Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference • Hacker News Board

Re: Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference

#41

Post by Joof » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 4:21 PM UTC

JD557 wrote: post #9

dhimes wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the conference notice front page: Ad blocking is the latest crisis du jour, a potentially existential threat to the industry. I would guess you are correct. What's ironic is that adblock plus understands their value proposition and whitelists advertisers if they are not too shitty. I run Adblock plus for this very reason (as opposed to a less forgiving blocker). Also, they just landed Larry Ellison of Oracle as…

>whitelists advertisers if they are not too shitty. I don't have any source with me right now, but I've heard that they only whitelist advertisers that pay them (I recall some people comparing this to blackmail).

In a weird way it manages to fix many people's problems with advertising. Ads are sometimes horribly intrusive (to the point that ad-blockers are necessary to me) and it forces companies to adhere to some kind standards when none are technically required.

On the other hand; it's blackmail. It also falls apart if there are too many competing services or people generally catch on and switch to another ad-blocker. Then companies either pay N-vetting services or their investment is completely wasted. The end result is an (arguably) overly-strict vetting service because people will switch if they don't block enough ads.

As a consumer; I just wanted an ad-blocker sooo....

Re: Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference

#42

Post by yAnonymous » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 4:33 PM UTC

JohnTHaller wrote: post #27

cballard wrote: post #8

This reinforced to me that Adblock is a company, while uBlock Origin is just an open-source project. uBlock doesn't need to go to ad conferences and talk to people, it just filters content. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md

And it sometimes bases those filters on personal grudges. Which is why all of SourceForge is blocked by default due to bad behavior last year on a handful of projects out of 400,000 that they discontinued after public outcry. Meaning that there is no forgiveness for giving in to public pressure. At the same time, tons of download sites with all kinds of malware and bundleware are allowed right through.

SF are distributing malware and they steal other people's work. The block is more than justified and in fact users were asking for it.

Re: Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference

#43

Post by jagermo » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

cballard wrote: post #8

This reinforced to me that Adblock is a company, while uBlock Origin is just an open-source project. uBlock doesn't need to go to ad conferences and talk to people, it just filters content. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md

I'd also mention Pi-Hole (http://pi-hole.net/), a Raspberry-Pi-based DNS server and DNS blocker for all devices on your web - even those that don't have an adblocker for their browser.

Re: Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference

#44

Post by JohnTHaller » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

yAnonymous wrote: post #42

JohnTHaller wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it sometimes bases those filters on personal grudges. Which is why all of SourceForge is blocked by default due to bad behavior last year on a handful of projects out of 400,000 that they discontinued after public outcry. Meaning that there is no forgiveness for giving in to public pressure. At the same time, tons of download sites with all kinds of malware and bundleware are allowed right through.

SF are distributing malware and they steal other people's work. The block is more than justified and in fact users were asking for it.

Incorrect. There are two separate things here. First, there's the Dev Share program which is opt in to allow projects to make money. This puts a bundleware installer up first that then downloads the main installer as the primary "Download" button with an alternate main installer only link alongside. Projects like FileZilla do this to support their development.

Second, there was a program where some of SourceForge's mirrored projects were distributed in the same fashion. SourceForge does mirroring of open source projects not hosted on SourceForge. SourceForge, in an effort to make more money, used the same bundleware style download installer for projects like GIMP. As GIMP wasn't repackaged in this installer, there was no GPL impact. However, it was distasteful to say the least. After both publishers like GIMP and the wider open source community reacted negatively, SourceForge discontinued the program and announced on their blog that they would not reinstate it. They also stated that they would form an open source community advisory board before implementing any additional open source monetization strategies in the future.

Today, SourceForge has 400,000 projects hosted, many of which are hosted nowhere else, all of which are blocked by uBlock. Of those, about 10 participate in the Dev Share program on an opt in basis to fund their development. No other projects are presented as a bundleware installer by SourceForge. It's been this way for months since soon after the publisher and community backlash and SourceForge's subsequent apology and policy changes.

Re: Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference

#45

Post by JohnTHaller » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:36 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #31

JohnTHaller wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it sometimes bases those filters on personal grudges. Which is why all of SourceForge is blocked by default due to bad behavior last year on a handful of projects out of 400,000 that they discontinued after public outcry. Meaning that there is no forgiveness for giving in to public pressure. At the same time, tons of download sites with all kinds of malware and bundleware are allowed right through.

I don't remember hearing SF apologize for or announce that they're stopping their malware bundling. The sourceforge block is a little extreme, although it's easy to get past it with the big buttons. Overall, I'm OK with punishing that kind of malicious behavior super hard, although I don't feel strongly about it and understand why you object to it.

There are two separate things here. First, there's the Dev Share program which is opt in to allow projects to make money. This puts a bundleware installer up first that then downloads the main installer as the primary "Download" button with an alternate main installer only link alongside. Projects like FileZilla do this to support their development.

Second, there was a program where some of SourceForge's mirrored projects were distributed in the same fashion. SourceForge does mirroring of open source projects not hosted on SourceForge. SourceForge, in an effort to make more money, used the same bundleware style download installer for projects like GIMP. As GIMP wasn't repackaged in this installer, there was no GPL impact. However, it was distasteful to say the least. After both publishers like GIMP and the wider open source community reacted negatively, SourceForge discontinued the program and announced on their blog that they would not reinstate it. They also stated that they would form an open source community advisory board before implementing any additional open source monetization strategies in the future.

SourceForge currently has about 10 projects that opt in to their Dev Share program. Every one is available for download without using the bundleware installer. And their custom bundleware installer is far clearer about what it is than the majority of the commercial bundelware installers out there, though, like all bundleware installers, it does still make use of dark patterns which I am not a fan of (see also: Avast updates, Flash updates, Java updates all of which pre-bundle Google Chrome and trick you into installing via dark patterns).

So, all 400,000 projects on SourceForge are blocked permanently with no possibility of unblocking because of a few weeks of legal but unethical bad behavior that SourceForge publicly backtracked from and no longer engages in.

Punishing bad behavior makes a lot of sense. But when someone reacts in a positive way to that punishment (stopping it, publicly talking about it, setting up a committee before exploring further options, etc), it makes sense to remove the block. Otherwise, once you're blocked, there's no reason to reform.

Re: Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference

#46

Post by Veratyr » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 7:10 PM UTC

JohnTHaller wrote: post #45

coldpie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember hearing SF apologize for or announce that they're stopping their malware bundling. The sourceforge block is a little extreme, although it's easy to get past it with the big buttons. Overall, I'm OK with punishing that kind of malicious behavior super hard, although I don't feel strongly about it and understand why you object to it.

There are two separate things here. First, there's the Dev Share program which is opt in to allow projects to make money. This puts a bundleware installer up first that then downloads the main installer as the primary "Download" button with an alternate main installer only link alongside. Projects like FileZilla do this to support their development. Second, there was a program where some of SourceForge's mirrored pro…

I think the difference in opinion between you and some of the people you're replying to mainly comes down to "bundleware". You use that word a lot but to me, "bundleware" is malware.

Re: Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference

#47

Post by cerlone » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 7:27 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #34

cerlone wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would do the same as IAB. What adblock says to companies is "We feel your advertising is no good so we will blanket block it for millions of viewers a day" HOWEVER, if you contact, let us review your advert and then WE decide it's not a bad add, we'll let it be shown to the millions of visitors that were supposed to see it anyway... We'll just take a percentage of the money. There's certainly a need for this sort o…

Reviewing whether an ad network meets their Acceptable Ads policy takes time. Are you suggesting they should not charge for their time? Or that they should not have an Acceptable Ads policy at all?

You have a valid point that it takes time.

However, the cost to time ratio isn't sensible.

It's "reported" that Google and some other companies have been paying Ad Block Plus in the region of $120 million per year for their ads to be whitelisted.

Secondly, their taking 30% of revenue for the whole period the networks ad's are approved. If they stop paying, their adverts get blocked.

The main issue is that they go into it with a blanket statement of all ads are evil and are blocked for the "users sake" but we'll make a decision on behalf of users if we think your paying enough to get the adverts showing.

As a user myself, I hate bad adverts but how do they know what I think is an acceptable? They've never asked me.

If I said to you, you're not allowed to reply to any thread on Ycombinator until I've decided you can on behalf of the community, oh, and you need to pay me 30% of your wages so I can keep "reviewing" the situation... you'd tell me to bugger off.

Re: Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference

#48

Post by cerlone » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #16

woah wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've given ABP a beautiful analogy.

They can wax lyrical about how effective blocking is, now that they have done it themselves. Truly, an industry in decline.

It's funny that Ad Block posted the image as to "how dare they, who do they think they are!? Why shouldn't I be allowed to do something I want"

Yet they do it businesses trying to advertise every day.

Re: Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference

#49

Post by dsp1234 » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 7:38 PM UTC

ucho wrote: post #26

dhimes wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the conference notice front page: Ad blocking is the latest crisis du jour, a potentially existential threat to the industry. I would guess you are correct. What's ironic is that adblock plus understands their value proposition and whitelists advertisers if they are not too shitty. I run Adblock plus for this very reason (as opposed to a less forgiving blocker). Also, they just landed Larry Ellison of Oracle as…

> potentially existential threat to the industry I wonder if it really is a threat. Serving anything related to ads from same domain as content will make it much harder to create reliable blocking rules[1]. If ad blocking requires heuristics like the ones in Readability extension it won't be as popular. [1] as a bonus it instantly kills simplistic host file method

The EasyList[0] already has blocking for DOM elements and querystring parameters in addition to domain blocks. So even with hosting ads from the same domain, they get blocked.

For example, ABP blocks our same-domain, self-hosted trackers with the default settings even though our domain is not listed there.

[0] - https://easylist.adblockplus.org/en/

Re: Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference

#50

Post by JohnTHaller » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 9:37 PM UTC

Veratyr wrote: post #46

JohnTHaller wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two separate things here. First, there's the Dev Share program which is opt in to allow projects to make money. This puts a bundleware installer up first that then downloads the main installer as the primary "Download" button with an alternate main installer only link alongside. Projects like FileZilla do this to support their development. Second, there was a program where some of SourceForge's mirrored pro…

I think the difference in opinion between you and some of the people you're replying to mainly comes down to "bundleware". You use that word a lot but to me, "bundleware" is malware.

I'm no fan of bundleware. I've been running PortableApps.com for over 10 years with over 500,000,000 app downloads all 100% bundleware free. Our format disallows bundleware and many of our users use our software on their local machines due to that.

uBlock didn't start blocking SourceForge because of the Dev Share opt-in bundleware program. They started blocking SourceForge because of the GIMP situation which SourceForge backed off of as a result.

uBlock isn't designed to block bundleware. uBlock lets tens of thousands of download sites and software publishers that distribute bundleware. Most of them distribute far worse bundleware, far more of it (some come with 10 offers or more), and use far more dark patterns to trick users into installing than anything distributed by SourceForge. But uBlock still specifically blocks SourceForge despite only about 10 of 400,000 projects using it, all of which have opted in to the program.

Essentially, uBlock appears to be blocking based on the whims of the developer rather than any balanced and fairly applied policy. That's one reason I decided to stop recommending it to others.