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

101–110 of 242 posts

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#101

Post by Karunamon »

wallunit wrote: post #95
Karunamon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that "feature" existing points to a serious ethical failing and conflict of interest on the part of the author (namely, taking money to help advertisers bypass the plugin) Firefox plugins auto-update, who's to say the next update won't have something more objectionable?

I just noted that Adblock Edge is still based on version 2.0.4 of Adblock Plus, which is outdated for a while. It seems that Adblock Edge isn't maintained anymore and probably never was. So Adblock Edge will probably get incompatible with future versions of Firefox, anyway. And if there are security issues in the code, it is rather unlikely that they will get fixed, as fast as in upstream Adblock Plus, if at all. On…

Few companies take money to help bypass the function of their product!

This is analogous to an antivirus vendor taking money from malware authors to avoid detecting the worm of the day, the only difference being that a text ad isn't as likely to frag your computer.

But hey, in both cases, they're getting money to "maintain and improve the product".

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#102

Post by ferdo »

gcb0 wrote: post #65
jpdoctor wrote: post #6

Quick ref to get rid of Google Ads (and some others too) on Adblock Plus: FOR CHROME: Go to "Settings" Find Extensions in the list on the left Find AdBlock, select "Options" Click the tab "Filter Lists" Uncheck: "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" FOR FIREFOX: Go to the Firefox menu in the upper left corner Select "Add-ons" Select "Extensions" Find Adblock Plus, select Options. Find the "Filter Preferences" Button…

Still shocks me that people on this site uses those lame extrensions (which are a security risk no less) someonewhocares.org/hosts_zero/ Save this hosts file in your house's router and be safely free of advertising, shock sites, tracking.... On ALL devices With no added attack vector as with an extension and not limited to one browser in one device

Many thanks for the hosts file. I always prefer a DIY solution as opposed to trusting others.

I'll pass this on.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#103

Post by kryten »

CrazedGeek wrote: post #51
jpdoctor wrote: post #6

Quick ref to get rid of Google Ads (and some others too) on Adblock Plus: FOR CHROME: Go to "Settings" Find Extensions in the list on the left Find AdBlock, select "Options" Click the tab "Filter Lists" Uncheck: "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" FOR FIREFOX: Go to the Firefox menu in the upper left corner Select "Add-ons" Select "Extensions" Find Adblock Plus, select Options. Find the "Filter Preferences" Button…

Alternatively, for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/

Thanks for posting this. Much better than adblock plus I.e. Much faster and more moral.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#104

Post by tr4656 »

wallunit wrote: post #80
takluyver wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, I'm really pleased to find that they're whitelisting some ads by default, although I'm disappointed that money factors into it. I use ad blockers, because so much of the web is a hideous mess without them. But I'm somewhat conflicted about it, because I know that a lot of sites depend on ad revenue. I see this as a kind of collective agreement with advertisers: I don't mind adverts, but I don't wan…

I don't think that you have any reason to feel disappointed, unless you have donated a significant amount of money to Adblock Plus. And even then, just disable that feature. After all that's the way Adblock Plus makes most of its money, needed to develop the browser extension, port it to new platforms, maintaining and hosting the filter lists (which by the way are also used by every other ad blocker). I doubt that if…

By disabling that feature, he would block all ads. However, he did say that he wants to support sites who rely on ad revenue. I don't think supporting Adblock Plus was what he was really concerned about.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#105

Post by PanickedOmlette »

hkmurakami wrote: post #93
furyofantares wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you also be shocked if there are people who make no attempt to block ads at all? I would not be shocked by that, but I'd guess not blocking ads at all is a greater security risk than running ABP.

also people who don't try to mitigate the effects of Facebook iframes

Could you please tell a bit about that? What's wrong with them?

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#106

Post by opinali »

calbear81 wrote: post #37

I understand the apprehension in this community about ads in general but when it comes to search engine ads, it does add value (and relevance improvement) to many "commerce" oriented queries. Google also already knows categories that generally don't get high ad engagement and doesn't show them for those. An example would be "chuck norris biography" - the intent is clear that you're looking for information primarily a…

[chuck norris] won't show any ads either -- and Google will show you Chuck's knowledge graph entry, including a random Chuck Norris Fact :)

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#107

Post by HelloMcFly »

coldtea wrote: post #92
smsm42 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing different from any other extension, so what you're saying nobody should be using extensions in their browsers. Good luck with convincing people not to do it.

Well, I for one don't use any extensions with Chrome. And not even from security concerns. Just from lack of any interest to do so. Why should I? For some marginal utility? I'd take it more average people don't use extensions either -- if they know what they are in the first place.

While I'd agree that many plugins have marginal utility, some like Firebug or Lastpass I find to be invaluable.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#108

Post by downandout »

I was always curious as to how they made money. He used to ask for donations. Asking for money in exchange for not taking actions that will harm another person's business (i.e. blocking their ads) seeing seems awfully close to extortion. Yelp was sued for extortion, and their conduct was far less egregious than this. Google probably couldn't handle the PR hit after the NSA stuff, but I'll bet their first inclination was to sue rather than write a check.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#109

Post by chc »

nwilliams wrote: post #61
chez17 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are text ads on Bing and Yahoo searches invasive and annoying? The article appears to say they're still blocked by default while Google's are not.

That hardly seems relevant. The fact that they do not unblock every ad you consider not to be invasive and annoying is unsurprising. They entered into an arrangement with Google where Google agreed to meet certain standards and be vetted; Bing and Yahoo have not.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#110

Post by njharman »

pyre wrote: post #85
3pt14159 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they could be updated and now your whole browser is pwnd. This is how sites like Compete.com get their metrics.

> 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.

Post reply on HN