Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Everything about using Adblock Plus on Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird and SeaMonkey

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby Anonymous5 » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:38 am

First time poster; I just wanted to say that I understand and support this. The criteria for this allowed advertising is strict enough and the people who are complaining are just too lazy to disable it through their settings. Some websites genuinely need our help and support and one meager still-image banner ad isn't going to distract me from what's presented. If it does annoy me enough, I'll just block it, and so can you.

I don't see what the problem is.

Thank you for continued support of this software.
Anonymous5
 

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby anonymousads » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:58 am

Anonymous5 wrote:First time poster; I just wanted to say that I understand and support this. The criteria for this allowed advertising is strict enough and the people who are complaining are just too lazy to disable it through their settings. Some websites genuinely need our help and support and one meager still-image banner ad isn't going to distract me from what's presented. If it does annoy me enough, I'll just block it, and so can you.

I don't see what the problem is.

Thank you for continued support of this software.

I want to chose which site I support and not APB by default, white listing was already there, no need to put a remote controlled "allow acceptable ads" on all paying websites. This stinks!! lol
anonymousads
 

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby 25percent » Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:19 am

i just registered to express my disapproval of this. i downgraded and pinned 1.3.9 for now.

while i can understand that the maintainer would like to earn money for all the work he put in abp, i think this is the wrong way to go. it is a sell-out and it is absolutely unacceptable for an adblocker to force users to see ads. abp has chosen the side of the advertisers now and i lost my trust in this product. if the survey really means that 75% want to see ads, there would be no need for the new default, the 75% would happily enable it manually. it is ridiculous to claim that a majority wants to have this "feature", but it has to be forced on them.

you do what abp used to fight against: you show me unwanted ads without asking. this is not acceptable and i don't trust you anymore. this is similar to the noscript fail and i am very angry!

for me, there are no acceptable ads. corporate propaganda is everywhere trying to brainwash us. it has no place in my web browser. a website that needs ads to survive has the wrong business model. people complaining about adblockers "stealing" the content of websites: get a paywall, leave me alone with your whining.

we are the 25%.
25percent
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:50 am

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby Frank » Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:34 am

25percent wrote:we are the 25%.

You are the minority. Get over it, not everyone thinks the same as you.
Frank
 

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby EnviroChem » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:06 am

FIRST FULL DISCLOSURE
1) Some here will remember me as EnvironmentalChemistry from several years ago. I've registered using EnviroChem as it is much shorter and fits better on the post sidebar. I was the one who had figured out how to block users who blocked ads on my site and ran said ad blocking countermeasures for quite some time before deciding to remove the blocks. See: http://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=579

2) I'm now also a volunteer AMO (addons.mozilla.org) editor (I mostly review themes), thus because aware of this thread as a result of the chatter it caused in our communications channels.

3) I recently had the pleasure of meeting Wladimir Palant in person at EU MozCamp this past November. Given that I run a website that depends on advertising revenue and he maintains an add-on that blocks ads, we don't necessarily see eye to eye, but still, I have great respect for him.

----

ONTO THE ISSUE AT HAND

ADVERTISING INDUSTRY HAS A BAD TRACK RECORD OF OBNOXIOUS ADS
No question about it, advertisers have been extremely disrespectful of users. Nothing will make me happier than to see Flash ads die (unless they are replaced by something worse). I don't personally use AdBlock, but I do use FlashBlock to block ALL Flash content not just ads. For me this has been sufficient to bring back sanity to my web browsing experience. I understand why users feel compelled to block ads and I'd love to find a way to find common ground.

PAYWALLS DON'T WORK FOR SMALL SITES
Small independent websites provide a great wealth of diverse information, content and/or services on the Internet. For most of these sites, the only practical solution for earning a living from their efforts is advertising. They just aren't big enough to create enough loyal users to survive on revenues generated from a paywall. This is particularly true with content sites that users might only visit once for a specific one time question.

SELF HOSTED ADS WON'T WORK FOR SMALL SITES
james_m wrote:"adverts must not be hosted on a third-party domain or in any way access one unless the user clicks on the advert".

I suspect the extent to which Google Ads has become widespread would make this impractical, and I don't know enough technical details to know to what extent this would mitigate the privacy concerns, but I'd certainly be interested in hearing from someone who could offer some more insight into this.


It only became possible to make some sort of living off of running independent websites when ads were automatically targeted and placed by third party services like Google AdSense. Prior to AdSense, the most common way for small sites to put ads on their sites was to manually place ads from affiliate programs. This was extremely labor intensive as ads had to be manually selected and placed on websites. Typically ads did not generate much revenue because of poor targeting and lousy payment terms. AdSense totally revolutionized the monetizing of websites. Suddenly we could simply put a simple code snip on our pages and Google would worry about everything else. This meant more time could be focused on creating content. It also meant users were seeing more relevant ads.

Only large media companies with in house advertising staff have the capability of directly selling ad space to advertisers and thus being able to host the ads on the same server that the rest of the website is housed on.

PAY TO PLAY IS A BAD IDEA
I agree with many of the comments I've read about it being a conflict of interest for websites to have to pay up in order to get white listed. White listing of websites should be behavior based, not based on their ability to pay up. Only large sites would find it cost effective to pay up to be white listed, thus small sites that need the ad revenue the most couldn't benefit from this option. Besides, such pay to play requirement stinks of extortion.

FULL DISCLOSURE IS A MUST
Users must be easily able to see what sites are white listed and there must be clear criteria for being white listed. These details should be placed in the "about" description on the AMO profile page for ABP.

USERS MUST STILL HAVE CONTROL
Users must have a very easy way of enabling/disabling the white listing of sites. It can't be hidden or buried and they need to clear understanding of the consequences of their setting choice.

OPT IN VS OPT OUT
If the ultimate goal of this new feature is to provide a carrot and stick approach to get websites to be more respectful of users in regards to the types of ads they use, then the option must be opt out, not opt in. Time and again users claim to hate obnoxious ads like rich media Flash ads, but you know what? They work. I hate rich media ads, but if I were to opt out of them on my website, my revenues would fall substantially. In order for it to be worthwhile to turn off rich media ads to get white listed by ABP the extra revenue I'd earn because I was white listed would have to be greater than what I'd lose by turning off rich media ads. The only hope of ABP creating the critical mass needed to make being white listed worth while for websites, thus altering ad behaviors, would be for the option to be opt out as most users will use the default configuration. If the option were opt-in it would never gain the critical mass needed to convince websites to change behaviors to be white listed.

THE BLENDING LINE BETWEEN ADS AND OBJECTIVE CONTENT
One side effect of ad blindness and ad blocking software is that website owners are increasingly blurring the lines between legitimate objective editorial content and advertising. I don't know about you, but I like to know when the content on a webpage is objective or slanted by an advertising motive. Unfortunately, in order to avoid ad blocking and ad blindness in general, many websites try to blend content and ads in such a way that one can't tell the difference.

DO YOU WANT AN INTERNET WHERE ALL CONTENT IS CONTROLLED BY BIG COMPANIES?
I dare say, ad blocking hurts small sites worse than big sites proportionally. AdSense and similar means of monetizing websites have been great equalizers that have allowed small publishers to flourish helping to sustain a great diversity of ideas and options on the Internet. Without advertis their offerings cost effectively, and small publishers being able to easily monetize their websites easily, only the big companies will survive.

THE GOAL OF CHANGING ADVERTISER BEHAVIOR
When I met Wladimir, I don't recall specifically discussing this new white list option he has be working. However, something we did discuss and agreed upon was that there was a need to try and encourage websites and advertisers to have more respect for users. Providing an option to white list specific types of non-obnoxious ads could convince advertisers to use less obnoxious ads. Like I said, I hate rich media ads, but I use them because they work. If static graphics ads and text ads (which I personally like best) worked better than rich media ads, simply because more users saw them as a result of them being white listed, I'd switch off rich media ads in a heartbeat.

The question for ABP users is, do you use ABP solely for self interested reasons of not seeing ads, or do you want to make a statement to help make the Internet a better place? If all you care about is never seeing any ads, then turn off the white list. If, however, you want to help change advertising behavior to make it less obnoxious and to help foster small independent sites, for whom advertising is really the only viable option, turn the white list filter on and provide constructive feedback as to how to make it better.
User avatar
EnviroChem
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Saco Maine

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby 25percent » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:11 am

Frank wrote:
25percent wrote:we are the 25%.

You are the minority.


i doubt that. https://adblockplus.org/blog/adblock-plus-user-survey-results-part-3:

i can imagine allowing some unobtrusive ads to support free websites: 32.5% agree.

"somewhat agree" (38.4%) means also "somewhat disagree", this category is misleading at best and cannot be counted as pro ads. also it says nowhere here that allowing some ads means abp gets paid to allow ads for the user. somebody who answers "yes" here can also mean disabling abp manually for some sites. this "survey" does not prove anything.
25percent
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:50 am

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby nyubu » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:18 am

To me it seems, wladimir, that you started as a punk, and now you are selling your soul.

(If you remember one of the layers of Fincher's blockbuster about facebook (social network), their way was: "fcb is cool, and there is nothing cool about ads". That is Shawn's idea, and he knows what he is talking about, as one of the co-founders of Napster, without which probably none of us would have experience anything that we call freedom on internet :-)

The step you have just made is ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ADVERTISERS. Actually, your old punk ways were much more valuable for them. Isn't it ironic? :)

The real future of internet advertisng and communication is not in bombardment, not in any imperialistic "you must, or I will not let you". This is already over. The advertisers and marketers, in agony, think of totally chaotic approaches of the type "the whole page will dissipate in front of your eyes and there will be a message in front of the users eyes...". Blah blah blah. I have heard these people talk. They did not get anything, they are already on their way to extinction...

But there is a way, there is a future for certain kind of business communication, however these will probably be the most subtle ways... And deffinitely not of the type of your whitelist...

The subtleness will consist of 4 principles: PERSONALISED + ON DEMAND + OPEN + RECOMENDED BY SOMEONE YOU TRUST.

In short, there will be the ways, for me as ready to buy say "new Mac", in which I can announce my desire, and call for the most interesting OFFERS... There will be a pretty effective business via people-in-the-know with personal experience with some service or product, the people you trust because you know them (personally) or you LOVE TO read their blogs (etc.) that will not persuade you, bombard you, but rather open a way in front of you to reach and touch something you wish to have and they know it is good...

I believe the future belongs to ADBLOCKERS, be it you - or someone else more carefull abou selling his/her soul, and to those who have something REAL for you to beautify your life...

By the way, if there would be no adblock at this point, the internet wouldbe already one huge neverending advertisement system...

Being in your skin, I would think your decision twice through, wladimir.

Shutting your new feature off.
nyubu
 

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby Guest » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:38 am

EnviroChem wrote:FIRST FULL DISCLOSURE
1) Some here will remember me as EnvironmentalChemistry from several years ago. ...snip.


Look, it's capitalism, we don't care how you earn your money...do you see ?
If you need to shill things to earn a crust then that's your lookout.
We don't care.
Even if I do visit your site, you won't be sending me Christmas cards or going
down the pub for a pint with me will you.
See....capitalism at work.
We hate the ads.
We want to block them.
Bake bread or something.
We hate the ads.
Sunk in yet.
Guest
 

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby Anti-Ad » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:42 am

Anonymous5 wrote:First time poster; I just wanted to say that I understand and support this. The criteria for this allowed advertising is strict enough and the people who are complaining are just too lazy to disable it through their settings. Some websites genuinely need our help and support and one meager still-image banner ad isn't going to distract me from what's presented. If it does annoy me enough, I'll just block it, and so can you.

I don't see what the problem is.

Thank you for continued support of this software.


What about my elderly, computer-illiterate grandmother? She lives over a thousand miles away. I can't exactly drive across town to uncheck a box she doesn't know about for an option she doesn't understand.

All she can express is how glad she is that the aggressive (and often offensive) ads are gone and how much easier she can surf without drive-by malware trying to install.

She is on a fixed income and can't afford a high performance computer or anything more than the rotten, low-tier (768kbps) DSL. Even simple banner ads will degrade her experience.

Silly me, when I installed ABP for her we both expected it would block the ads, and that would be the end of the problem. Now, when she gets the update, the ads will return.

I will have to guide her through the preferences screen in what is probably a 30 minute phonecall. Fortunately for her, I'm willing to do that. Many other people in similar circumstances are just going to have to live with ABP's choice of ads they expected would be blocked.

As for her friends and church contacts, many of whom have computers I've dewormed and fitted with FF/ABP, they're stuck. This change will be delivering ads to them they don't want and don't understand how to stop.
Anti-Ad
 

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby Anti-Ad » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:58 am

EnviroChem wrote:ADVERTISING INDUSTRY HAS A BAD TRACK RECORD OF OBNOXIOUS ADS
No question about it, advertisers have been extremely disrespectful of users. Nothing will make me happier than to see Flash ads die (unless they are replaced by something worse). I don't personally use AdBlock, but I do use FlashBlock to block ALL Flash content not just ads. For me this has been sufficient to bring back sanity to my web browsing experience. I understand why users feel compelled to block ads and I'd love to find a way to find common ground.


They also have a bad track record of atrocious privacy practices, which they aren't likely to discard.

EnviroChem wrote:PAYWALLS DON'T WORK FOR SMALL SITES
Small independent websites provide a great wealth of diverse information, content and/or services on the Internet. For most of these sites, the only practical solution for earning a living from their efforts is advertising. They just aren't big enough to create enough loyal users to survive on revenues generated from a paywall. This is particularly true with content sites that users might only visit once for a specific one time question.


Lost revenue fallacy again.

ABP enthusiasts aren't customers and don't convert.

EnviroChem wrote:SELF HOSTED ADS WON'T WORK FOR SMALL SITES

I suspect the extent to which Google Ads has become widespread would make this impractical, and I don't know enough technical details to know to what extent this would mitigate the privacy concerns, but I'd certainly be interested in hearing from someone who could offer some more insight into this.


Third party object requests are unacceptable.

EnviroChem wrote:It only became possible to make some sort of living off of running independent websites when ads were automatically targeted and placed by third party services like Google AdSense. Prior to AdSense, the most common way for small sites to put ads on their sites was to manually place ads from affiliate programs. This was extremely labor intensive as ads had to be manually selected and placed on websites. Typically ads did not generate much revenue because of poor targeting and lousy payment terms. AdSense totally revolutionized the monetizing of websites. Suddenly we could simply put a simple code snip on our pages and Google would worry about everything else. This meant more time could be focused on creating content. It also meant users were seeing more relevant ads.


For Google to do this, it has to ram a microscope up every user's behind.

You can't have automatically targeted ads and user privacy at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

Because the advertising industry is so scummy when it comes to privacy, and will do anything for even one extra percent conversion, we have to nuke all ads from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.


EnviroChem wrote:PAY TO PLAY IS A BAD IDEA
I agree with many of the comments I've read about it being a conflict of interest for websites to have to pay up in order to get white listed. White listing of websites should be behavior based, not based on their ability to pay up. Only large sites would find it cost effective to pay up to be white listed, thus small sites that need the ad revenue the most couldn't benefit from this option. Besides, such pay to play requirement stinks of extortion.


The project is either loyal to its users or loyal to advertisers. It can't be loyal to both.

See the discussions re: Facebook privacy. Facebook's "users" are in fact its product. Facebook's customers are the advertisers. Guess who wins when the two come into conflict.

If ABP installations shift from being for users to converting users into a product then ABP can no longer be loyal to the userbase.

This is why the FOSS community works so well: users can trust that developers don't have ulterior motives.

When I install community FOSS, I know there is no hidden catch or surprise.

EnviroChem wrote:FULL DISCLOSURE IS A MUST
Users must be easily able to see what sites are white listed and there must be clear criteria for being white listed. These details should be placed in the "about" description on the AMO profile page for ABP.


The best sort of disclosure is an opt-in with informed consent (not merely a "Yes/No" box which most users will blindly click without understanding).

EnviroChem wrote:USERS MUST STILL HAVE CONTROL
Users must have a very easy way of enabling/disabling the white listing of sites. It can't be hidden or buried and they need to clear understanding of the consequences of their setting choice.


Many users don't understand what is happening.

If a user can't make an informed decision to opt in to the nasty, privacy busting world of advertising, then the default should be no whitelisting, for the protection of users who don't understand what they're getting into.

EnviroChem wrote:OPT IN VS OPT OUT
If the ultimate goal of this new feature is to provide a carrot and stick approach to get websites to be more respectful of users in regards to the types of ads they use, then the option must be opt out, not opt in. Time and again users claim to hate obnoxious ads like rich media Flash ads, but you know what? They work. I hate rich media ads, but if I were to opt out of them on my website, my revenues would fall substantially. In order for it to be worthwhile to turn off rich media ads to get white listed by ABP the extra revenue I'd earn because I was white listed would have to be greater than what I'd lose by turning off rich media ads. The only hope of ABP creating the critical mass needed to make being white listed worth while for websites, thus altering ad behaviors, would be for the option to be opt out as most users will use the default configuration. If the option were opt-in it would never gain the critical mass needed to convince websites to change behaviors to be white listed.


I don't care if websites are "respectful" about advertising, because I haven't seen any in years. No matter how bad the advertising cesspool gets, I don't wade in it, because I block the ads.

If we nuke all advertising then we're guaranteed it won't bother us. The current approach is a one-size-fits-all judgment call being made on behalf of the whole user base.

Ad networks are inherently not respectful of privacy, and they never will be. Any ad network which respects privacy will quickly lose market share to its cutthroat competitors, driving it swiftly out of business.

Asking ad networks to clean up their act is like asking the criminals in Juarez, Mexico if they could tone it down a little bit, and be sure to wear smiley face stickers while at work. They won't do it, because if they do, somebody more ruthless will replace them.

EnviroChem wrote:THE BLENDING LINE BETWEEN ADS AND OBJECTIVE CONTENT
One side effect of ad blindness and ad blocking software is that website owners are increasingly blurring the lines between legitimate objective editorial content and advertising. I don't know about you, but I like to know when the content on a webpage is objective or slanted by an advertising motive. Unfortunately, in order to avoid ad blocking and ad blindness in general, many websites try to blend content and ads in such a way that one can't tell the difference.


Unscrupulous websites will do that anyway, because it pays, in addition to graphic and text ads.

The solution is more objective, nonprofit sources of information, like Wikipedia and web forums.

Tech review sites, for example, have been hopelessly biased since even before ad blocking became widespread.

Once again, in the race to the bottom, the scummiest participants win, driving out the honest.

EnviroChem wrote:DO YOU WANT AN INTERNET WHERE ALL CONTENT IS CONTROLLED BY BIG COMPANIES?
I dare say, ad blocking hurts small sites worse than big sites proportionally. AdSense and similar means of monetizing websites have been great equalizers that have allowed small publishers to flourish helping to sustain a great diversity of ideas and options on the Internet. Without advertis their offerings cost effectively, and small publishers being able to easily monetize their websites easily, only the big companies will survive.


Advertising is controlled almost exclusively by big companies. Their code is already pervasive across many small websites.

Do you want a society where the cultural dialog is controlled by big advertising companies and the monied interests they represent?

As hardware gets better, and software frameworks more advanced, the cost for hosting will continue to fall.

EnviroChem wrote:THE GOAL OF CHANGING ADVERTISER BEHAVIOR
When I met Wladimir, I don't recall specifically discussing this new white list option he has be working. However, something we did discuss and agreed upon was that there was a need to try and encourage websites and advertisers to have more respect for users. Providing an option to white list specific types of non-obnoxious ads could convince advertisers to use less obnoxious ads. Like I said, I hate rich media ads, but I use them because they work. If static graphics ads and text ads (which I personally like best) worked better than rich media ads, simply because more users saw them as a result of them being white listed, I'd switch off rich media ads in a heartbeat.


Or, we could just not negotiate with them, period. If we give an inch they will ask for a mile.

EnviroChem wrote:The question for ABP users is, do you use ABP solely for self interested reasons of not seeing ads, or do you want to make a statement to help make the Internet a better place? If all you care about is never seeing any ads, then turn off the white list. If, however, you want to help change advertising behavior to make it less obnoxious and to help foster small independent sites, for whom advertising is really the only viable option, turn the white list filter on and provide constructive feedback as to how to make it better.


Advertising does not make the Internet a better place.

How about those who want to experiment with feeding the advertising crocodile can do so by opting in to this goofy experiment? At least that preserves the intuitive purpose of an addon called AdBlock Plus, namely, that by default, it will block ads. The project is not called AdReducer Plus.
Anti-Ad
 

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby marleaux » Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:08 am

Thank you for this great idea!
Although I don't have my own page and I'm not connected to any ad companies I like this new standard setting. Somehow it sounds just fair.

Good job.
marleaux
marleaux
 

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby adhater » Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:31 am

marleaux wrote:Somehow it sounds just fair.


Fair to advertisers and other assorted scumbags who are "just trying to survive" (i.e. trying to make a buck by filling your screen with useless shit) ? Sure, it's fair to them.

Fair to users who trusted in AdBlock to actually block ads by default? Not really, no.
adhater
 

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby Anon » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:13 am

To Wladmir:

It's hard not to be cynical these days, and I try to keep an open mind, but is it really any surprise as to why lots of people think something stinks here? You've admitted to taking advantage of many users' ignorance/apathy to try and force this policy, much like how spyware is bundled in many free programs and installed by default. And for what purpose? Some purely altruistic attempt to "support small websites"? I doubt it. First, I don't think a software's default functionality should be compromised or made less intuitive based on the author's personal beliefs and preferences. Second, as was pointed out earlier, this directly contradicts your claim that "ads don't generate money". The whitelist and whitelisting process are not transparent enough, and when people take the time to actually find the list, they see that even the very first revision is questionable. (Of all the websites that deserve to have their ads unblocked, you choose sedo, a worthless domain squatting company? Really?) I know people are raging incoherently left and right about this, but that's no excuse to ignore the very real issues here. I can't speak for everybody, but I personally don't care if you've sold out companies like sedo. That's your business. However, when you start meddling with the software people use every day without being 100% upfront, honest, and transparent, that's when you really lose the trust and respect of your users. The way I see it, you've really got some explaining to do, and simply blaming obnoxious complainers isn't going to cut it. Sorry for the wall of text.
Anon
 

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby EnviroChem » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:16 am

Anti-Ad wrote:
EnviroChem wrote:ADVERTISING INDUSTRY HAS A BAD TRACK RECORD OF OBNOXIOUS ADS
No question about it, advertisers have been extremely disrespectful of users. Nothing will make me happier than to see Flash ads die (unless they are replaced by something worse). I don't personally use AdBlock, but I do use FlashBlock to block ALL Flash content not just ads. For me this has been sufficient to bring back sanity to my web browsing experience. I understand why users feel compelled to block ads and I'd love to find a way to find common ground.


They also have a bad track record of atrocious privacy practices, which they aren't likely to discard.

Agreed

Anti-Ad wrote:
EnviroChem wrote:PAYWALLS DON'T WORK FOR SMALL SITES
Small independent websites provide a great wealth of diverse information, content and/or services on the Internet. For most of these sites, the only practical solution for earning a living from their efforts is advertising. They just aren't big enough to create enough loyal users to survive on revenues generated from a paywall. This is particularly true with content sites that users might only visit once for a specific one time question.


Lost revenue fallacy again.

Not as much as you think. As Wladimir found in his survey, only a small percentage of users who use ad-block are against all ads. They are simply trying to get relief from the worst ads. The thing is by the nature of who is willing to take the time to maintain filters, ad blocking tends to be an all or nothing affair.

Anti-Ad wrote:
EnviroChem wrote:SELF HOSTED ADS WON'T WORK FOR SMALL SITES

I suspect the extent to which Google Ads has become widespread would make this impractical, and I don't know enough technical details to know to what extent this would mitigate the privacy concerns, but I'd certainly be interested in hearing from someone who could offer some more insight into this.


Third party object requests are unacceptable.

If the goal is to change the nature of ads on the Internet, 3rd party ads have to be accepted or there will be zero buy in from websites to change behavior to get white listed.

Anti-Ad wrote:
EnviroChem wrote:It only became possible to make some sort of living off of running independent websites when ads were automatically targeted and placed by third party services like Google AdSense. Prior to AdSense, the most common way for small sites to put ads on their sites was to manually place ads from affiliate programs. This was extremely labor intensive as ads had to be manually selected and placed on websites. Typically ads did not generate much revenue because of poor targeting and lousy payment terms. AdSense totally revolutionized the monetizing of websites. Suddenly we could simply put a simple code snip on our pages and Google would worry about everything else. This meant more time could be focused on creating content. It also meant users were seeing more relevant ads.


For Google to do this, it has to ram a microscope up every user's behind.

You can't have automatically targeted ads and user privacy at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

For the most part you are correct. Ads can still be targeted contextually to the content of the webpage, with a certain degree of success, but these aren't as effective as microprobed ads.

Anti-Ad wrote:Because the advertising industry is so scummy when it comes to privacy, and will do anything for even one extra percent conversion, we have to nuke all ads from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.

For now this is true. Hopefully Firefox's "do not track" feature will eventually force changes within the ad industry. The tracking issue goes well beyond ads. Sites track users in many different ways. I'd bet most sites have Google Analytics code on them and bigger sites can track repeat users to a certain degree with internal cookies as well as server logs.

Anti-Ad wrote:
EnviroChem wrote:PAY TO PLAY IS A BAD IDEA
I agree with many of the comments I've read about it being a conflict of interest for websites to have to pay up in order to get white listed. White listing of websites should be behavior based, not based on their ability to pay up. Only large sites would find it cost effective to pay up to be white listed, thus small sites that need the ad revenue the most couldn't benefit from this option. Besides, such pay to play requirement stinks of extortion.


The project is either loyal to its users or loyal to advertisers. It can't be loyal to both.

...

If ABP installations shift from being for users to converting users into a product then ABP can no longer be loyal to the userbase.

Agreed.


Anti-Ad wrote:
EnviroChem wrote:FULL DISCLOSURE IS A MUST
Users must be easily able to see what sites are white listed and there must be clear criteria for being white listed. These details should be placed in the "about" description on the AMO profile page for ABP.


The best sort of disclosure is an opt-in with informed consent (not merely a "Yes/No" box which most users will blindly click without understanding).


This goes back to what Wladimir's objectives are. If he is simply providing an addon to users, then you are correct. If on the other hand he wants to use ABP as a social engineering tool to clean up the Internet in general by giving websites a reason to use unobtrusive ads, then this option has to be opt-out in order to get the critical mass needed to provide sufficient incentive for advertisers to change. ABP also must have a big enough percentage of all users on the Internet for advertisers to feel the pain of being blocked. If only a few percent of all users are blocking ads, then this option might not have the critical mass to make it worthwhile for websites to use less intrusive ads.

Anti-Ad wrote:
EnviroChem wrote:USERS MUST STILL HAVE CONTROL
Users must have a very easy way of enabling/disabling the white listing of sites. It can't be hidden or buried and they need to clear understanding of the consequences of their setting choice.


Many users don't understand what is happening.

If a user can't make an informed decision to opt in to the nasty, privacy busting world of advertising, then the default should be no whitelisting, for the protection of users who don't understand what they're getting into.

The vast majority of users don't understand how modern advertising works, nor of the privacy implications. Given the way people sign up for sites like Facebook they don't seem to care either. Nobody with the slightest bit of concern about privacy would ever sign up on Facebook, but it is the most popular site on the Internet.

Anti-Ad wrote:Ad networks are inherently not respectful of privacy, and they never will be.

This could be changed legislatively and with massive social pressure with the help of organizations like Mozilla.


Anti-Ad wrote:Unscrupulous websites will do that anyway, because it pays, in addition to graphic and text ads.

The solution is more objective, nonprofit sources of information, like Wikipedia and web forums.

Wikipedia is a bad example because for the most part its information was gleamed by contributors "researching" information from other sites. In my case I had to submit DMCA take down notices for several articles the Wikipedia contributors lifted from my site and submitted as their own work. Nonprofit sources still need a source of revenue to produce quality content. The Internet would be a pretty barren place if it could only rely on those who are willing to produce content and/or provide services without some form of compensation. The Internet is no different than the real world, people still need to be compensated for their efforts so that they can live. People will first spend their labor and efforts on endeavors that makes them a living.

Anti-Ad wrote:Tech review sites, for example, have been hopelessly biased since even before ad blocking became widespread.

Once again, in the race to the bottom, the scummiest participants win, driving out the honest.

Unfortunately you are right about this. I'm sure I could be much more successful if I were willing to employ more dubious methods to monitorize my site and drive traffic to it.


Anti-Ad wrote:Advertising is controlled almost exclusively by big companies. Their code is already pervasive across many small websites.

Do you want a society where the cultural dialog is controlled by big advertising companies and the monied interests they represent?

At least the smaller sites have a means to survive. However, I agree that having the means to monitorize these small sites controlled by a couple big companies is not good for society. I sorely wished there was more viable choices of ad providers to choose from.

Anti-Ad wrote:As hardware gets better, and software frameworks more advanced, the cost for hosting will continue to fall.

Website hosting costs is not even a factor in running websites anymore. The biggest cost is producing good content and/or service.

Anti-Ad wrote:Advertising does not make the Internet a better place.

This is a matter of opinion that could be debated. I personally love all the free content/services on the Internet that I'm able to benefit from thanks to advertising. Beyond the Internet, advertising provides free radio and TV programs, most newspapers are mostly funded by advertising. In fact our town has a weekly newspaper that is delivered to our doorstep for free and it actually has some pretty good local stuff in it. Without advertising local papers like ours could never survive.

Advertising is not good nor bad, it is simply a tool that can be, and often is, misused.
User avatar
EnviroChem
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Saco Maine

Re: Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus

Postby Lrgetrout » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:34 am

Outcast wrote:You should quit the project and let others to pick it up.

Aha... I've been working on Adblock Plus for more than five years after picking up an essentially abandoned project and during all these years I got something like three minor code contributions. Please come back when you find somebody who wants to actually do some work rather than talking about "others" who should do it. One reason why I kept working on Adblock Plus was - if I didn't then nobody else would and the project would become abandoned again,[/quote]

Then abandon the project.

An add on labeled "Adblock" should block all ads, not just ones that aren't paying you or do not curry your favor in some other way.
Lrgetrout
 

PreviousNext

Return to Adblock Plus for Firefox support

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests