LorenzoC wrote:Ok, I am adding my two cents even if I do know my opinion doesn't matter.
Here we have an extension whose goal was to give the user control over what it is loaded/displayed in his/her browser, by filtering objects. The first issue with this was the subscriptions, basically users delegating somebody else to decide what to filter and how. But this is understandable due the technicalities involved.
Now comes the second issue, users are going to delegate not only the technical part of content filtering but also what is "acceptable" and what is not.
Yes, the average user wants to install ABP and have it configured automatically to block ads reliably based on filters created by people they can trust. Why shouldn't this apply to whitelisting a well? The majority of users want to support websites by accepting unobtrusive ads so we have to give them an automatic feature that does the job for them just like we do with the blocking rules. The same reasoning applies here due to the technicalities involved.
LorenzoC wrote:There isn't the user deciding of his/her browser, there isn't the user relying on "trusted" third party people
If a user doesn't trust the creators of the default blocking list for some reason the user also has to disable it and create own filters or choose another subscription. We have the same amount of choice with the whitelist.
LorenzoC wrote:This means advertisers who want to slip through the filters must have an "agreement" in place with ABP.
How else can we make sure that the exception rules will not be misused to sneak through ads that are not meeting the criteria for acceptabla ads?