Chrome AdBlock Joining Acceptable Ads Program (And Sold To Anonymous Company) 352
basscomm writes: Hot on the heels of the formation of the independent board to oversee "acceptable ads", users of the popular Chrome ad blocking extension, AdBlock, got notice that AdBlock is participating in the program, and that acceptable ads are being turned on by default. At the bottom of the announcement, buried in the fine print is word that AdBlock has been sold, but nobody will say to whom.
Time to let it die (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time to let it die (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, Chrome.
AdBlock easily defeated anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from being defeated by loads of different adblock blockers (as well as the standard http://blockadblock.com/ [blockadblock.com] generated scripts) there are loads of networks like PageFair that bypass AdBlock anyway. So "letting" acceptable ads through strikes me as a best option in a losing battle.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it's a losing battle, just a constant cat and mouse arms race. As ad developers create new technologies to circumvent blockers, ad blockers will find new ways to defeat those countermeasures. Though the ad blockers will probably stay perpetually ahead most of the time.
Why? Because sites that host these ads lack the agility afforded to ad blocker developers. They can't sit there and change things at the drop of a hat because it might break their site, which is much worse than making sure that s
Re: (Score:1)
Just like any arms race, there are now anti-adblock-blockers and adblock-blocker blockers.
the lard of hosts for fat ads (Score:5, Interesting)
The best option, IMHO, is the hosts file, frankly. Be nice if we could work out some solid collaborative way to make my block discoveries help you with yours, etc., but it's just fraught with too many problems and potential black hat undertakings.
Still, it's pretty easy to just have a little app you can paste domains into that just appends your hosts file with Yet Another Reference to the Black Hole Of Data.
Well, under OS X and Linux it is. Not sure about Windows. But years ago, when I was using Windows, it did have a hosts file you could get at. Still true?
Re: (Score:2)
Once ad blocking becomes truly ubiquitous (I give it a year) and most of the independent web sites die, how are we block ads once the Internet = Facebook?
Facebook hosts all the content and all the ads (and it gets 30% of any hosted site's revenue for its trouble).
The rise of Ad-Blocking was inevitable, but boy, I'm not looking forward to having a Facebook account just to surf the remaining sites that keep trying to make a go of it.
Re:the lard of hosts for fat ads (Score:5, Insightful)
Prior to the rise of advertising, almost all sites were 'independent'. They'll be around for a long time after the end of Internet advertising, because they're run for love, not money.
It's the sites which exist solely to capture search results to bring in ad revenue that will die. And the rest of the world will celebrate.
"Yahoo! Internet Life" (Score:2)
Prior to the rise of advertising, almost all sites were 'independent.'
---- and you discovered them by thumbing through the printed pages of the modestly sized Internet Yellow Pages, guide books and magazines of the era..
It was a geek paradise defined off-campus by the limits of the dial-up modem, arcane and frustrating client software and services that were only beginning to offer affordable flat-rate monthly billing,
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to the rise of advertising, almost all sites were 'independent'. They'll be around for a long time after the end of Internet advertising, because they're run for love, not money.
And none of those sites carried breaking news or the AP wire, at least not legally. Or had sports scores (ditto). Or showed streaming video other than self-produced content in 240 x 160 "QuickTime postage stamp theater" format. Or paid anyone to write content for them. Or provided social media capabilities (vital to the ubiquity of the Internet, whether you personally like/use them or not). Or did much of fucking anything other than be personal projects or part-time blogs that ran until the proprietor got a
Re: (Score:2)
And none of those sites carried breaking news or the AP wire... Or had sports scores (ditto)...showed streaming video
First off, why doesn't the AP have its own site? Sport scores could easily be done via the main sports sites (NFL, MLB, FIFA, etc). There's plenty of sites doing streaming video: Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu do it varying ways, with embedded ads, but the web sites themselves don't need ads nor have them, other than self promoting, which is why you went there in the first place.
Then we get to where the content producers failed, wholesale, and we got the current morass of crap. Newspapers ignored the web, wher
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook? You use Facebook and you're concerned about ads?
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com facebook.com
Also, from my POV, the only "independent sites" out there don't depend on external ads. The others are, by definition, dependent. Like this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Until Facebook drops the pretense and begins spreading as a viral botnet. What can your precious hosts file do, when everywhere you point your browser, all you see is the Face of SkyNetBook?
And there's no login required; it already knows who you are. It has already read, analyzed, and posted on your timeline all your formerly private files. Full details of everything you do will be instantly available for the world to read with no interaction neede
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with using your hosts file is it sometimes breaks pages you actually want to get to. I run into occasional issues with some stuff on Amazon.com, for instance.
It also seems to dramatically slow down a small handful of sites - I'm not sure why.
Re: (Score:1)
AlmostAllAdsBlocked's slower http://superuser.com/questions... [superuser.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When you redirect an ad server to 127.0.0.1 the connection has to timeout trying to connect to a non-existent server. Depending on what's trying to be loaded, it may block subsequent requests until the timeout happens, or result in an error that breaks the page if it's trying to load a javascript resource. If you redirect it to a IP address that responds with a 404 or a dummy transparent image or javascript file, then any bl
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't have to time out. If no web server is running on 127.0.0.1, the connection attempt fails immediately. This is faster than a 404 even. If you had iptables dropping packets then that would result in a timeout. That's why I have iptables use the REJECT target for outbound things I'm trying to block. That way the connection fails immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, it doesn't HAVE to. But what I wrote is likely the reason why there is a delay. On my Windows 7 laptop using Chrome, requesting a non-existent file on a port not open on localhost takes 1 second ± a few milliseconds before timing out.
I run a development server on localhost so I can't just reject any connection to port 80, and whatever delay I do encounter due to a 404 is minimal enough that I don't bother "fixing" the problem any better than what I've already have.
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure about Windows. But years ago, when I was using Windows, it did have a hosts file you could get at. Still true?
I've heard that newer* versions of Windows have a penchant for overwriting or even completely ignoring the hosts file under the guise of "protecting the user". I've seen claims that it's because malware will use the hosts file to hijack domains, but that argument has even more holes now than it did when it first started, because with Windows 10, the OS started deliberately ignoring the hosts file when trying to send telemetry data and other private info back to MS servers, eliminating the user's easiest wa
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Windows does have a hosts file, and this can be modified by a user with local admin rights. I expect content providers to eventually serve ads from their domain. They will move the targeting to the web server. We will still be tracked, and it will just be the server that asks the ad network for a targeted ad that is then served to you from the same domain. Right now, we can use the hosts file to manage much of the ad content, because they are served from a different domain from the content we want
Re:Time to let it die (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I think it sounds like a good idea in theory. If the 'approved ads' are just jpeg files saying 'Buy our stuff' with links to a legit website, I wouldn't mind that. I wouldn't mind ignoring a few ads as I browse to support the sites I use. Problem is, I don't trust anyone to do just that, and not annoying or potentially dangerous ads running a dozen different scrips linking who to who knows where if you happen to click it. I see no reason to just assume the approved ad program of the new mystery buyer ha
Re:Time to let it die (Score:5, Interesting)
" I wouldn't mind ignoring a few ads as I browse to support the sites I use"
I'm sorry but it's just stupid how they work. I bought 2 dozen pairs of socks 2 weeks ago at landsend and now (where I won't need any socks for some time...) I get bombarded with socks ads in my unadblocked browser as well as every goddamn landsend ad that exists.
Re: (Score:1)
If it were limited to banner adds shown I wouldn't care. It's invisiible whole-browser overlays and popups that I would consider unacceptable, along with autoplay video ads in sidebars.
Re: (Score:2)
If I surfed to "x.com" I don't consider it reasonable to find my browser heading over to "y.com"
If, as a webmaster, you don't source your own ads, then I'm strongly inclined to block your advertising.
Re:Time to let it die (Score:4, Informative)
I was amused when I bought a blender online. I was deluged with ads for blenders! Hint: since I now have a brand-new blender, I am actually the least-likely person to want to buy a blender!
I think I made it worse because I also searched for Blender the software.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but it's just stupid how they work.
It's beyond stupid, Buy product x online, then get bombarded with ads for product x for months afterwards. Even though you are now the least likely person to buy product x because you already own it. It really makes Google look like a bunch of morons, and I can't figure out for the life of me why any advertiser would pay them for such a stupid service.
Symbiotic parasite (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm all for acceptable ads and acceptable tracking, afterall we all liked the benefit we got from durable cookies in the early pre-cancerous stages of the internet. that sort of tracking is not inherently bad by itself. But then it metastisized and it became neccessary to block it. So yay for ad blockers.
But that just becomes an arms race. So enter "acceptable ads" in which certain ads are allowed in hopes of creating a viable not escalating equilibrium where the commercialization model of the internet is not soley based on pernicious forms of advertising. I don't know if this new equilibrium can be forced but as the new york times demonstrated the tracking and targeting consumes at least 1/3 of the web bandwidth we pay for, so it's worthy just to check that aspect.
But when it becomes commercialized like ad block or ghostery one feels like it's a symbiotic parasite. It leaves you vulnerable to smaller subset of actors who did nothing more than pay to have access to you, the meat being sold by ghostery and ad block. it's like paying off the somali pirates or highway robbers to let coiaches pass. I became the product. yet at the same time it gives me a free benefit.
Should I like this tapeworm that helps me shed unwanted pounds of bandwidth destroying ads and infective tracking systems? At the moment, the answer is there is no other answer.
Either way, letting in the big corp. ads deemed acceptable-for-cash or going nuclear on all ads indiscimiately, ultimately narrows the information I get.
However in one case, it limits which ads I see, and in the other it limits the profitability of sites trying to make a living with ad based bussiness models. I'd not want to choke off the free content I get, just to see fewer ads.
I think think acceptable ads, as competition heats up for the service will let me pick gate keepers that force advertisers not to chew up my bandwidth or "excessively" track me.
Re:Symbiotic parasite (Score:5, Interesting)
The answer you end up with depends on who you think started it, yes some websites took advertising too far and users hated it. But instead of using the sites that had "acceptable" ads and stop using the sites that had "annoying" ads, the solution was to start blocking ads. Now I don't subscribe to the whole "blocking ads is stealing" tripe but obviously the whole point of ads is that people see them. If everybody blocks them, there no point in paying for them and so the sites don't get any funding and the model breaks down. And it was the low-hanging fruit that mostly got hurt, the scummy sites with annoying ads were also the ones who'd most quickly resort to circumvention techniques to shove the ads in your face anyway.
The assumption here is that at least some users will be nice and accept to see som ads, if you're going to do that why not go for a real opt-in system? Tag all the advertising elements on your page with an <div class="ad">(ad goes here)</div>. Publish an advertising policy, like robots.txt Kindly ask ad blockers to replace ads tagged as such with "This website relies on advertising revenue to operate. You are currently blocking ads. Please click here to unblock and support our site."
If you click it, you get a dialog saying:
"This site has requested you to unblock ads. Their advertising policy is as follows:
Banner ads: Yes
Animated ads: No
Ads with sound: No
Interstitial ads: No
Pop-ups: No
Pop-unders: No
[Unblock ads] [Cancel]
You may at any time block ads again by.... (explanation)"
Of course you could have dick ad blockers that just remove the ads, but I think the popular ones could be convinced to play nice. Sites wouldn't have to get on any approval list tied to any particular blocker and everyone would decide for themselves what sites they want to support. No money for just being click bait, users have to actually like you enough to unblock. Not sure it'd work, but if that won't work then "acceptable ads" won't either.
Doubtful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, adblock, time to let your product die and we will go on to a product that actually blocks ads
So then. Tell me how it feels to steal from Slashdot? After all that is what you are doing with ublock.
I want to support websites with ethical ads that do not serve malware. Adblock is perfect!
- No annoying video ads
- No sound ads
-No redirects where you have to hit somewhere else to go back to original site
- No malware or sub contracts to any other ad network which usually does not have great security teams to check for malware/viruses
- No zombie cookies in flash that can't be deleted
If Slashdot wanted to b
Re: (Score:2)
So then. Tell me how it feels to steal from Slashdot? After all that is what you are doing with ublock.
Slashdot gives me the option to turn off ads, but I have not done so. I do use adblock, but that is because slashdot is not the only site on the internet and other sites have ruined it for all.
I think it is disingenuous to call it "stealing" from someone just because you won't allow them to use your bandwidth and your time and your computation resources and install malicious code, viruses and spyware on your computer. If I lock my door, am I "stealing" from a robber?
If you consider it stealing to not dis
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think that the more something is repeated, the truer it gets. Nope. This was bullshit the first time someone argued it, it's bullshit now.
I am stealing nothing. This content is freely available to anyone with a browser. I am under no obligation to view anything that I do not want to; therefore I block as many ads as possible. My eyeballs, my rules. I can instruct my browser to not download anything I don't want to see, therefore I do. That
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Annoying and insecure ads are the biggest reason to use an AdBlocker. If this message finally got through and we will start seeing "acceptable" ads, which for me would mean a simple, clickable image or text, without sound, animation, popup, or tracking, then I wouldn't mind seeing them if it supports the sites.
Re: (Score:2)
I use the FOSS Privacy Badger.
With it I have to view the trackers, etc. and decide which I will block. I obviously block all moving / audio annoying adverts and some that I just don't want to see each time I visit a page of a particular website.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps... (Score:3)
Perhaps there is a way to put the load, and the expectations, on the user.
You go to a website. If you desire a personalized experience, "click here" and then bookmark.
Resulting page is site.tld/longRandomGeneratedUniqueThing/restofurl.whatever
All links on the resulting page are set that way now. The site is responsible for keeping that "thing" associated with your preferences and etc., as well as generating the right links on all the pages you visit there. That's doable.
As long as you come and go from suc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you share that link ? The point is YOU wanted a personalized experience. If am going to have to see ads, and on a lot of sites I accept that fact, I'd just as soon see ads in which I might be the slightest bit interested. I am for sure not interested in seeing ads for feminine products or other such items like I do know following my GF's use of my computer. I can honestly say I have never clicked through an ad in my lifetime, but I HAVE seen things which have compelled me to go to a site and check
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, it'd be a new way of operating. The site would provide copyable links to share.
No question it's more work.
But OTOH, it gets you a personalized experience.
It's not like most websites are using cookies and scripting responsibly now anyway. Certainly the ad companies aren't. Be a treat to turn all that crap off. But if, and it's a big if, I admit, you wanted the site to know your shopping habits, that's a way for them to do it without your browser having to shovel in a bunch of bandwidth eating,
Re: (Score:2)
One more thing. Let me put this into a concrete context, perhaps that'll transfer the idea a little better.
I go to the Kindle store. I only like science fiction, books on Python. I can tell them so, or I can let them figure it out. But either way, that's what they'll show me for specials and so forth. If I enter my email, they can email me (see, no way for them to know my email otherwise unless I actually buy.) So, this, for me, would be good. I see books I want, and I never see another stupid vampire book
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My suggestion of a "URL cookie", if you want to call it that, allows *you* to allow a site to give you a specific experience, *if* you so desire. That's all it does, because it is unique to the site. It can't do anything more. There is no question that on some sites, the site knowing your preferences is a good thing. For instance, slashdot knows I don't want to see the perl.com slashbox, and that's a good thing, because I despise Perl, see. That could easily be done just this way. They don't need to know wh
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'd like to see this as well. There are quite a few interests I would very happy to see a website know about immediately upon my arrival. And again, this does not require the w
Re: (Score:2)
For anything critical, you'd only give out a URL one time, and of course, you'd encrypt the page containing it so no one could see that URL going out but the person who was supposed to have it. Shopping carts, products for sale, everything.
For that matter, presuming only that encryption actually works, I don't know why the whole web isn't encrypted, other than the money-making scam of having to buy certificates that won't make browsers puke out fear-mongering dialogs from a "certificate authority."
Re: (Score:3)
Remove, overwrite, delete, find a replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is APK so fucking obsessed with host files? Is this a rolling gag or something that I'm not aware of? Or does he just have a severe case of OCD and/or Asperger's?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm voting OCD/Asperger's. If he'd post once per thread, the idea might even be on topic and insightful. The idea, while not the intended use of /etc/hosts, isn't intrinsically bad: it's his relentless spamming of it, dozens of times times per thread, that's the problem.
Re: AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hos (Score:1)
Is there some kind of hosts tweak I can use to block APK's spam?
Re: You're more than welcome (Score:1)
So... yes or no? :D Your posts are a little tl;dr with too many transitions between bold/non-bold.
Re: (Score:1)
For your sake, I hope this is all part of some elaborate joke :D
I'm going with "no there's no way to block slashdot spam via hosts files."
Re: (Score:2)
I have learned, it is just best to ignore him. He uses our +modded posts to be visible, every time we respond to him, it is his way of getting around being an AC with 0 or -1 modding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I don't prefer host blocks because they break a lot of the web, and if they become ubiquitous they will be very easy for advertisers to work around in ways that make content retrieval very difficult. A programmatic solution has a lot of problems, but ultimately represents a more customizable way of getting the web the way the user wants to view it.
But APK isn't wrong. He's on a crusade, which makes him a giant sink of wasted text and nonsense, but he's not wrong. Deus Vult!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, all it takes is the ad networks to use IPs in sites instead of DNS, and APKs hosts files can't block it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have let trying to block advertising define your life a hell of a lot more than dealing with a few ads might have. Frankly, a loony for a loony cause. But hey, I guess if it helps you feel like you're contributing to something important ..
Re: (Score:2)
You sure advertise a lot. You're worse than a full-screen flash ad.
Re: (Score:2)
One of his points is that a hosts file can protect against spam, which is about as likely as aspirin protecting against spam unless you're hosting your own mail server (and who the hell would run a mail server on Windows?).
As for the rest, hosts blocking can't block the "please donate/subscribe to us" banners on sites, and blocking trackers can break various sites. That's fine when you're using something like Ghostery/uBlock, where you can temporarily turn it off for a spe
Re: (Score:2)
Ogden Nash (Score:4, Insightful)
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
No shit! (Score:2)
Cows shit milk?
If abp falls then another will rise (Score:1)
ABP was born out of the endless frustration of unwanted banners and spam. So once they start allowing it back in then i am betting someone will take over the torch and build a new blocker.
If you want your products sold, then make a good product! The forums and people will take care of the rest.
When you solely really on spam then your product must be crap or overpriced or redundant.
Seriously, if pages are annoying then there are 10.000 others to choose from. These guys need another business model..
Re: If abp falls then another will rise (Score:3, Informative)
Adblock is different from Adblock Plus.
Re: If abp falls then another will rise (Score:1)
Nevermind. It seems that Adblock Plus runs the Acceptable Ads Program. Sigh.
Re: If abp falls then another will rise (Score:5, Informative)
Go to Firefox or Chrome store and get "uBlock Origin". Then use that.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want your products sold, then make a good product! The forums and people will take care of the rest.
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and guess that you've never been within a 100 miles of running a real business :-).
uBlock Origin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You'll have to deal with more of a broken web with a custom hosts file, but it is a more solid option.
Re: (Score:2)
How would that work?
Running your own DNS server in caching mode looks to the ISP exactly like your own computer requesting name resolution. I run a caching DNS server on Verizon, it is set to point to the root DNS servers, how would they block that? If they decide to block access to the root, you instead forward to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4, if they try to block that, it is time to get another ISP, or sue their asses for interfering with your usage of their product.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Along with noscript and cookieselfdestruct, all of which work under Firefox on Android. What's not to like? I stopped using Chrome just so I could run plugins on my tablet and phone. I've no idea what's taking Google so long supporting plugins on Chrome on Android, but I no longer care.
Re: (Score:2)
I've no idea what's taking Google so long supporting plugins on Chrome on Android, but I no longer care.
Why would an advertising company want you to block ads in their web browser?
Google must be crapping themselves at the growth of ad-blocking. And, to be fair, their ads aren't the kind that people really want to block, but they'll be collateral damage as everyone starts blocking everything.
Not Anonymous! (Score:2)
They were sold to Adblock Plus.
bye bye Adblock (Score:1)
Take the money and run - don't blame him
Adblock Edge? (Score:3)
I started blocking ads because animated GIFs were too distracting to my thought processes. Now blocking ads is simple Internet security 101, just way too dangerous not to, and despite 'acceptable ad' programs is still an attack vector with no benefits if left open.
Re: (Score:2)
Whac-a-Mole strategy wont work (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Host files do not null-route, they just instruct the resolver to give a "fake" response to name resolution queries. You can actually null-route advertisers if you know their ASNs (autonomous system numbers). Then you can use whois to look up their IP ranges and create null-routes to those ranges.
For example, if you want to block all of Facebook, you find their ASNs (AS32934 and AS54115*), then you query the radb whois like this: whois -h whois.radb.net '!gAS32934' and whois -h whois.radb.net '!gAS54115'
Re: (Score:2)
Can I port my Adblock Plus Element Hiding Rules into uBlock? And does it have a similar element hiding helper?
Can we get a resource here in thread? (Score:5, Interesting)
Adblock and Adblock Plus will now both ultimately take money in exchange for allowing ads. You can tell the agenda from the "default on" position.
So, can we get a list of stuff that DOESN'T do this? Maybe with links to the developers saying why not?
We can't edit posts on slashdot, normally for better, but this means I can't add to this list with responses. Still, respond please if you got'em!
The ONLY ones I know for sure are:
** uBlock Origin **- For Firefox and Chrome, this blocks a lot of privacy related things. This one seems like you can customize it, and the addon page tells you about other ad lists you can also apply. Importantly, the developer (gorhill on github) has had to deal with "acceptable ad" beggars, and shuts them down. The odds of this addon staying clean seem very high based on this.
Chrome store: https://chrome.google.com/webs... [google.com]
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
I don't know if this works with popular privacy or usability forks of Firefox and Chrome, and maybe some Palemoons and Comodos and Waterfoxes and whatevers can chime in with details.
The old Adblock Edge was a solid Firefox addon, but discontinued with a message to use uBlock Origin. The somewhat similar dramafilled uBlock (without the "origin") I think has no acceptable ads either, but I have a hard time googling that stuff.
** uBlock ** - This and uBlock Origin share a relatively recent codebase, but there are some developer disagreements. I couldn't find any evidence that uBlock uses acceptable ads, however, so definitely listing it:
Chrome Store: https://chrome.google.com/webs... [google.com]
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
*What else has no acceptable ad option*???
I'd even be ok counting ones that have one that is disabled by default, something that uBlock Origin has fought off successfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Score +3, Troll? For asking for a list of adblock options that don't accept payments for advertising? Pretty incredible lol. I mean, it's an article about that very thing!
It's amazing that people don't want anyone talking about how to support and use products that don't allow an "acceptable ad list", as determined by a company that takes payments from advertisers- or more relevantly, an adblocker that defaults to not blocking ads.
So far we have uBlock Origin, uBlock, and maybe the start64 apk list? Hard
Re: (Score:2)
I said "spamposting". The word has more meaning than just marketing. Certainly, on most forums you get IP banned for posting the same text over and over again, and the offense is called "spamming".
My main concern with a hosts based method is that if *everyone* moved to that, advertisers would sidestep around it. Already they are looking for ways to avoid the existing generation of ad blockers by injecting ads that appear to be served from the main server- once the ad servers solve "trust issues" with the
Re: (Score:3)
I'll add to your list, AdBlock Plus shows no "acceptable ads" once you uncheck the "show acceptable ads" box. I see no problem with this, nor with it being the default position.
What business is it of yours if other people don't mind viewing certain types of ads?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, that doesn't count. That's the whole point of a list- find ad blockers that block ads without needing some technical workaround. We're trying to list adblockers that will never listen to a list of "ok ads". It's ok that you think that a "good advertisement" is one that just hacks YOU (while not also hacking your machine). But that's not what I want. I want advertisements to never be displayed in any capacity. Tools like these actually accomplish this goals- the ones that take payola to some
Re: (Score:2)
I want advertisements to never be displayed in any capacity.
That's exactly what AdBlock Plus accomplishes, and better than the options you listed. Why better? It allows you to block all ads, but doesn't unnecessarily escalate the arms race.
Re: (Score:2)
If it allows ads, it's an ad allower. We want an ad blocker. We probably need a term for that that actually means that thing, given that Ad Block Plus and now Ad Block are both in cahoots with advertisers.
We are trying to talk about products that block advertising, with no trickery, deception, or payola. It's not controversial- just which ones do that? Sadly, the only thing that has been added to my original list of ad blockers that work out of the box (uBlock Origin and uBlock) was the APK Hosts Engine
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily true.
How adblock plus works is they need to allow acceptable use to be able to display and you can still disable that. This means no full screen ads, sounds, malware, zombie cookies you can't delete in flash, redirects, etc.
Websites still get paid only if they allow ethical ads. I am a fan of this as I do want to pay Slashdot and other sites. It is only fair that I take up their space, time, and bandwidth right?
Re: (Score:2)
>Websites still get paid only if
Websites still get paid only if they get paid somehow. We don't need to solve their economic problems, or support the advertising industry. If everyone blocks ads, then I guess we won't have to see ads. Anything beyond that is wild speculation, and more importantly, not our problem.
> It is only fair that I take up their space, time, and bandwidth, right?
If you cared you'd have a gold star by your name and be a subscriber. You either believe ads work on you, in which
Re: (Score:2)
I use adblock.
My point was I like Slashdot for example to be paid only by ethical ads. To me I am willing to compromise and if a site is an asshole and uses 30 ad networks per page then 100% get blocked and they get no money.
My point of view is it gives sites and ad networks an economic incentive to be ethical by adblock plus allowing only ethical ads with strict criteria with the option to block all.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's vastly difficult to uncheck a box. As represented by the fact that all the guys that accept payola insist on that "default on" position. This is because they know that most users won't change the default, so it is a VERY hard request indeed. If instead they had a box that defaulted to blocking all ads that you could SET to ads that they have been paid to consider allowable, then very few users would set that up.
It's hard, it's dishonest, it's unreasonable, and we should support adblockers that
Re: (Score:2)
Nice! Ok. This is an Adblock Plus fork, with the allowed ads feature removed (and of course, it works for Palemoon). Thanks, didn't know.
What ads? (Score:1)
Even if they turn acceptable ads on, I wouldn't see the difference, because I only use adblock for the element blocker. The ads themselves are blocked directly in my router using a custom firewall script and a bunch of HOSTS lists.
FUCK OFF APK (Score:2, Insightful)
Stopped using ABP when they allowed "acceptable" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can APK Hosts File block APK Hosts File spam comments?
Re: (Score:3)
Yah, your host file software (30k lines of code to manage a text file? WTF?) obviously doesn't work or it would be blocking you. You post more spam and ads for your software on here than other 3rd party ads. If your goal is to help cut down on spam and such, you're doing a really shitty job of it.
You've posted your stupid shit in here 25 times and counting (as of this comment's writing). Just get off the internet already apk.
Copy/Pasting your drivel over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait what? You crushed me? http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
Looks like you're the one that got "crushed". You never answered any of my reasons why your system is better than DNS except that having a dedicated DNS server will use more electricity. All your rants and more were completely "proved wrong" in that post.
Unfortunately, some people just can't learn from their mistakes. You think your solution is so damn good that you sound like a kid screaming "gimmie my ball back!" at the top of his lungs in t
Re: (Score:2)
This needs an upmod, that is at least funny if not also insightful.