Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

adblockplus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 174 posts

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#151

Post by moheeb »

cjfont wrote: post #111

So much crying and boo-hooing over having to change a config setting? Can we imagine for a minute what the Internet would be like if everyone used an ad-blocker?

It would be freaking awesome!?

First of all we don't have to imagine that scenario. Going back to the beginning of the internet there weren't really any ads to speak of. Secondly, using the Internet Wayback Machine we can actually see what that internet looked like back then. And because the Wayback Machine doesn't save most images, you can get an even better feel for what the internet would look like if everyone used an ad blocker.

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#152

Post by cjfont »

moheeb wrote: post #151
cjfont wrote: post #111

So much crying and boo-hooing over having to change a config setting? Can we imagine for a minute what the Internet would be like if everyone used an ad-blocker?

It would be freaking awesome!? First of all we don't have to imagine that scenario. Going back to the beginning of the internet there weren't really any ads to speak of. Secondly, using the Internet Wayback Machine we can actually see what that internet looked like back then. And because the Wayback Machine doesn't save most images, you can get an even better feel for what the internet would look like if everyone use…

So where would the websites whose business depends entirely on ads get their revenue from? It's not like companies are blindly going to pay them to host ads which they know no one is going to look at. Perhaps you would prefer to pay an Internet fee? Of course an Internet with no ads seems great, but it's not something that would be sustainable, at least not the Internet we know today.

There are some sites which I feel are worth paying for, and others (particularly news sites), that which I don't yet I'm still willing to wade through the non-obtrusive ads in exchange for keeping it free.

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#153

Post by darklajid »

nupark2 wrote: post #150
mst wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Wladimir's incentives are now aligned precisely with mine - to provide a means for me to not have to see all the noisy, obtrusive crap but still support websites providing me with free content in general (note: this means whitelists are -not- sufficient for me, and blacklists would be overly irritating to maintain). In fact, as a result of this article I've just installed AdBlock Plus for the first time sin…

I think you misunderstand incentives. If Wladmir accepts money from advertisers, there's an innate incentive to accept more money from more advertisers, and to lower his standards for what makes an acceptable advertisement. He might want to support non-obtrusive ads, but the major incentive (money) is entirely contrary to that goal and your own preferences. That aside, I wish to address the "free content" dichotomy (…

You argue in absolutes. That's - difficult.

First of all: You can opt out of that feature with minor hassle. I usually don't like opt-in by default features, but here he has a point, imo.

Now - if you opt out, where is your problem with the change? If he would break future versions of AdBlock to force ads on you, someone would step up and make sure that there's an AdBlockBlock plugin.

Are you, by chance, using applications on the mobile OS of your choice that displays ad to gain revenue?

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#154

Post by darklajid »

soult wrote: post #135
eli wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a distinction between judging ads and judging the advertiser. Sedo may be a crappy company, but their ads are not intrusive (no popunders, no auto-play videos).

When a domain doesn't exist I get redirected to Google search and can find something relevant there. Thanks to Sedo I get a page full of spam (or until the Adblock change, an emtpy page) instead. I'd call that intrusive.

That's subjective - please note that.

If a domain doesn't exist, I don't end up on any site. In fact, for me it's natural to see either "Nope, doesn't exist" or ~something~, even if it's a squatter. Redirecting requests for non-existing domains would be far more distracting and insulting for me.

I understand that there's room for both and for discussion, but please understand that your use case is not 'the one'.

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#155

Post by gwern »

nathanb wrote: post #142
gwern wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how friendly they are now, given Chrome and Google apparently declining to renew its payments to Mozilla that were a big chunk of Mozilla's budget.

Citation needed

Is Googling that hard? http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Google-Mozilla-Still... or https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222404/Update_Mozil...

> Confidence is good, because there's no understating the importance of the deal for Mozilla. The search deal with Google accounted for roughly $100 million of Mozilla's $123 million in sales for 2010. That's a whopping 84 percent.

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#156

Post by nupark2 »

darklajid wrote: post #153
nupark2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand incentives. If Wladmir accepts money from advertisers, there's an innate incentive to accept more money from more advertisers, and to lower his standards for what makes an acceptable advertisement. He might want to support non-obtrusive ads, but the major incentive (money) is entirely contrary to that goal and your own preferences. That aside, I wish to address the "free content" dichotomy (…

You argue in absolutes. That's - difficult. First of all: You can opt out of that feature with minor hassle. I usually don't like opt-in by default features, but here he has a point, imo. Now - if you opt out, where is your problem with the change? If he would break future versions of AdBlock to force ads on you, someone would step up and make sure that there's an AdBlockBlock plugin. Are you, by chance, using applic…

I'm not actually sure if you intended to respond to my post, or another one in the thread. I've only addressed incentives involved, and the inexorable conclusion of misaligned incentives.

Whether that results in Adblock plus plus or not isn't something I tried to address, though the eventuality seems likely.

> Are you, by chance, using applications on the mobile OS of your choice that displays ad to gain revenue?

No. Few apps of any quality push ads, as they're incredibly detrimental to the UX on such a small screen device.

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#157

Post by huhtenberg »

Deestan wrote: post #61
huhtenberg wrote: post #39

It should've been neither an opt-out nor an opt-in. Since it's a one-time notification, it should've explained the rationale behind this feature and asked for a decision. That would mean treating users as intelligent adults. Pre-selecting a good-deed option for them is annoying and insulting. I know that I don't like a good Samaritan behavior stuffed down my throat, so I would've gone and disabled this feature just a…

> Since it's a one-time notification, it should've explained the rationale behind this feature and asked for a decision. That would mean treating users as intelligent adults. I disagree. This is the cowardly and helpless solution to the problem: When in doubt, throw Yet Another Dialog or installation wizard page in the user's face. Programs should confidently do Something Sensible by default, and instead let the 25%…

Huh? Cowardly? Are you serious?

If I am installing Ad Block, I quite naturally expect it - surprise! - to block things. It is double more so if I am already running the AdBlock and just going through an upgrade. So for all intents and purposes the Sensible Thing to do is to opt users out by default from this new feature. This however would provide zero traction to the feature as it needs an exposure. Now, do tell me how the hell one would let discerning users know and opt-in without throwing yet another dialog at them?

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#158

Post by soult »

darklajid wrote: post #154
soult wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a domain doesn't exist I get redirected to Google search and can find something relevant there. Thanks to Sedo I get a page full of spam (or until the Adblock change, an emtpy page) instead. I'd call that intrusive.

That's subjective - please note that. If a domain doesn't exist, I don't end up on any site. In fact, for me it's natural to see either "Nope, doesn't exist" or ~something~, even if it's a squatter. Redirecting requests for non-existing domains would be far more distracting and insulting for me. I understand that there's room for both and for discussion, but please understand that your use case is not 'the one'.

I think you misunderstood me: The redirect is done by my browser because I want it to be done. I could just as well set it to "not end up on any site" like you prefer.

My point was that domain squatting sucks. Both our expected outcomes (Google search, no page displayed) get replaced by some page full of ads for very vaguely related topics.

I am actually working in my free time on creating a database of such domain squatters and on better ways to combat them ;-)

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#159

Post by darklajid »

nupark2 wrote: post #156
darklajid wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You argue in absolutes. That's - difficult. First of all: You can opt out of that feature with minor hassle. I usually don't like opt-in by default features, but here he has a point, imo. Now - if you opt out, where is your problem with the change? If he would break future versions of AdBlock to force ads on you, someone would step up and make sure that there's an AdBlockBlock plugin. Are you, by chance, using applic…

I'm not actually sure if you intended to respond to my post, or another one in the thread. I've only addressed incentives involved, and the inexorable conclusion of misaligned incentives. Whether that results in Adblock plus plus or not isn't something I tried to address, though the eventuality seems likely. > Are you, by chance, using applications on the mobile OS of your choice that displays ad to gain revenue? No.…

Yes, I wanted to respond to your post and the subthread that you started with 'he is selling ads'. I think that gives your position away.

Now it's fine to be critical and to dislike that change, but I considered your 'he takes money (according to another subthread that's planned but not the case just yet) and that will lead to more and more ads being "okay"' too - simple.

Mobile apps w/ ads: Angry Birds on Android?

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#160

Post by WiseWeasel »

nupark2 wrote: post #150
mst wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Wladimir's incentives are now aligned precisely with mine - to provide a means for me to not have to see all the noisy, obtrusive crap but still support websites providing me with free content in general (note: this means whitelists are -not- sufficient for me, and blacklists would be overly irritating to maintain). In fact, as a result of this article I've just installed AdBlock Plus for the first time sin…

I think you misunderstand incentives. If Wladmir accepts money from advertisers, there's an innate incentive to accept more money from more advertisers, and to lower his standards for what makes an acceptable advertisement. He might want to support non-obtrusive ads, but the major incentive (money) is entirely contrary to that goal and your own preferences. That aside, I wish to address the "free content" dichotomy (…

I don't see any evidence that he's being paid to whitelist ads on various websites. It could simply be that the site operators are agreeing to meet certain criteria for 'non-annoying' ads, and will be de-listed if they breach that agreement.
Post reply on HN