An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

Post by Karunamon » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 4:00 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #97

Karunamon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They all abuse their users in one way or another. Tracking me across the web? How about no? What about distraction? Is time free now? And that's before we get into the malware vector problems. The few tenths of a penny you got for me seeing your ad is much less than my hourly rate for cleaning up a network infected with the latest 0day du jour. Is your (the collective your) company going to compensate me when one of…

I don't personally block ads, but I of course find all the arguments against tracking, malware, etc to be rather compelling, since they don't really fit any reasonable definition of consent, given many users' lack of awareness of tracking and the intentional failure of ad companies to be explicit about it. > They all abuse their users in one way or another. Tracking me across the web? How about no? What about distrac…

Post by Touche » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 4:15 PM UTC

theg2 wrote: post #74

anc84 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good old "there can not be free-of-cost content unless money is involved" fallacy. I am a member of many communities whose hosting costs are paid by the communities, the administrative tasks are shared by members of the communities, I "consume" many sites which only exist because their authors want to express themselves, I use sites that exist because people feel the need to share their knowledge and collections…

Not all news and content creation can be done as a side job or hobby. The people who do journalism, create content, or support that goal of quality journalism need to make a living somehow.

Post by vram22 » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

weirdentropy wrote: post #44

zeroDivisible wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using UBlock as well and will never look back, but in relation to: > And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. Unless things changed, UBlock relies on some of the blocking lists coming from AdBlock so the sentence above might not be 100% true.

In order for this to be true for Adblock Origin, there would have to be a toggle to allow acceptable ads. There is none. Even if their lists whitelisted sites, other lists would negate this. I'm aggressive with regard to ad blocking and use I use the majority of UBO's adblock lists except for the foreign lists.

Post by manigandham » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #26

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #6

"Where possible, make as much of your code visible in the package as you can. If some of your app's logic is hidden and it appears to be suspicious, we may remove it." This is the policy it "broke" apparently. Despite the entire app being open source and commented, someone at Google could not understand his code and hence found it obfuscated or "suspicious".

Textbook harassment here. Google is upset these guys are hurting ad impressions. I wonder if this is the beginning of an ad blocking backlash.

Post by manigandham » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:36 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #78

theg2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all subscription or donation (wikipedia) based examples. A lot of sites could never survive on those models or obtain the resources to manage them. I'm all for blocking sites that abuse their users.

> Those are all subscription or donation (wikipedia) based examples. That was precisely my point: there are other viable models than ad-supported. > A lot of sites could never survive on those models or obtain the resources to manage them. Tough shit.