Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Advertising Businesses Open Source The Media Your Rights Online

Adblock Plus Maker Seeks Deal With Ad Industry Players ( 356

An anonymous reader writes with Yahoo's report that the makers of Adblock Plus are "looking to reach out to advertisers and identify an 'acceptable' level and form of advertising on the net." That involves convincing advertisers to conform to the company's own guidelines for advertising, or an alternative path much disliked by some of the software's users — to pay the company to ignore ads that don't meet those guidelines. From the article: Big websites can pay a fee not to be blocked. And it is these proceeds that finance the Cologne-based company and its 49-strong workforce. While Google and Amazon have paid up, others refuse. Axel Springer, which publishers Germany's best-selling daily Bild, accuses [Adblock Plus maker] Eyeo of racketeering. "We believe Eyeo's business model is against the law," a spokesman for Springer told AFP. "Clearly, Eyeo's primary aim is to get its hands on a share of the advertising revenues." Ultimately, such practices posed a threat to the professional journalism on the web, he suggested, an argument Eyeo rejects.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adblock Plus Maker Seeks Deal With Ad Industry Players

Comments Filter:
  • No such thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Monday February 08, 2016 @09:02AM (#51461589)

    "identify an 'acceptable' level and form of advertising on the net."

    That will be hard to find since such a thing does not exist.

    • Re:No such thing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Teun ( 17872 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @09:15AM (#51461643) Homepage
      For me that's similar to what a printed publication does, there it's on the same sheet of paper, on the web it's presented by the same server.
      The moment an ad turns into a tracking device there are good reasons to block it.
      • Re:No such thing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <> on Monday February 08, 2016 @09:55AM (#51461847) Homepage Journal

        - No tracking
        - No animation
        - No sound
        - No Javascript
        - No plugins / Flash
        - No third party hosts
        - No delays >10ms to auction the ad
        - Max 10Kb of data
        - No adult content unless its an adult site
        - No obfuscated links
        - No more than 10% of the page area
        - No mixing ads and content, ads must be clearly separated and identified
        - No overlays
        - No interstitials

        In addition, AdBlock must enforce these rules in the plug-in, i.e. whitelisted ads get overriden if it detects they contain scripts or >10kb of data or make the page take >50ms extra to load.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          All of that sounds reasonable and feasible, except for the "No Tracking" bit. The moment a 3rd party ad is rendered they have some information about you. At the very least, this is the URL of the site you're visiting, which may sound harmless enough, but it also usually carries information about your search terms (i.e. in Google) or your shopping habits (i.e. categories you're browsing on Amazon). And in the case of large ad networks which serve ads on most sites that you visit - well, they get a pretty det

        • Re:No such thing (Score:5, Interesting)

          by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @11:01AM (#51462275)

          Maybe a generation change will fix this.

          I worked at an ad agency at the dawn of the commercial Internet. The people on the advertising side of the business had all kinds of problems adapting.

          The print people wanted it to be another print medium and were frustrated by their lack of layout control and font selection. Their tool was giant images with click regions because they could basically export an Illustrator file as a graphic, so you'd end up with sites that were just a giant collection of images with click regions that led you to more images with more click regions.

          The TV people treated it like another TV set, at first with just inserted videos, next with semi-interactive Flash animations that still had all the intelligence of a one-way TV commercial.

          Perhaps in the not-too-distant future the people who didn't grow up on standard, commercial television or tweaking print layouts down to the pixel AND who came of age frustrated by overlays, popups, interstitials and understand ad blocking will become ascendant and stop imposing old thinking on the web.

          • Re:No such thing (Score:5, Insightful)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <> on Monday February 08, 2016 @11:26AM (#51462439) Homepage Journal

            Advertisers are moving to product and story placement now. Whole articles that are basically ads. Fake reviews. The next level of ad-blocking is to filter that crap out too.

            • Or curated real reviews -- i.e., bad reviews dropped.

            • by swb ( 14022 )

              There seems to be some outer limit to this, at least at more legitimate sites because I see a lot of fake articles labeled as "sponsored content". Maybe I'm dreaming this, but didn't the commerce department make some noise about needing to label sponsored content as sponsored content? Or is this something that more legitimate news sites are doing to not totally alienate their readers?

              • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                It depends on the legal jurisdiction. In the UK, for example, they are supposed to be labelled but it's a voluntary code and the line between "took journalist to lunch" and "paid for the article" is pretty fuzzy.

            • " The next level of ad-blocking is to filter that crap out too."

              I'd prefer a PeopleBlock, where I can enter names like Donald Trump, Kardashian, etc and never see anything of that.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You basically eliminated everything.
          - No Tracking (Can't be done otherwise you would get the same ad repeatedly, and is necessary for context-awareness)
          - No Animation (Can be done, but I think you meant "no VIDEO" ads on non-video content)
          - No Sound (It violates every legitimate ad network to do this already)
          - No Javascript (Impossible, otherwise you will see the ads burned into the content of the website, which is actually worse, because it's hard to be context-aware this way, do you really want to see ads

          • Re:No such thing (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cream wobbly ( 1102689 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @12:47PM (#51463123)

            You basically eliminated everything.

            Ding ding ding! We have a winner! (Who do you work for?)

            - No Tracking (Can't be done otherwise you would get the same ad repeatedly, and is necessary for context-awareness)

            Sure it can be done. The visited site hosts the ad and doesn't tattle. Just like print, their connection to the reader is a one-way street. Context awareness is done by the content publisher. They're the ones who want the ads, not me. So it should be on them to make sure they don't send me away with poorly selected advertising.

            If a company wants to gauge how effective their advertising campaign is, they can analyse their contact results and how many of those coming from the campaign resulted in a sale. They can analyse sales from other sources. Easy.

            - No Animation (Can be done, but I think you meant "no VIDEO" ads on non-video content)

            You're new here. No animation. No moving bits at all. No blink, no marquee, no animated gifs, NOTHING.

            - No Sound (It violates every legitimate ad network to do this already)

            What, even for auto-playing videos?

            - No Javascript (Impossible, otherwise you will see the ads burned into the content of the website, which is actually worse, because it's hard to be context-aware this way, do you really want to see ads for condoms on childrens comics?)

            Of course it's possible. You don't know your web servers.

            You're at it again with your "context-aware". This is done by the agency hosting the content. Why would any publisher of children's comics agree to host condom ads?

            See where this is heading? Responsibility lies with the publisher, as well as the advertiser.

            Aside from that, Javascript places the burden of processing content on the viewer, where the burden should be with the site depending on advertising.

            - No Plugins (Already being done)

            I still see Flash ads. Well, I don't, because I block them.

            - No third party hosts (Can't be done unless every site direct-sells the ads, which like above with the No Tracking and No Javascript, harms the user experience more than it improves it. Nobody buys directly from content publishers because campaigns have set dates to run, and it's faster for them to buy from an ad exchange and specify the conditions for the ad to be shown. Also many publishers have set it and forget it ad invocation code, so they don't want to manage the ads because it takes time away from producing content.)

            Sure it can be done. In fact, expiry, and correct targeting of advertisements can be managed by the host far easier with server-side code than it can with Javascript, if only because you have a choice of languages at the server side.

            - No delays (Only bad ad networks are slow, unfortunately you sometimes have to chain up to 10 ad networks to get a paying ad, and that is why some sites have slow ads, because the highest paying ad network has no inventory, so it goes to the next, with Google usually being at the end because Google adsense is not worth using if there is anything else.)

            - No Adult content (You do realize that adult content ads only appear on sites that have approved it right? It's otherwise a violation of the ad networks terms and conditions to have ads on adult sites, and only adult sites run garbage ad networks that show adult ads.)

            I think when you say "adult content" you're thinking of pornography.

            There's other adult advertising content which is inappropriate for children: retirement, cars, guns, drugs, films, books, travel, ... oh wait a second, I meant everything. It is never appropriate to advertise to children.

            - No obfuscated links (The entire reason that happens is because of generic ad blocking.)

        • That's never going to happen, so people who think that a compromise might some day be reached, need to let go of that.

          Some of the things on the list are extremely easy because the browser itself is ultimately in control. If you don't want animation, for example, then your browser can elect to not animate things. Same for playing sound, executing Javascript, 10kb limit, etc. You're going to get your wish on all of that stuff, assuming you haven't already gotten it already.

          But tracking isn't going to go awa

          • by cream wobbly ( 1102689 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @12:55PM (#51463203)

            It could very easily happen, by enforcing blocking rules that restrict or eliminate third party content.

            Sure, that would break a huge chunk of the internet right now. So what? It's already been broken by content providers who invite advertisers to pollute their content.

            Turning blocking rules into legislation would be interesting, because politicians typically don't understand anything more complex than one end of a shoelace.

          • But tracking isn't going to go away. Your computer is initiating a conversation with someone else's computer, and there's only one thing you can do to prevent someone else's computer from remembering that it happened: have there be nothing to remember, because nothing happened. i.e. don't request the ad.

            My computer initiated a conversation with Site A. This does not mean that Site A should conference in Ad Network B to advertise at me without even notifying me of what they're doing. If Site A wants to get ad revenue, they can tell me directly about the advertised product, but clearly state that it's a paid ad and don't sell my personal information to third parties.

            What would you think of someone who sold your contact info to telemarketers as soon as you called him or gave him your number?

        • I'm fine with them delaying as long as they like to auction the ad, as long as that delay time is made before they start serving any content. Note, Google and other ranking algorithms count time to first byte in the quality of a site.

    • Re:No such thing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anrego ( 830717 ) * on Monday February 08, 2016 @09:19AM (#51461661)

      Meh, if it:

      - Stays quietly off to the side somewhere
      - Clearly distinguishable as an ad
      - Doesn't slow down page load time
      - Isn't a scam
      - Preferrably doesn't do an excessive amount of tracking

      It's acceptable in my books.

      That said, the adblock guys are about to blow their own foot off. Nothing they do is that complicated, there are already workable alternatives.. the only reason they are so popular is that they've "just worked" for the longest, but it won't take much of this crap before they see their entire userbase migrate to something else.

      • Re:No such thing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by wbr1 ( 2538558 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @10:13AM (#51461947)
        I have already switched and am pushing uBlock Origin as an alternative to my customers. Having a ruleset for allowing non-intrusive ads is one thing. Taking shakedown money to allow big players through is another and unacceptable.
      • by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

        They kind of have to do this. As mobile takes over, AdBlock is less and less prevalent - and the web is less and less usable. It's potentially interesting that Google has signed on to this. Whether you love or hate them, it'd be really nice if Chrome on Android supported AdBlock Plus. And Apple's support for ad blockers on iOS, is definitely a shot across Google's bow that they're going to have to address. Google's ads are probably as close to the 'acceptable ads' standards as any - basically because t

    • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      That's with such reasoning like that things are unlikely to go forward.
      One one side there are advertisers who seem to think that a good way to do business is to make sure that you only get ads and not what you initially came for, and the other side won't tolerate a single monetized pixel.
      Yes, there are such things as acceptable ads, but it is not something that can be settled with brains switched off.
      For example, are appeal to donation by charities acceptable? is self-promotion acceptable? is mentioning a f

    • by Xicor ( 2738029 )

      i disagree. i am totally fine with static banner ads and in page ads. the only reason i use adblock is to block all of the ads that do full screen popups, malware ads and video ads.

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Sure there is. I remember when Google entered the advertising business. Their whole schtick was that they only presented small text ads, well identified as such. They were fast, unobtrusive, and often useful.

      Then Doubleclick bought Google for negative whateverbillionty dollars.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08, 2016 @09:06AM (#51461597)

    As if not bogging your browser down with thousands of css rules every page wasn't enough.

  • It is very close to the 'insurance' that the mafia sells.The fact that they also say that it will be the downfall of online journalism is irrelevant.

    German judges must decide if it is against their law or not. If it is not, then companies can decide to pay or not. If it isn't, they can not be asking money.

    Next to that, users can decide if they want to use it or not.

    • It is very close to the 'insurance' that the mafia sells.

      I doubt that ABP threatens the ad-agencies with smashing their knees in or burning down their business, although sometimes I feel that would be an appropriate response to some of the ads I've seen.

      • by houghi ( 78078 )

        There also is the 'insurance' that nothing will happen to your business, e.g. you income. They would do fights among themselves and that would drive customers away.
        Or see that no customers would get it, thus starving the business.

  • An anonymous reader writes with Yahoo's report that the makers of Adblock Plus are "looking to reach out to advertisers and identify an 'acceptable' level and form of advertising on the net."

    Isn't this what they've been doing for months? It's how they make their money.

    • In short, you can pay Adblock not to see the ads, or pay a website micro-transaction (few cents to a dollar a year??) to the site directly not to see the ads. Things that makes you go "hmmmmm".

      • Why didn't this concept take off?

        Did it just get co-opted by Google making it relatively easy to collect micropayments for your site with mostly non-intrusive advertising?

        Lack of a centralized micropayment infrastructure and some method of subscribing and collecting payments that couldn't be trivially gamed? Lack of any agreeable billing model -- ie, unlimited use subscription vs. per visit/content, inability to calculate pricing model due to volatile perception of value?

        Perhaps a general user objection on

        • by DogDude ( 805747 )
          Micropayments will never work because the overhead of transacting payments is too high.
          • by swb ( 14022 )

            Computationally, the overhead is kind of trivial.

            If you're relying on the traditional credit card payment network then the cost overhead is high along with all the attendant accept credit card payment overhead.

            But if you had a centralized micropayment service, the overhead gets down to a much lower level.

            In an ideal world, such a service would be run as a non-profit (whatever skim would just go to running the service). Users would add funds to their micropayment account via normal methods to consolidate th

      • Or, or... you can install uBlock and (with any luck) not see any ads.

        It's a tricky one...

  • Professional... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08, 2016 @09:15AM (#51461645)

    While I see Adblock's behaviour as *very* problematic (it's in the category "deregulated regulation", where a private entity, by its position takes the job of a regulator -- sometimes even encouraged by a state entity), without the supervision by democratic entities. Slippery and that (lots of examples come to mind, like a private entity in UK deciding that the image of a record cover is too obscene for Wikipedia, remember?)...

    seeing Springer talk about "professional journalism" gives me the eeries too.

    I choose to not side with any of them.

  • Web is Dying (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hinesbrad ( 1923872 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @09:24AM (#51461685)
    I'm amazed at each passing year how bad advertising gets on the internet. I doubt I click on more than 3 ads a year with content or a service that actually interests me. With the array of annoyances advertisers put into their arsenal over the last few years it's no wonder users are rejecting this experience. People on the internet come here for information and the exchange of ideas. We're accustomed to rapid fire, text based experiences. Content that produces annoying animations, loud sounds, or obfuscates content with a forced click to close something is not just annoying, it reduces the usability of the internet. I can remember when a website with a banner was considered to be a sellout. Just off the top of my head I can think of the vast array of websites I visit that are no longer usable without adblock: (background), (annoying hover ads), (also annoying hover ads), (every other video is now a 2 minute ad) ..... Is it any wonder with experiences like these we want to use this?
  • by HalcyonTimes ( 4451151 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @09:33AM (#51461729)

    I have a no-no sticker on my letterbox that prevents unadressed paper advertisments. Running adblock is like having a no-no sticker.

    Adblock is now looking for a middle ground. Instead of having a no-no sticker you can have an adblock-sticker that says: some unaddressed advertisment is allowed (ie. the ones allowed by adblock). If you translate this to the paper world it could mean only ads printed on recycled paper, only single page ads; not a whole booklet, ads that are clear and concise etc.

    I don't mind supporting websites I like, but I absolutely hate advertisments that take over the page, 'steal' my attention or look like content. It's a fine line and as it stands the consumer is pretty powerless to find a good middle ground. Website owners are also pretty powerless because they don't have enough control over the ads that appear on their site. It's also difficult for ad makers because there are no guidelines. Only an entity like adblock has the power to force advertisers to behave: ie. behave or be blocked.

    I don't quite understand the argument of people who don't want adblock to move in this direction. If you don't like it, switch to one of the many other adblocking plugins. Im sure there will always be one adblocker-like plugin that will aim to block all ads.

    I see this as a healthy development, one that could finally rid us of annoying ads while making sure content providers get compensated.

    I could also see a system where adblock works with ad providers to distribute revenue. For instance, you could chose to pay adblock (or some other entity) a monthly fee that gets distributed over the content providers that you consume. Kind like Flattr or YoutubeRed, but a system that could work on any platform, from any vendor.

    • I don't mind supporting websites I like

      I pay cash to websites which actually provide useful content to me. If you aren't willing to pay cash money to the website then it probably isn't worth much to you.

      I don't quite understand the argument of people who don't want adblock to move in this direction. If you don't like it, switch to one of the many other adblocking plugins. Im sure there will always be one adblocker-like plugin that will aim to block all ads.

      To me it is adblock selling out. They're basically offering advertisers a protection racket. I want no part of that. I don't need an ad blocker whose interests are not clearly aligned with my own. Obviously others feel the same way.

      I see this as a healthy development, one that could finally rid us of annoying ads while making sure content providers get compensated.

      Who says they deserve compensation? Their bad business model is not my problem. Provide value or go away.

      • I pay cash to websites which actually provide useful content to me. If you aren't willing to pay cash money to the website then it probably isn't worth much to you.

        If those websites are so valueless, then why bother installing AdBlock in the first place? There's three obvious possibilities:

        1. You're going there on purpose, so they *do* add value to you.
        2. You're going there accidentally and AdBlock protects against that. In that case, would you use a service that instead replaces sites that contain ads with a single error page, stating that the site is ad-supported, and gives you the option of paying the site, accepting the ads anyway?
        3. You're evaluating whether

    • Wow, that sticker thing is a great idea. I wish we had something like that here. In my city in the states, we don't get paper recycling (we can only do cardboard and bottles free), and our trash costs $5 a bag. So not only do I not have a choice about getting unsolicited bulk paper advertisements, I have to pay the city a premium to get rid of them. It blows.

      Are you in Europe?

  • Looks like I'll have to get into the habit again of finding the FQDN of the sources of advertising, and setting the IP in my hosts file to, like I used to do back in the '90s.

    It was a pain in the butt then, and I imagine it will be far worse now.

    • Don't use, use instead. directs the requests to localhost while drops them immediately due to being invalid. Sometimes it matters, especially if you run an HTTP[S] server on the computer for whatever reason.
  • Seriously, can someone name three locations, paid, or ad-supported, that offer first-hand research (not just reposts of someone else's work), unbiased/uncensored by political interest or advertiser dollars, that don't have the articles presented paragraph by paragraph, each on its own page, and that do NOT present a danger to the security of platforms?

  • I guess there's a new niche in the market now - the AdBlocker Blocker...

  • Adblock Minus (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GeekWithAKnife ( 2717871 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @09:46AM (#51461785)

    Once upon a time ads annoyed me, I chose Adblock PLus because it got rid of the annoying ads.

    Adblock Plus stopped doing a great job at blocking annoying ads and has then been uninstalled and everyone moved on...

    Adblock Plus now wants to make it's inferior product worse to make a buck.

    *looks at Ublock Origin icon and laughs*
  • by verbatim ( 18390 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @09:48AM (#51461805) Homepage

    That's some nice advertising you've got there... It'd be a shame if someone decided to block it...

    But seriously, okay... you pay off ABP. A large group of users migrate to another ad-block tool... that tool's creator demands protection money... and so on. That, to me, is why it sounds so scummy -- because ABP can only promise not to block for it's own user-base. It's literally, "hey, give us a cut of your ad-revenue or we'll give a free app to people to prevent you from serving ads."

    Does this policy undermine their "acceptable ads" option? i.e. ads are now acceptable if they meet a certain technical criteria or the provider has paid protection money?


  • I have used uBlock and find slightly better results than with adblock but certainly the barriers to entry for adblockers can't be very high. Completey stupid if adblock sells out.

  • Semantics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ( 3412475 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @10:12AM (#51461943)

    Racketeering is good semantics for their current business model indeed, as there is no supervision whatsoever right now. Like Bild (end everybody else) I also don't think Eyeo is doing this in a "transparent enough" way that there's no doubt they aren't enforcing an "advertising fee" in their "controlled space of the web" (i.e. everyone who uses their adblock, their only de facto product). It should be clear enough for users of adblock, and for "payers" of whitelisting what this money is for, and a clear description of what "work" it entails to whitelist some ad (and/or an entire website/domain).

    If it is to be done right, Eyeo needs to disclose publicly it offers two products: AdBlock - a free piece of software that has no direct form of revenue; and "Verified Whitelisting", a service that consists solely on periodic validation of conformity (with their "sensible ads" paradigm) for each company that so requests.

    Eyeo then needs to bill each company transparently for the actual work hours taken to verify the requested pages (including hours wasted in scenarios that involve telling the company some site does not conform due to reason XYZ). But most importantly, these billed hours need to be made public. Only through transparency can companies AND users be assured that Eyeo is doing what it publicizes it does (only validate "sensible ads", and not any ads by highly-profitable payers). This way, the practice starts entering legal ground. It's pretty much a process like legalizing weed - the state can be sure there's no trafficking because all business go through their supervision, but mostly just the fact it is due to go through state supervision is enough to stop abuse. Give supervision power to every user of adblock, and Eyeo is sure to do most of its business in the way they publicize, without actually making more money than they should be doing for such an easy job.

    And most important of all - AdBlock development costs cannot overlap with the whitelisting paradigm costs. This final detail is what separates racketeering from the legal practice of creating this "sensible ads" paradigm and its validation process.

    Disclaimer: this is my opinion. I am no Law expert, but to me - as a citizen and user of adblock - this is what makes me comfortable. I will stop using adblock as soon as I see abuse in this whitelisting process in clear form. But I am not a company paying for whitelisting, so I don't get their side of the picture as well as I should.

  • All you have to do is uncheck the "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" checkbox in Adblock Plus settings.
  • When someone wants you to drink a glass of poison and you don'r want to drink it, the compromise is to only drink half a glass.
  • by simplypeachy ( 706253 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @10:52AM (#51462197)

    "An 'acceptable' level and form of advertising on the net"

    When we are forced to start this conversation by pleading "Would you stop allowing my computers to be infected with viruses, with ransomware and trojans and stuff? Please, please, would you stop subjecting my computer to severe risk of infection? Please don't subject me to this." then it's very telling. IYAM it says that the Internet advertising industry cannot regain any sort of trust with us for a very long time. That they have to completely scrap every method they're using, every business practice and start again, from the ground up. They have lost their way so very badly that there *are* no directions back to the path. Their only choice can be to abandon their journey. Go home, and start again. Back from square one.

    Only then can we even discuss other, very important facts, like stealing the bandwidth and CPU we pay for, tracking our every online habit without our permission and intruding on our private life.

  • by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Monday February 08, 2016 @11:02AM (#51462287)

    No ad that is capable of infecting my system with malware or otherwise installing any software on my computer without my permission can ever be considered acceptable.

    If the likes of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook etc etc can 100% gaurantee that their advertising will NEVER install something malicious (or contribute in some way to the installation of something malicious) even if their ad networks are hacked by rogue hackers or otherwise compromised, I will consider unblocking those networks.

  • How to both have a little fun and show how over-inundated the ads are:

    Go to your spouse's computer in say, July. Do a google search on Christmas decorations and click on 10 ads for Christmas stuff. Log off and walk away.

    Your spouse will be flooded with Christmas ads for the rest of the month, on most sites that they visit.

    I did this to my wife once as a joke and it was a good time. But it does show how deeply the tracking is inserted into everything.

    I don't mind some tracking. I do mind others. I do no

  • Negotiating "peace for our time."

  • "Big websites can pay a fee not to be blocked. And it is these proceeds that finance the Cologne-based company and its 49-strong workforce."

    Pay up or be blocked - sounds like a RICO violation right there. I bet some legal fuckery could be twisted out of one of our treaties to make it happen.

  • Do you know this sedo parking sites? This phishing sites, which try to put many keywords from the legitimate domain on a typo domain? These sites were the first on the whitelist for acceptable ads. Since then ABP is dead for me.

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_