishes displaying, and a bandwidth cap on all ads.

          Do these things, and we might have an advertising system that most people have little problem with while being valuable enough to promote a healthy internet market.

        • by Kjella ( 173770 )

          Tough shit: if those companies hadn't tried to ruin the internet in years past with popups, popunders, flashing banner ads, and all kinds of other obscenity, users would never have bothered resorting to adblockers.

          Oh please when did you last see a ripped TV show with the ads even though there's no malware, no tracking, no pop-up/unders just an entirely harmless video stream? A lot of people want to block ads just because they're ads and not content, they don't have to be obnoxious or dangerous ads. Then people go nuts when they instead use product placement and such were you can't slice and dice the content to only take the interesting bits and not the ones that pay the bills.

          And "those companies" who were scum are i

    • by BigT ( 70780 )

      I find NoScript combined with ABP works well for me. It ensures that what does get through probably won't be too annoying.

    • I don't inherently have a problem with ads, not even with ads tailored to my personal preferences (which I would actually prefer over random ads). I'd even be willing to check a few boxes to mark my interests.

      However, that's just not good enough for the marketing companies. They want flashy ads that distract from the page I'm reading, they want to track my every move, they want to sell my data, they want to run scripts on my computer, they want popups, popunders, redirects, accidental clicks, they would che

  • Opt-out (Score:5, Informative)

    by pr0nbot ( 313417 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:26AM (#48969125)

    I'd assume (without further info) that this is about the "allow some non-intrusive advertising" checkbox you get in the filter options. It's on by default, but when you install adblock (as I did a few days ago) it one of the things you go through when the configuration dialog pops up.

    It links to: https://adblockplus.org/en/acc... [adblockplus.org]

    It's not perfect in that it's on by default, but it's easy enough to disable. Perhaps they could improve it by tying this checkbox to your "do not track" preference?

    • I just went in and unchecked it. Thanks. Pretty sure this publicity is having an opposite affect from intention.

    • I'd assume (without further info) that this is about the "allow some non-intrusive advertising" checkbox you get in the filter options. It's on by default, but when you install adblock (as I did a few days ago) it one of the things you go through when the configuration dialog pops up.

      It links to: https://adblockplus.org/en/acc... [adblockplus.org]

      It's not perfect in that it's on by default, but it's easy enough to disable. Perhaps they could improve it by tying this checkbox to your "do not track" preference?

      And strangely enough there are people who WANT to see non-intrusive, correctly targeted ads. I'm not one of them, but my wife is. I'd have to call this one a feature, albeit not properly explained in the setup.

  • Bound to happen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Andrio ( 2580551 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:27AM (#48969137)

    Everyone running ad blocking software is not sustainable, since ads pay for a lot of stuff. People also don't want to have to directly pay for things (plus, could you imagine if every website was paywalled?)

    Seems to me that the best solution is to just run unintrusive ads. People don't really mind ads all that much, they just hate it when they're noisy (literally and metaphorically) and get in the way

    • Re:Bound to happen (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bigbutt ( 65939 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:36AM (#48969255) Homepage Journal

      Sorry, as long as ad companies occasionally accept ads by malware companies, I'll keep running ad blocking software.

      [John]

    • Re:Bound to happen (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:40AM (#48969305) Homepage

      I'm not particularly interested in the 'sustainability' of the Internet. Google and a couple of other companies that have more money than the Catholic Church can worry about that. I'm interested in my privacy and peace of mind.

      • Re:Bound to happen (Score:4, Interesting)

        by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:57AM (#48969535) Homepage

        I'm not particularly interested in the 'sustainability' of the Internet. Google and a couple of other companies that have more money than the Catholic Church can worry about that. I'm interested in my privacy and peace of mind.

        I am not going to cry if the commercial ventures on the Internet die. IMHO, the Internet was better back in 1994-5 anyway when it largely was NOT commercial!

        Back in those days when you clicked on the DOWNLOAD button, (gasp) a file downloaded! Not prompt you through 6 more screens and clicks. Articles rendered as a single page instead of "click whoring" you through a dozen pages.

        If those lowbrow tactics quit yielding money they will stop.

        And sites like Amazon which I go to when I WANT to buy something will always be there.

      • I'm not particularly interested in the 'sustainability' of the Internet. Google and a couple of other companies that have more money than the Catholic Church can worry about that. I'm interested in my privacy and peace of mind.

        What about the smaller companies who can't afford to pay off AdBlock Plus? I'd prefer Google and those couple other companies to have real competition in the form of small startups who run unintrusive ads.

    • Re:Bound to happen (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pjt33 ( 739471 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:49AM (#48969433)

      could you imagine if every website was paywalled?

      No, I can't imagine that. In particular, I can't imagine paywalling my own site (or putting ads on it). I remember the days before advertising was big on the web, when content was provided by universities and hobbyists. Comparing the web now with the web then, I suspect that the death of online advertising would harm clickbait sites more than ones with valuable content.

    • by OhPlz ( 168413 )

      Ads pay for television, yet I haven't seen any major disruption given the popularity of DVRs.

      • I don't know the percentages but I do know that the cable TV and satellite companies kick some of their subscriber fees to the networks they rebroadcast. So ads only partially pay for television. The rest is subscriber fees.

    • People don't really mind ads all that much, they just hate it when they're noisy (literally and metaphorically) and get in the way

      I don't mind ads as such, but what I do mind more than anything else -- more than being noisy and obnoxious -- is the tracking that comes with them. That's why I block all advertising that I can, and why I always will.

      • I don't mind ads as such, but what I do mind more than anything else -- more than being noisy and obnoxious -- is the tracking that comes with them. That's why I block all advertising that I can, and why I always will.

        And the drive-by malware. Don't forget about the malware that makes it into even the best of ad networks.

        • by WCMI92 ( 592436 )

          And the drive-by malware. Don't forget about the malware that makes it into even the best of ad networks.

          That is one reason I use ad blockers. NONE of the ad networks (including Google) do a fucking thing to keep malware off their networks. They have no standards for content and do no policing whatsoever. And by being so irresponsible they are INVITING the FTC to start forcing regulation on them.

          If I said malware was THE reason I use blockers I'd be lying. I hate ads. I do not find ANY advertising to b

    • The problem is even the unobtrusive ads are virus filled. Do any search for any major software package (Examples: VLC Media player, 7-Zip, Libreoffice) on any of the major search engines to see what I mean. I get no less then 3 virus infections per week just by people clicking on those types of ads.

      It was much better when Google, Bing, and Yahoo put a big colored box around the ads so you can know for certain what your searching for. Google just has the yellow Ad gif now, and yahoo and bing just says "Ads r

    • If your company exists and relies solely on advertising to fund operational costs, you're doing it wrong.

      Ads are annoying at best, and downright dangerous at their worst. It's the latter reason folks block them. Too many times advertisements have been used as an attack vector to deliver some trojan / virus / malware. For that reason alone I block all ads. Adblock, Ghostery and I'm working on a proxy solution to remove them from the data stream all-together before they even clear my router.

      If you don't t
    • I'm not sure that we wouldn't be better off without the internet content that is ad supported, particularly the ads I want blocked which play sound without my permission, use javascript for anything at all, pop over content or are otherwise intrusive and annoying.

      The internet used to be both functional and informational before ads, and legitimate businesses will still be able to peddle their wares.

    • Everyone running ad blocking software is not sustainable, since ads pay for a lot of stuff. People also don't want to have to directly pay for things (plus, could you imagine if every website was paywalled?)

      Burn it to the ground and little of value will be lost. The tracking, the loss of privacy isn't worth it. If the current system is unsustainable without ads, a new system will take its place. I would support sites I find useful with dollars, like when I bought a subscription to Slashdot. Let content come from hobbyists, supported by donations.

      The sustainability of Gawker and FaceBook are not my concern.

    • by Chas ( 5144 )

      Everyone running ad blocking software is not sustainable

      Blame the admongers.

      Small, unobtrusive ads on a site, nobody really gives a shit about these.

      But huge, noisy, flashing, screen-stealing, malware-injecting, movement tracking crap from the unscrupulous ad community is what drove people to create this stuff IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      What you're doing is blaming a vaccine for the disease.

  • by Mitchell Thompson ( 3437781 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:27AM (#48969143)
    Its the ones that cover the whole screen, have someone who talks over the speakers, or force me to find a tiny hide button that I want blocked. So far, i have not found that Google, Microsoft, or Amazon do this. (SO FAR.....) Also, i run a site that uses Google Doubleclick for Publishing that houses some ads as part of the site's content. They are not obtrusive and you would mistake it for the site's content. Adblock will block them though, even though they are just in-house ads for my own content on the same site.
    • I don't mind some ads...

      Not only do I not mind some ads but I even occasionally click on ads that look interesting.
      One thing that I find annoying is that many times an ad catches my eye just as I'm leaving
      the page so I click the back button but when I do the ad that I wanted to look at has been
      replaced with a different ad. Advertisers (slashdot included) need to have a way for you to
      scroll back and look at previously shown ad. This feature could only help them but hardly
      anyone seems to do it.

  • The whole scheme just smacks of extortion. The vendors have already paid the ad companies. I use such software in the good faith that it's going to block the ads.

    If it stops blocking the ads, I'll switch to a different ad-blocker. I'm not interested in seeing ANY ads, regardless of whether the product vendor has been paid off for them or not. *I* wasn't paid for *my* time!

    • So you are for a feature that you pay a monthly fee to an ad-block agency that will take the bulk of your fee and pay money for the sites you are visiting. So the web sites that you benefit from visiting (If you don't benefit from it then why are you visiting them?) will be able to get revenue from your you visit, help pay the expense that you are generating by visiting the site and help the people who run the site make money to feed their families.

      • So you are for a feature that you pay a monthly fee to an ad-block agency that will take the bulk of your fee and pay money for the sites you are visiting

        Absolutely not. But I will (and do, when the option is available) pay the sites directly.

    • *I* wasn't paid for *my* time!

      Sure you are. You are being paid in content, software, etc... You aren't getting nothing in return, you
      are getting the priviledge of using facebook, slashdot, google, etc... If a large percentage of users all
      started using ad blocking software then places like google, slashdot, and facebook would either have
      to start charging or even worse start doing secret product placement. I much prefer ads that I know
      are ads to tainted content and tainted search results.

      • by jdavidb ( 449077 )

        If a large percentage of users all started using ad blocking software then places like google, slashdot, and facebook would either have to start charging or even worse start doing secret product placement.

        Or be donor supported like PBS. I love donor supported websites.

      • by itzly ( 3699663 )

        Actually, I'm doing them a favour by blocking ads, since I'm unlikely to buy their stuff anyway.

        • by WCMI92 ( 592436 )

          Actually, I'm doing them a favour by blocking ads, since I'm unlikely to buy their stuff anyway.

          Since I don't load their ad to begin with, I'm saving their bandwidth and saving them a page view (do they pay per page view anymore or is it now only per click?)

    • by msobkow ( 48369 )

      It's funny to me how many of you have been brainwashed into believing ads are a "necessary" evil. They're not. Some of the sites I visit on a regular basis have NO advertising at all, because their owners BELIEVE in what they're putting out as content instead of seeing it just as a way to MAKE MONEY.

      To a festering hell with spammers and advertisers. If I want a product, I'll *find* it when I can afford it. Until then, piss off.

    • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

      *I* wasn't paid for *my* time!

      Yes you were. You were paid with content you wanted to see.

  • Some alternatives... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by snkhere ( 3869897 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:28AM (#48969159)
    Basic blocking: https://github.com/gorhill/uBl... [github.com]
    More extensive blocking: https://github.com/gorhill/uMa... [github.com]

    Extensions are available for Chrome/Chromium. It seems Firefox is (getting) supported as well.
  • by Zeio ( 325157 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:29AM (#48969171)

    I've been using it for years - from very early states - and I know within seconds if adblock is not installed on chrome, firefox and opera and android via adaway.

    If adblock leaks an ad, we get the ad and block it manually, and also there are lists that are not directly under adblock plus , adblock chrome's control. The lists are pulled from and maintained separately than the blockers so Im not sure how this can go on for very long. It would be glaringly obvious over time if ads get through and the lists will be updated.

    If any one of the adblockers "betrays" the community with exceptions in the code, we have plenty of places to defect to.

    • by WCMI92 ( 592436 )

      I've been using it for years - from very early states - and I know within seconds if adblock is not installed on chrome, firefox and opera and android via adaway.

      As an IT professional I see user PC's all the time that don't have adblockers. I don't see how ANYONE can use the internet AT ALL without one! You barely have INFLUENCE over your browser, much less CONTROL with all the crap popping up, taking over the screen, following your mouse pointer, etc...

      • by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @12:53PM (#48970213) Journal

        I installed ABP and Ghostery on my grandfather's browser and left the little ghostery notification up so every time he browsed a site he'd see all the trackers. He was stunned. You go to cnn.com and there are 16 trackers. I hid the notification window later because it's annoying, but if you're not aware of this stuff, it's rather eye-opening. Browsing without a half-dozen blocking add-ons is like walking through the mall naked.

        I run:

        Adblock Plus
        Ghostery
        NoScript
        BetterPrivacy (deletes Flash 'Locally Shared Objects,' which are Flash cookies a regular cookie-blocker/deleter won't notice)
        Certificate Patrol
        HTTPS-Everywhere
        Flashblock
        Smart Referer

        And my default search engine is Startpage.

        Any other recommendations you've got, IT Pro?

  • by houghi ( 78078 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:29AM (#48969173)

    Adblock block ads.
    Adblock whitelists ads when companies pay. (and that is known)
    Some companies took them up on the offer and payed Adblock so they were whitelisted.

    So what makes this newsworthy again?

  • They are upfront about this and right when you install it they give you the link to uncheck to block unobtrusive advertising. The fact that people pay to be on the "unobtrusive" list isn't exactly surprising. Nonstory.
  • So long as the above companies are complying with the acceptable ad policy, meant to keep ads from being obtrusive, does it really matter?

    I know some people are like "No ads, no compromise". If that's the case, get Greasemonkey and go to town.

    But, on a more realistic note, this company is putting out this product for free to end-users.

  • Things like this bring to light a few issues that need addressing. if this action by ABP is in fact happening, a fork of the project should most certainly be considered as this 'whitelisting' violates an expected feature or function of the application by its community of users (and possibly developers.) Second, a layered approach that views advertisements/spam as part of an overarching security issue, not just nuisance patrol, should be adopted. Adblock, noscript, and null routes for known advertising ser
  • by Petronius ( 515525 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:50AM (#48969459)
    Faster, better, hackable and free. https://github.com/gorhill/uBl... [github.com]
  • by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:50AM (#48969469) Homepage

    I use Adblock Edge. Used to use Adblock Plus before they started accepting bribes to cripple their own filters.

    I use ad blockers because I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ADS. Period. I hate ads. To me there is NO SUCH THING as an acceptable ad.

  • This would be a case where the Federal Trade Commission should have stepped in.

    Until then, I hope people ask for their money back, before they sue.

  • Extortion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cgfsd ( 1238866 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @11:55AM (#48969517)
    Correct me if I am wrong, but if someone creates a product that interferes with someone else’s business and then charges them a fee to stop interfering, isn’t that extortion?
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @12:04PM (#48969631) Journal
    I hate intrusive ads as much as anyone. But the reality is, if the sites don't make money, they won't exist. We need to find a way to let them find ad revenue without being obnoxious. And tolerance level and definitions of obnoxiousness varies. So if we let the user control what ads and what kind of ads are allowed, and if the web sites make good faith attempt to respect the wishes of the user, they might both benefit. I have become eligible to block ads from slashdot ages ago, but I have not blocked it. I would not begrudge slashdot the small revenue stream my eyeballs provide. Same way with other sites I like. There are some Indian news paper sites with atrocious and obnoxious ad pitching. Horribly broken asp based websites that render badly. I tolerate them because if I use adblock on them, they would lose what little incentive they have to maintain their internet presence. So I am not opposed to ads at all. All I want is, an ability to control it, and the ability to let the advertisers know, what I am willing to tolerate.

    I would not mind my browser sending out some kind of headers to specify my ad acceptance policy and even a few key words of goods and services I am interested in. But *I* should be the one who controls it. And the controls should be fine grained.

    Something like:

    (browser-ad-acceptance-policy) animation=no; flash=no; sounds=no; ad_to_payload_ratio looking_for=camcorder,auto_insurance,galapagos_island_tour;

    (/browser-ad-acceptance-policy )

    The add on or extension should enforce the policy on browser end when it can, without expecting good faith compliance from the web sites.

    • by Imagix ( 695350 )
      It is not my responsibility to "find a way to let them find ad revenue without being obnoxious". That's their responsibility. As a whole, they have lost the trust of a fair portion of the internet's users. Thus they now pay the price that people are not willing to see _any_ of their dreck. Add to that the infection vector that they have become, as well as the source of delays in loading sites. They've got a long road ahead to build trust such that the first reaction of people isn't "block it".
    • But the reality is, if the sites don't make money, they won't exist.

      Some won't, sure. But many will. I remember the web before the infestation of ads. It was better.

      We need to find a way to let them find ad revenue without being obnoxious.

      Why? Why not help them to find ways of generating revenue without advertising at all?

      So if we let the user control what ads and what kind of ads are allowed, and if the web sites make good faith attempt to respect the wishes of the user, they might both benefit.

      Only if ads stop all tracking. Personally, any ad that includes any sort of tracking is an objectionable ad.

  • from when adblock plus did. Use it instead.

  • Advertising Bubble? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Moof123 ( 1292134 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @12:23PM (#48969863)

    Craziness in the ad space has all the feel of being a ginormous bubble. Companies who have a business model of selling banner ads via an app and have no other revenue sources seem especially precarious to the perception of advertising effectiveness. If at some point studies come out showing banner ads are as ineffective as I think they are (I think they are a net negative to most companies who use them) the rug could get pulled out from the whole mess.

    People are getting trained to filter this stuff out left and right. I find myself avoiding google when I look for certain things because I know that if they are common I will have to wade through a page or more of paid up links that are mostly only tangentially related to what I am looking for. I can't recall the contents of any recent banner ads, and there are a number of sites I just don't visit on my ipad because they are so awful without AdBlock running.

    How about a new Kickstarter campaign where we pool our money to buy up highway billboard space and put up pretty murals instead of ads?

  • by ledow ( 319597 )

    "said it did not wish to comment"

    Thus, I infer that you did indeed sell out, because why else wouldn't you comment if the accusation was wrong.

    Additionally, people use ad-block software so that they don't have to see ads. To then take money to make those people see ads is the antithesis of your existence.

    Good luck clawing your customer base back.

    I wouldn't touch you from this point onwards (and to be honest, how did people not notice it wasn't blocking those ads?). But, hey, I'm an Opera user moving to Vi

  • by chaosdivine69 ( 1456649 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @12:38PM (#48970047)
    Get rid of Firefox and use Palemoon http://www.palemoon.org/ [palemoon.org] and then install AdBlock Latitude https://addons.palemoon.org/ex... [palemoon.org] You'll wonder what all the fuss is about after you wrestle your old UI back from Firefox and have all your ads blocked by a reputable organization (Palemoon) that won't sell out to the dark side like AdBlock Plus did. These two greedy companies need more people to jump ship and make a statement. Do your part. You'll be glad you did.
  • This is extortion at its finest. This reminds me of politics, where companies threaten to regulate industries to shake them down for donations, and then back off. Or thinktanks do the same Its agains christianity/islam/women/blacks/gays to do X, so donate and we'll tell you how to deal with this, while changing nothing.

    fortunately its GPL, so put a fork in it, and be done.

  • by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @01:16PM (#48970509)

    This sounds completely consistent with 21st century business practices. Offer a service to do X, then accept money not to do X = without telling the people who are relying on it.

    Suckers!

  • by Ravaldy ( 2621787 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @03:14PM (#48971785)

    Blocking ads is like blocking the revenue stream for those providing free content and services. I know I'll get flak for saying this. Fact is that it's the little guys that get hurt the most by this ad blocking service.

    One could say that maybe their method of advertising is not efficient (compared to in video ads on Youtube) but it's what they have right now and it's not right for a company to be able to strip out what the site intended the viewer to see.

    For those who will say that it ruins the user experience I say this to you: "Find another service for free"

  • by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @08:33PM (#48975143) Journal
    you should be using noscript to block third party content.

    ABP is really just to block inline youtube ads.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire

Working...