lisahoward wrote:Good Morning, I hope this finds you well.
I have been following lots of current events, medical, social and economic and am looking for positive ways to support those who have been made to feel marginalized in a society that boasts equality. Today, I had to unblock a website to see my ad on a web page, and realized (!) that in the Settings feature, the approved sites list is the "whitelist". Oh, my! So many of the things we accept as normal/OK seem that way because they have always been that way - for me, too.
Would you please consider renaming that setting "approved sites" versus "blocked sites"? Not only would that remove racial bias from the Ad Block Plus feature on all of our computers, but would also increase comprehension of what that feature does for us as users. Recognizing this in your social media would also benefit your company as one that is trying to be a partner for positive change.
Thank you for your consideration.
Who are "you" and on what website was this ad? Was it hosted by the site or via an ad-server? In what way was the ad displayed on the site? And how intrusive is it?
You see, I am just a web-user. I am all for having advertising / sponsorship of sites in the same way that ads appear on TV and in newspapers. I assume that the newspapers and TV stations don't go to an adserver and "grab" ads off them, and in any case they have no idea whether any reader even saw the ads never mind responded to them, but the fact that many people will see them is the reason that business are willing to advertise their product, and through their PR department, they request for their ads to appear on TV or in the publications.
In any newspaper then there are those who are responsible for laying it out, and the ads are embedded there as part of the content of the page. Depending on how much was paid, it could be a small one in a classified section along with many others, or could be more prominent. In any case, the ad is there to be seen, not immediately acted upon.
The problem is that when it comes to putting ads onto websites, the model appears to change.
TV stations and newspapers will show the same commercials to everyone who is watching. They don't try to snoop into our private lives to see what we buy so we can see "tailored" ads. And as I mentioned, it is a matter of seeing and absorbing the information that a product exists should we come to need it. But a website seems to want us to take immediate action and "click through".
As a result the ad will often disturb the article we are trying to read. Will often put loads of images into the page, and have been known (at least when ad-blockers started out) to throw up popup windows.
Primarily though, I don't believe the commercial is part of the content of the site. If it were, I can't see why it would be blocked. And at least that is not what I am intending to block. Only horribly intrusive ads that are intended for "click-through" to gain revenue.