Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option 373
Many readers have submitted news of a week-old announcement from Wladimir Palant, creator of Adblock Plus, about a change to the addon that will allow unobtrusive ads to be displayed. The change has been controversial because most people who run the addon strongly dislike seeing any ads. Palant hastens to point out that this is a toggle-able option, and by changing one setting, users can resume ad-less website viewing. Many are upset, however, that the setting defaults to allowing the display of "acceptable" advertisements. The description of "acceptable" ads includes the following criteria: "Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar); Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images; At most one script that will delay page load (in particular, only a single DNS request)."
Re:And money changes hands... (Score:4, Informative)
Reasons for negative response (Score:5, Informative)
The summary fails to cite some of the core reasons for the complaints, which are that this feature will be enabled by default as well as the fact that the Adblock project is hoping to make monetary agreements with advertisers [adblockplus.org].
Re:And money changes hands... (Score:5, Informative)
I do wonder if it is the default, though.
Yes and no.
No as in when you first load up the new version, you get to choose whether you want the option.
Yes as in if you use EasyPrivacy it's enabled by default.
Re:And money changes hands... (Score:4, Informative)
I remember NoScript, the other addon people install when they're trying to prevent large attack vectors, updating for very minor changes, and automatically loading their home page. Those loads translated to ad hits, which generated revenue. They eventually added an option for this, and I'm sure the people that cared enough turned it off.
However, I don't remember anything similar happening with AdBlock... Can you site a specific incident?
Re:fork time (Score:5, Informative)
There's no such thing as "unobtrusive ad", just like there is no "unobtrusive DRM".
I disagree. You can have a small pic and a bit of text. That's pretty unobstrusive. I'm willing to put up with that in limited amounts (I don't klick on it anyways, but that's a different matter). Loading a huge flash animation is a completely different beast.
And I truly do not understand your DRM analogy. A pic with a bit of text to the left or the right of the main webpage is like DRM how?
I could go for this (Score:5, Informative)
My main reasons for using adblock+ is not to kill adds, but to protect my systems from hosts I consider hostile. Ad networks are a major malware vector because most ad network providers are mostly sleazy scum that can't be bothered to secure their networks. Either that, or they try to exploit javascript and other mechanisms to extract information I don't feel that they are entitled to. I'm sure as fuck not going to execute any script that comes from them.
Second comes browsing improvement, because some ad networks are so badly performing that they hinder the use of many web pages. I also found adblock plus the absolute best way to improve browsing performance on low-end netbooks. (Noscript helps a lot too)
Maybe this new option will enable a real no-bullshit way to enable advertisements that respect instead of exploit end users. I would would not mind that at all. Really, though, I don't want to execute any scripts from ad networks at all. I probably would not mind enabling Google's ad services either. As far as I know they're reputable as far as security is concerned.
Re:And money changes hands... (Score:5, Informative)
Google ads apparently aren't unblocked (yet), but someone on Hacker News asked the developer earlier and apparently monetization is part of the plan [adblockplus.org]:
I don't think that we get anything yet but we indeed hope to get some income this way to make the project sustainable. This doesn't mean that paying us is the requirement to be added to the exceptions list - the requirements a formulated here and they will probably become more precise as we gain experience (suggestions are welcome). As to Google: no, they have nothing to do with it. We didn't talk to Google, we didn't take money from them, there is no conspiracy here. We did look at Google Ads as a typical example (unblocking them is the most common request we get yet most people lack the knowledge for that) but they don't meet our requirements at the moment. Google's search ads are a different thing and they can meet our requirements depending on how the website configures them - and we did add an exception for them on one particular website.
Re:And money changes hands... (Score:4, Informative)
TBH, most people that install noscript want bugs and functionality worked on regularly. Plus, I have a hard time imagining that they get much money like that as I don't recall ever seeing any ads on that page.
Then you have never looked at the page. It's full of ads. That's why the asshole that runs noscript silently killed ad-block without telling users, so that his ads would be seen.
http://www.schillmania.com/content/entries/2009/adblock-vs-noscript/ [schillmania.com]
Re:And money changes hands... (Score:5, Informative)
I think he was suggesting that the shit being advertised is what winds up in the landfill when the consumer eventually figures out he was sold shit.
Re:Reasons for negative response (Score:5, Informative)
"I've tried noscript a couple times, and each time it rendered the web useless"
Some websites are entirely reliant on scripts--poorly constructed websites, for the most part, but mostly because the website is trying to slip something past you.
If you pull up the context options for NoScript (right-click anywhere on the webpage) you'll see that you can allow scripts individually. Start with the script that looks like it applies directly to the website, usually a domain that matches the one in the address bar, and the page will automatically reload with that script running. Keep doing this, one script at a time until the page works. You can do this just for the browsing session, or set it to permanently allow those particular scripts. Keep in mind that at some point you may have to start allowing stuff that is bad or the website still doesn't work--this is the point I usually leave the site.
The hard part is determining which scripts you don't need. This is something you learn over time (my youngest daughter has been doing this on her own since she was 12 yrs old). Does that Googlesyndication script REALLY have anything to do with your local newpaper? No? Then don't let it through. Some are obviously from 3rd parties. Don't let them through.
The biggest problem, you will come to see, is that sometimes allowing one script to run will trigger more scripts, and NoScript will simply block those as well.
I have a rule for myself that makes things pretty easy--I block any script that isn't obviously from the website I am visiting. If it breaks the site, I go elsewhere. Another good rule of thumb is the fewer scripts the website requires you to run, the better.
NoScript is no panacea--it is just a tool. Unlike AdBlock (well, as it is NOW), NoScript still requires user input to function according to the users preferences. I suppose the biggest difference between the two models is AdBlock uses a subscription to determine what to block and what not to block, while NoScript blocks everything and relies on YOU to decide what to let through.
A combination of AdBlock, NoScript and Ghostery seems to protect me, and my senses, pretty well. But, there are also a LOT of websites I cannot view as a result of those add-ons...a good thing, I am sure.
I, for one, will continue blocking all the ads I can, for numerous reasons--lower bandwidth usage, no unexpected sounds, no questionable embedding in ads, etc. When AdBlock doesn't allow me to do that anymore, someone will make another add-on that does and I will move to that add-on.
Re:Reasons for negative response (Score:3, Informative)
Few sites require javascript for basic functionality. Less than half easily. Of those, most are shit anyway. Of the few that remain, nearly all require only one domain to be whitelisted, the same one the page is on. That's got to account for at least 95% of the web.
That's about my experience, roughly one in 20 websites don't work readily with NoScript. For those, it does take some thinking to figure out which domains to whitelist temporarily. But once you figure it out you can make it permanent, and never have to deal with it again.
Is it perfect? No, but it's a hell of a lot better than running every god damn script on the internet. And fairly often sites are improved by blocking javascript. The scripts are so bad that they detract from user experience. Slashdot is a fine example of that.
Re:And money changes hands... (Score:5, Informative)
No. It is clearly a move to attempt to make money [adblockplus.org] from what is perceived to be a captive audience that will not notice.
I don't mind people wanting to make money. However, I see a clear conflict of interest here, when then interests of the source of such money are orthogonal to the actual users of the product.
dZ.
Re:And money changes hands... (Score:2, Informative)
adding his own site to the whitelist of ad-block plus a 3rd party extension unrelated to him or his extension without asking or even advising the user and trying to hide it is what makes him an asshole.
Re:And money changes hands... (Score:4, Informative)
I dunno about you, but some days I can think of nothing else.
Re:And money changes hands... (Score:4, Informative)
There was a big commotion about NoScript vs. AdBlock a few months ago, and the NoScript guy apologized profusely. He said it was partly an accident, partly a miscommunication, and partly him behaving badly. AFAICT it all got resolved in the end.
So, the GP was not lying. The present situation on the NoScript page is not the problem referred to.
Re:And money changes hands... (Score:3, Informative)