Isn't this business model plain extortion? If you want to create an open-source adblocker, fine. That's your rights to publish that software, and it's within the rights of users to run that software.
But requesting money for making modifications against the interest of users to the default settings of that software is just sleazy; I can't think of anything that would make this sleaze illegal, but it's still no good.
Yup. The problem with "solving" ad blocking is that it isn't lucrative. Ad blockers are trivial to create, but very difficult to monetize. These guys are as much scumbags as shady advertisers who bombard you with terrible ads.
The very minute Adblock plus is compromised I will switch adblockers. Thankfully everything is done client side and its relatively trivial to create blockers.
Well, if that minute ever comes, consider uBlock Origin. Easier to use, and without that whole speed penalty on the browser that ABP has.
I heard that Firefox improved ABP performance in the meantime, but I've never had a reason to switch back to software that whitelists some ads. uBlock is also available for Chrome.
uBlock Origin is a fork of uBlock by the original developer of uBlock.
They are essentially the same addon except uBlock Origin has more features and is more actively maintained (development of uBlock pretty much stopped after the fork).
I thought ABP was the yesterday's news of ad blocking. The memory footprint problem alone was enough to get me to switch to µBlock, let alone shenanigans like this.
Same here, ublock (origin) made my laptop [1] great again and my heart rate lower. It's impressive how all bit in your computer can impact the overall performance. And by that it's mostly avoiding doing crappy non-necessary stuff.
[1] of course I mean browsing. It's a c2d based laptop. I don't have to micromanage tabs when reaching 30. Everything is responsive.
The average internet user doesn't use any adblock. Those that use ABP will swiftly find and change to the alternative the moment they start noticing ads.
I thought they already had a whitelist?! Or was this AdBlock (without the plus)?
Well, I don't used it anymore, switched to µBlock Origin. Brave seems to be a nice alternative too. I read it is much snappier and has adblocking built in.
I just use FlashBlock and a Chrome extension that stops html5 vids from autoplaying (and disconnect to limit tracking). Can't say I've even really thought about the ads that do appear.
What I find most distressing about all the debate re ad-blocking is the built-in assumption that advertising is the only way we could possibly fund content creation on the web: that it all just comes down to compromising on what the "acceptable" level of advertising is.
I don't accept that premise. The debate should be framed as "Adverting: is it good or bad?" but somehow we let it slide into "Advertising: should it be extremely obnoxious or slightly less obnoxious?"
Advertising changed the web, it made it worse in most ways -- it encourages a constant stream of low-value content that serves as a framing device for banner slots. If advertising magically disappeared one day, I think nearly all kinds of website would be able to find a revenue model that works (in most cases it would boil down to "make less content, of higher value, that people would actually be willing to pay for.")
The only types of sites that literally could not survive without an advertising-based revenue model are the clickbait listicle aggregators of other peoples' content. Which, yeah, I'm kind of okay with. People would still find their way to their memes and cat videos, they'd just do it on a hobbyist level. Ultimately we'd all, publishers and end users alike, be better off without ads.
20 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 64.3 ms ] threadBut requesting money for making modifications against the interest of users to the default settings of that software is just sleazy; I can't think of anything that would make this sleaze illegal, but it's still no good.
I heard that Firefox improved ABP performance in the meantime, but I've never had a reason to switch back to software that whitelists some ads. uBlock is also available for Chrome.
They are essentially the same addon except uBlock Origin has more features and is more actively maintained (development of uBlock pretty much stopped after the fork).
The whole acceptable ads program, them blackmailing large ad networks into paying 30 million EUR, etc.
It's been a very scummy business for a long time.
[1] of course I mean browsing. It's a c2d based laptop. I don't have to micromanage tabs when reaching 30. Everything is responsive.
Well, I don't used it anymore, switched to µBlock Origin. Brave seems to be a nice alternative too. I read it is much snappier and has adblocking built in.
I don't accept that premise. The debate should be framed as "Adverting: is it good or bad?" but somehow we let it slide into "Advertising: should it be extremely obnoxious or slightly less obnoxious?"
Advertising changed the web, it made it worse in most ways -- it encourages a constant stream of low-value content that serves as a framing device for banner slots. If advertising magically disappeared one day, I think nearly all kinds of website would be able to find a revenue model that works (in most cases it would boil down to "make less content, of higher value, that people would actually be willing to pay for.")
The only types of sites that literally could not survive without an advertising-based revenue model are the clickbait listicle aggregators of other peoples' content. Which, yeah, I'm kind of okay with. People would still find their way to their memes and cat videos, they'd just do it on a hobbyist level. Ultimately we'd all, publishers and end users alike, be better off without ads.