For the person who asked whether a privacy-related subscription would lead to "acceptable ads" being unchecked by default: It does indeed, as I personally verified on a user's installation where I had previously subscribed to the EasyList+EasyPrivacy combo, which I also recommend for those ABP for Mobile users, who can only subscribe to a single filter-list.
TomTrottier wrote:After reading a few of the pages, I realise that "unobtrusive" ads are determined by site rather than by method. GIven the millions of sites out there, I suggest this would become a LOT of work to both set up and monitor.
That's why I suggest prescribing Methods which any site can use should they want to escape the censorship that AdBlockPlus users want.
In fact, you could let users decide on various methods via checkboxes, eg:
☑ forbid bright colours
☑ forbid ads except in right column
☑ forbid over-bright images
☑ forbid ad images
☑ forbid any scripts
☑ forbid ...
depending on what methods you can easily recognize - and prescribe to advertisers. (yeah, harder than site filtering...)
That's *much* harder to implement than what ABP allows now: At the moment, there's no way for the extension to analyze the colors of a requested image before deciding whether to block (first, but not least, because it would paradoxically need to actually make that HTTP request for the image before it could analyze it and then decide whether to block the request, and also because it would take a massive performance hit...or it would require Palant to set up a special proxy server specifically for downloading and analyzing those images before the client ever sees them...it's mind-boggling), and calculating and estimating whether an ad is in the "right column" will lead to a serious performance hit.
However, it's much easier to block all images or scripts from a site: For the former, use the $image option; for the latter, use the $script option.
There's a buzzin' in my brain I really can't explain; I think about it before they make me go to bed.