SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the feeding-the-hand-that-bites-you dept.
Frédéric Filloux reports at Monday Note that two groups of French publishers, the GESTE and the French Internet Advertising Bureau, are considering a lawsuit against AdBlockPlus creator Eyeo GmbH on grounds that it represents a major economic threat to their business. According to LesEchos.fr, EYEO, which publishes Adblock Plus, has developed a business model where they offer not to block publishers' advertisements for remuneration as long as the ads are judged non-intrusive (Google Translate, Original here). "Several criteria must be met as well: advertisements must be identified as such, be static and therefore not contain animation, no sound, and should not interfere with the content. A position that some media have likened to extortion."
According to Filloux the legal action misses the point. By downloading AdBlock Plus (ABP) on a massive scale, users are voting with their mice against the growing invasiveness of digital advertising. Therefore, suing Eyeo, the company that maintains ABP, is like using Aspirin to fight cancer. A different approach is required but very few seem ready to face that fact. "We must admit that Eyeo GmbH is filling a vacuum created by the incompetence and sloppiness of the advertising community’s, namely creative agencies, media buyers and organizations that are supposed to coordinate the whole ecosystem," says Filloux. Even Google has begun to realize that the explosion of questionable advertising formats has become a problem and the proof is Google's recent Contributor program that proposes ad-free navigation in exchange for a fee ranging from $1 to $3 per month. "The growing rejection of advertising AdBlock Plus is built upon is indeed a threat to the ecosystem and it needs to be addressed decisively. For example, by bringing at the same table publishers and advertisers to meet and design ways to clean up the ad mess. But the entity and leaders who can do the job have yet to be found."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:57AM
You know come to think of it there are already some forks of ABP because of this silly outrage over the whitelist. I wonder sometimes if people realize that you can remove it like any other filter set.
I've watched the whitelist grow as time goes on, and every once in a while I see so many ads creeping in that I have to go on a rampage through the whitelist killing them by the dozens. I suppose I could just turn off the whitelist all together.
The thing is, there are some ads I actually don't mind. I doubt they pay the for themselves, but if it means a site I enjoy gets funded by somebody, and they aren't intrusive, I'll actually put up with them. I've been known to actually look at a few and (horrors!) click some.
But there is the nagging problem with the ads buying their way onto my screen by paying adblock plus to look the other way. We hate this when our congress-critters or our police do this, but we some how accept this palm-crossing where ABP is concerned. Couldn't they make more money by charging 4 dollars a year per user?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:35AM
I really doubt money is the issue here in a way similar to Google's reason for charging $10 for a license in the store. Like I said it's free for small and medium businesses and blags but larger companies pay. I assume it's a discouragement while still allowing people who do ads for their personal stuff to have some money. Again, I just uncheck that box and move on with my day so I'm neutral in this matter. But I will say this: Donations exist. Ads aren't your only route for money.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 09 2014, @03:34PM
But there is the nagging problem with the ads buying their way onto my screen by paying adblock plus to look the other way. We hate this when our congress-critters or our police do this, but we some how accept this palm-crossing where ABP is concerned. Couldn't they make more money by charging 4 dollars a year per user?
In the same way that, though I never thought I would see the day, Mozilla made changes to the Firefox UI that couldn't be disabled in about:config, I expect sooner or later ABP will make it compulsory to abide by the whitelist somehow.
Nothing lasts forever.
(or just layer on NoScript and RequestPolicy to solve the problem...but having 3 or more extensions to do all this is wearisome)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"