I think acceptable ad whitelists are good idea, honestly, and I use them when they're available. The money to pay for content does have to come from somewhere, and I have no issue with light ad content to cover that. I see using an ad blocker like that like I saw popup-blockers when they debuted in the 90s: don't do stupid shit to my browser and I'll leave you alone.
However, acceptable ad whitelists maintained by a for-profit with any sort of pay-for-play going on are going to be suspect, period. If nothing else, there's the chance that "acceptable" becomes a moving target, influenced by the needs of the large companies rather than moving towards even less intrusive ads influenced by the needs of the consumer.
I'd love to see this type of triage move out to an NPO with full transparency around triage and selection of criteria, a no-payments policy, no board seats for advertising professionals, and donation via blind trust or similar. If such a group provided a fully optional whitelist I could subscribe to via the usual blockers I would 100% do so.
1 comment
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 15.4 ms ] threadHowever, acceptable ad whitelists maintained by a for-profit with any sort of pay-for-play going on are going to be suspect, period. If nothing else, there's the chance that "acceptable" becomes a moving target, influenced by the needs of the large companies rather than moving towards even less intrusive ads influenced by the needs of the consumer.
I'd love to see this type of triage move out to an NPO with full transparency around triage and selection of criteria, a no-payments policy, no board seats for advertising professionals, and donation via blind trust or similar. If such a group provided a fully optional whitelist I could subscribe to via the usual blockers I would 100% do so.