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

Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

translate.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 242 posts

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#161

Post by kbenson »

BrainInAJar wrote: post #147
kbenson wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the bad precedent is that AdBlock didn't make this distinction in the very beginning. I believe that requiring ads to be interspersed in the presentation of the information is a right of the entity presenting the information as part of an implicit contract through your request for that information. I believe requiring authentication, or requiring performing some prior action (such as watching/seeing an ad for…

I believe you're wrong. There's no implicit contract, and I'm free to view or not view anything I feel like. I'm also free to refuse to use my resources (bandwidth) in the furtherance of your flawed business strategy (ads) I'm a good citizen, in that when I'm offered the opportunity to fund resources I enjoy through means that don't involve advertising I do. Often this comes with extra benefits to entice me. That's w…

> I'm free to view or not view anything I feel like

You are, and that's your choice. You always have a choice whether to pay attention or not. To have a third party remove that choice entirely, I believe, is different.

> I'm also free to refuse to use my resources (bandwidth) in the furtherance of your flawed business strategy (ads)

Why is it flawed? It has worked for print media for over a century. It's worked for television for decades. It continues to work, to various levels of success, on the internet. I think the onus is on you to prove that it's flawed (it may be, but I don't think stating it like fact is enough for it to be accepted in this argument).

> If you as a business owner have decided that advertising is the only way you wish to fund your business, I'm not going to feel like I'm slighting you by refusing to participate any more than I would by muting my television and getting up to grab a snack when commercials come on.

> If you as a business owner have decided that advertising is the only way you wish to fund your business, I'm not going to feel like I'm slighting you by refusing to participate any more than I would by muting my television and getting up to grab a snack when commercials come on.

Those situations aren't equivalent, and I think that's the crux of my argument. The television ads are still there, you choose to ignore them, but must still deal with them. Would you feel the same way if someone recorded those shows, removed all the ads, and redistributed them for free without consent? What if ads could be removed automatically by a box in your home (beyond Tivo's fast forward, or ReplayTV's 30-second skip). Are your answers to those different in any way?

> There's no implicit contract

Is the problem that it's implicit? Would it make a difference if all page loads went to a landing page that said that said "This page is funded by in-content advertising. If you choose to opt-out of this you are not licensed or permitted to view this content." and required you to click to accept make a difference? Because at that point there IS a contract if you continue, and it's not implicit.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#162

Post by drdaeman »

danielweber wrote: post #160
drdaeman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disable automatic updates and review the code before installing any updates manually.

I agree with "disable automatic updates," unfortunately. But "review the code"? You have no chance.

Although I don't do this on regular basis, but I happen to read many browser extension sources. They're mostly relatively easy to understand and contain no unconventional clever hacks or obfuscated parts. The only obfuscated code in most extensions are minified third-party libraries (like jQuery).

Won't say ABE's code is compact or easy to read, but it's fairly comprehensible and reviewing it in reasonable time feels possible. It is well possible that some tricky security issue will slip under the radar, but code contains no tricky math or crypto stuff where every single point is crucial for security, and spotting malware/spyware code should be possible.

Maybe I'm wrong about this.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#163

Post by belorn »

md224 wrote: post #122
RyanZAG wrote: post #113

I was thinking about this further, and while it comes off as fairly irrelevant to start with, it's actually an extremely bad thing. In essence, this has set up two tiers of advertising: those we have paid for white list privileges, and those who haven't. This is heavily in Google's interests as they are the only advertiser powerful enough to get by with only text adverts - nobody else has a platform like Google searc…

It's interesting that people are upset about Google being able to pay to get their content around certain barriers, when this is essentially what Google AdWords is: a system for advertisers to pay to get their content displayed in prominent locations rather than relying on position in organic search. And yet nobody really takes it seriously as a Real Problem. Not trivializing your complaint, btw... just pointing out…

Advertising is fine so long its an opt-in model. Advertising that goes in the physical mailbox has for quite a while become an opt-in model (Sweden), and that system is working fine. Companies with "membership" cards has been also using a opt-in model... for as long as I has lived. There people accept advertising in trade for special offers.

Sending advertising to people who actually want advertising is perfectly fine way. Sending advertising to people who do not want advertising, has ended in intrusive, tracking, bandwidth wasting, and CPU hogging mess that people want to escape. If I see advertisement being thrown in my face against my will, I instantly gets a dislike for what ever company/product being displayed. I would never, EVER, click or buy it.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#164

Post by kbenson »

enraged_camel wrote: post #137
RyanZAG wrote: post #113

I was thinking about this further, and while it comes off as fairly irrelevant to start with, it's actually an extremely bad thing. In essence, this has set up two tiers of advertising: those we have paid for white list privileges, and those who haven't. This is heavily in Google's interests as they are the only advertiser powerful enough to get by with only text adverts - nobody else has a platform like Google searc…

I think the damage this causes is far greater than setting up two tiers of advertising. This is a shining example of how those with money are able to influence the system by corrupting the very mechanisms that were implemented to protect the "regular people" in that system. If Google had paid a politician to exempt itself from certain laws, we would call it bribery. For the exact same reason, we should take issue wit…

I think this is exactly reversed. Adblock Plus is helping people to be exempt from certain "laws", and Google is paying Adblock's extortion fee.

Remember, people have no inherent right to the content they are consuming it, they are getting it because Google is presenting it to them with some expectation that it will benefit Google. That benefit is usually revenue through advertising, in the cases where it's present.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#165

Post by [deleted] »

chez17 wrote: post #55
tommi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that the definition of annoyance is the amount of cash paid to AdBlock Plus, not the actual annoyance from user's perspective.

Do you think Google ads are invasive or annoying? No sound ever, a limited amount of times they can be placed on the site, and they are obviously ads (unlike the "Download Now!" ads on download sites). Perhaps there was more to the transaction than money. You are jumping straight to a conspiracy that you have no proof of. Like the OP, I don't use ad block software because I, as an adult, know what it's like to pay bi…

[deleted]

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#166

Post by gcb0 »

njharman wrote: post #110
pyre wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because they could be updated So, this is a rally against all extensions? Expanding this argument, we basically get to a point where we don't trust any software: 1. No more browser extensions. 2. Want ad-blocking in Firefox? Request feature. 3. Feature request denied. 4. Fork Firefox. 5. Add ad-blocking to Firefox fork. This leaves us with a couple of issues: 1. The bar to adding functionality to a browser has now…

> this is a rally against all extensions? No it is a rally against extensions which have a non-risky (and arguably) superior alternative. Risk is a gradient and cumulative. The more risky things you do, the more at risk you are.

Yes. As it always been for any software.

Host files: as secure as you can get. Whole network.

Browser extension: remote code exploit possibility. Probably not available for mobile. Trusting someone who takes money from Google...

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#167

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

The other day I was thinking about how Google keeps printing "download button" traps [1], despite it being in clear conflict with their TOS [2], for obvious reasons (abnormal high revenue from clicks).

Now, they "bribe" the author of AdBlock to keep a flawed model alive.

Advertising is a shitty industry, but boy, is Google taking it to the next level. And the nerds are too distracted with their shinny things and job offers to notice.

[1] http://www.ghacks.net/2012/06/17/how-deceiving-ads-trick-you...

[2] https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/topic/1308149

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#168

Post by ronaldx »

bpatrianakos wrote: post #145
md224 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that people are upset about Google being able to pay to get their content around certain barriers, when this is essentially what Google AdWords is: a system for advertisers to pay to get their content displayed in prominent locations rather than relying on position in organic search. And yet nobody really takes it seriously as a Real Problem. Not trivializing your complaint, btw... just pointing out…

I don't want to live in an ad-free, review-only world myself. Advertising and reviews serve two different purposes. The one gets the word out about a product or service and lets the creator point out why their audience would like it. A review's purpose is to let others know if the product or service lives up to the advertising and lets you gauge how good a fit a given product is in relation to competitors or on its o…

>The one gets the word out about a product or service and lets the creator point out why their audience would like it.

I've heard this argument countless times but I'm fed up with it and I want to call it out: the constant and worldwide glut of Coca-Cola advertising suggests this is not primarily what advertising is about.

Advertising never tells me about a new product that I care about and I'm not already aware of: in an age when I can research what I like on the internet and I hear about interesting new products through curated content such as this forum.

If you can, please come up with a better argument in favour of advertising.

Until then, I will continue to believe that modern advertising is perhaps the biggest waste of our greatest minds and resources.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#169

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

nitrogen wrote: post #131
wallunit wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. There was a user survey in 2009, whether users would like to have every ad blocked or would accept some ads to a certain degree. And the result was that around half of the users are fine with getting some ads: http://adblockplus.org/blog/adblock-plus-user-survey-results... 2. Adblock Plus has announced on their website that they have introduced "Acceptable Ads", and that it will be enabled by default: http://adblo…

It's #3 that is evil. Unless there's a large print disclaimer sayong "notice: ad networks pay for whitelisting" in the extension description and next to thethe acceptable ads checkbox, Adblock Plus is being deceptive. The ad networks themselves should never be paying an ad blocker for special treatment. It's either bribery by the networks, or extortion by ABP.

This is basically the same industry spawned by spam. You pay to get your mailserver whitelisted, or risk it getting blacklisted (even if it's legitimate).

In other words, extortion.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#170

Post by enraged_camel »

kbenson wrote: post #164
enraged_camel wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the damage this causes is far greater than setting up two tiers of advertising. This is a shining example of how those with money are able to influence the system by corrupting the very mechanisms that were implemented to protect the "regular people" in that system. If Google had paid a politician to exempt itself from certain laws, we would call it bribery. For the exact same reason, we should take issue wit…

I think this is exactly reversed. Adblock Plus is helping people to be exempt from certain "laws", and Google is paying Adblock's extortion fee. Remember, people have no inherent right to the content they are consuming it, they are getting it because Google is presenting it to them with some expectation that it will benefit Google. That benefit is usually revenue through advertising, in the cases where it's present.

The TV networks tried to make the exact same argument when they sued TiVO, but got shut down by the courts.

Bottom line: nobody can be forced into seeing ads.

Post reply on HN