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

AdBlock Plus wins in court

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#71

Post by d_theorist »

eli wrote: post #41
eis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not stealing because nothing is stolen. Or what is your definition of stealing?

Is jumping a subway turnstile stealing? The same train leaves whether you're on it or not. But if enough people don't pay the fare, the whole system breaks down.

The question isn't whether the system breaks down. The question is whether ad-blockers constitute stealing. And they don't.

Not everything that causes a system to break down is stealing. "Stealing" has a specific meaning. It doesn't just mean 'a bad thing happened'.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#72

Post by irl_zebra »

leejoramo wrote: post #67

To the pro-advertisers reading this, I feel your pain. I have long standing clients who depend on ad revenue, such as print publications that early on successfully transition to the web, who are now really struggling. However, I aggressively use ad blockers. Here is why: * the majority of the ads I see on the Internet are of the sort that I use to find in the back of magazines. Crap I would never read is now force fe…

The worst for me is when I open something on my phone and start reading and a huge ad appears and takes up my whole screen telling me to put in my email to subscribe to the website. Then I have to scroll around to find the little X to close it. It's maddening.

Only slightly less worse is the same thing happening on my laptop after I have had a few seconds to start reading the first paragraph, then the whole page dims and a full-page ad appears.

Adblock gets rid of this stuff and it's why I use it and will continue to do so in the future, but I do leave the whitelist on for unobtrusive advertising.

I just wish AdBlocker could get rid of that awful Forbes "Thought of the Day" page that always opens. Unfortunately the best it can do it get rid of the ad on that page, but still annoying.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#73

Post by copsarebastards »

profinger wrote: post #59
eli wrote: post #36

I don't read German, but I believe the main complaint in the case was AdBlock Plus charging money as part of its ad "whitelisting" service. ABP said it was to cover the cost of verifying the ads are safe and responsible. Publishers called it extortion (e.g. pay us this money if you want your ad impressions back).

IMO, if I downloaded something that is supposed to block the ads, I don't want the damn ads. I've not used ABP in a while but I'd be pretty pissed if it started loading ads again just because the people had paid for it. They had to figure out some way to make money, though, I guess.

I think you are asked upon installation whether you want to allow whitelisted ads (this was how it worked the last time I used Adblock, anyway; I use uBlock now). Some users want this because they see viewing ads as a way to support the "free" websites they use.

You can find more information here: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads

Copying from that page, the rules for ads to not be blocked include:

1. Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar)

2. Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images Ad placement:

a. Ads should never obscure page content (e.g. require users to click a button to close the ad before viewing the page).

b. For pages featuring a reading text ads should not be placed in the middle, where they interrupt the reading flow. However, they can be placed above the text content, below it or on the sides. The same applies to search results pages: paid search results cannot be mixed with organic results.

c. When ads are placed above the content of a main page, they should not require the user to scroll down. The available vertical space is likely to be at least 700 pixels. Advertising should not occupy more than one-third of that height. Paid search results on search pages are allowed to occupy more space, but they should never outnumber organic results.

d. When placed on the side ads should leave enough space for the main content. The available horizontal space can be expected to be at least 1000 pixels, and advertising should not occupy more than a third of that width.

3. Advertising should be clearly marked as such with the word "advertising" or its equivalent, and it should be distinguishable from page content, for instance via a border and/or different a background color.

4. Marking and placement requirements do not apply for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs embedded in the content of the page. Additional criteria for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs:

a. Redirects originating from the hyperlink should not present any other webpage than the destination page.

b. In texts, not more than 2 percent of the words can be hyperlinked for monetization purposes.

c. Hyperlinks should not be formatted or behave differently than other links.

d. Hyperlinks should not be misleading, in either content or placement.

Personally, I never want to see ads, and I've always blocked all ads. But I can empathize with the people who are fine with seeing this kind of ad.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#74

Post by irl_zebra »

profinger wrote: post #59
eli wrote: post #36

I don't read German, but I believe the main complaint in the case was AdBlock Plus charging money as part of its ad "whitelisting" service. ABP said it was to cover the cost of verifying the ads are safe and responsible. Publishers called it extortion (e.g. pay us this money if you want your ad impressions back).

IMO, if I downloaded something that is supposed to block the ads, I don't want the damn ads. I've not used ABP in a while but I'd be pretty pissed if it started loading ads again just because the people had paid for it. They had to figure out some way to make money, though, I guess.

You can uncheck the "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" line on AdBlock. I don't mind some ads as I know people need to make money and I'll click if it's compelling. Just hate the large gif ads.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#75

Post by eli »

d_theorist wrote: post #71
eli wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is jumping a subway turnstile stealing? The same train leaves whether you're on it or not. But if enough people don't pay the fare, the whole system breaks down.

The question isn't whether the system breaks down. The question is whether ad-blockers constitute stealing. And they don't. Not everything that causes a system to break down is stealing. "Stealing" has a specific meaning. It doesn't just mean 'a bad thing happened'.

I think jumping a turnstile is self-evidently stealing. It is also the case that it becomes a problem for everyone when enough people do it, but it would be stealing either way.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#76

Post by andypants »

uxp wrote: post #32
d_theorist wrote: post #7

Good. Although I prefer Ghostery. The main thing for me isn't even blocking ads as such. The main thing is blocking the absurd amount of crappy javascript that clogs up my browser, in which I have no interest. I find the unfiltered web insufferable these days.

I used to love Ghostery, until I learned that their business model is to resell your browsing habits and profile back to advertisers. If you want a suggestion for an alternative, I really don't have one. I'm currently using µBlock, which isn't bad, but requires a bit more setup than Ghostery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock

> their business model is to resell your browsing habits.

This is what the ghostery options screen says about the data they (optionally) track:

> This data is about tracking elements and the webpages on which they are found, not you or your browsing habits.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#77

Post by leejoramo »

leejoramo wrote: post #67

To the pro-advertisers reading this, I feel your pain. I have long standing clients who depend on ad revenue, such as print publications that early on successfully transition to the web, who are now really struggling. However, I aggressively use ad blockers. Here is why: * the majority of the ads I see on the Internet are of the sort that I use to find in the back of magazines. Crap I would never read is now force fe…

I forgot to add, I have had healthcare providers, attorneys and other professionals with legal obligations to maintain client privacy ask how they can do this on the web.

I have to advise them to use ad blockers as part of their privacy tools.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#78

Post by tracker1 »

eli wrote: post #62
tracker1 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, I had no problem detecting this on a site with several million unique visitors a month... Of course I did the detection against my actual ad tags in the page...

Wouldn't you be getting false positives from ads that are simply slow to load and false negatives from ad blockers that hide ads without using the "display" property?

A slow ad won't change the display property of a div/iframe from "block" to "none"

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#79

Post by johnward »

leejoramo wrote: post #67

To the pro-advertisers reading this, I feel your pain. I have long standing clients who depend on ad revenue, such as print publications that early on successfully transition to the web, who are now really struggling. However, I aggressively use ad blockers. Here is why: * the majority of the ads I see on the Internet are of the sort that I use to find in the back of magazines. Crap I would never read is now force fe…

I've never used an ad blocker and I feel like you are over-exaggerating each of these points. I'm guessing I'll be in the minority on HN though. What kind of sites do you visit that have all these terrible ads? I don't even think porn sites, which have notoriously bad ads, are even that bad.
Post reply on HN