SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Wednesday September 21 2016, @08:12AM
from the NOW-we-know-what-the-'Plus'-is dept.
from the NOW-we-know-what-the-'Plus'-is dept.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/13/12890050/adblock-plus-now-sells-ads
A story at The Verge reveals the newest plan for the company behind Adblock Plus, they are entering the ad network business. In exchange for 20% of your revenue, you can get pre-approved ads that will show to users with acceptable ads enabled. While pitched as an easier alternative to the old process of getting ads approved, the ultimate goal is the same. Now, they will get a percentage of all acceptable ads though the program. The article points out that this is one big step closer to racketeering, as they are directly taking a 6% cut. Or, as the old gangsters would say, "would you rather pay me to keep 80% of something or keep 100% of nothing?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Newest kid in the Advertising Marketplace? Adblock Plus of Course
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 56 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Graduate life: It's not just a job. It's an indenture.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Marand on Wednesday September 21 2016, @10:07AM
The ABP guy has been saying for like a decade that the worst thing about ads is that they are super intrusive.
The problem with this approach is that the base premise (quoted) is wrong. Yes, being intrusive is annoying, but the worst thing about them is they're a massive security risk because the advertisers have no accountability, and this is going to do NOTHING to "tame them" in that regard. You want to serve ads? Ditch the fucking javascript and serve static files. Users shouldn't be expected to blindly trust advertisers and execute whatever code they happen to serve up, and until that is solved, the situation is untenable and all ads should be blocked.
Advertisers started this fire, let them fucking burn in it. Only then will the survivors learn a lesson.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @10:22AM
Against scripts, there is NoScript. As an added bonus, it also prevents malicious scripts from sources other than advertising networks.
(Score: 1) by stretch611 on Wednesday September 21 2016, @03:25PM
Actually, this is what I use... well, at least the equivalent plugin (scriptsafe) on vivaldi.
If the ad requires javascript it will not work. If it is a simple gif/png ad, it still displays.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday September 22 2016, @05:11AM
Well, yeah. I use a pretty strict NoScript setup (blacklist everything by default, only explicitly whitelist when I want/need to) and managed to go years without using an ad blocker because NoScript already got everything that bothered me. I did eventually start using one (uBlock Origin), but not to block ads. Did it to block trackers and the obnoxious "noscript = adblocking" false positives. Those started to piss me off because I got sick of being subjected to the the accusing, condescending, self-entitled whining -- some sites get really insulting in their anti-adblock notices -- every time someone's shitty website defaults to "no javascript? EVIL ADBLOCK USER!" logic.
Of course, once I installed UBO, I set it to block everything possible because I was fed up with all the bullshit. So, good job site admins/advertisers, your anti-adblock crusade turned a NoScript user that didn't have a problem with static ads into a 100% ad blocking "Fuck all of you" user that will no longer tolerate any ads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @10:40AM
They don't explicitly call out javascript as forbidden, but their list of forbidden characteristics makes javascript basically useless.
https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#not-acceptable-ad [adblockplus.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:19PM
Yeah, yeah, whatever. This is AdblockPlus and they are willing to "accommodate" advertisers who are willing to pay ABP's toll. Relaxing some (or all) of these requirements will simply cost more. This has been ABP's business model from the start. Now they just want a higher fee.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:43PM
Conspicuously absent:
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:57PM
Yes, being intrusive is annoying, but the worst thing about them is they're a massive security risk
I don't think either one of those is the worst thing about ads. I just don't want to see ads, and I will take steps to try to avoid seeing them, and I simply don't give a care about the concerns of the advertisers and their advocates. I don't want unobtrusive ads, and I would still not want to see ads even if there were no security risk at all, and even if they weren't tracking me at all.
The "worst" thing about ads is going to be subjectively different for every individual. And come to think of it, I suppose for some people, these worst things are actually the "best" things.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings