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

191–200 of 242 posts

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#191

Post by jervisfm »

kbenson wrote: post #123
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…

You really equate paying a third party to reduce their negative impact on your business to paying a third party to start negatively impacting a competitor? One takes advantage of market conditions their benefit, the other changes market conditions to the detriment of the competitor.

The parent comment I think captures my own initial thoughts on the matter. If anything, it seems to me that the root cause of the issue is that AdBlock has the option for some websites to be whitelisted and allowed to show ads provided AdBlock deems them to be "acceptable" based on their own criteria. Even worse, this criteria includes whether or not a said website is paying them for the whitelisting privilege.

If AdBlock didn't accept payments in part of considering whether a site's ads are to be whitelisted, then Google or any website for that matter couldn't use their monetary assets to give them themselves an apparently immoral advantage over their competitors.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#192

Post by ruswick »

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…

I don't believe that I've ever clicked on a text ad. (That is to say, I had never clicked on one prior to starting using an ad blocker two years ago.)

If I'm attempting to research a product or product category, I'll go to an aggregator like Gdgt or an editorial site like The Wirecutter.

I can't comprehend why one would ever click on ads when intending to spend money. The last source I would ever trust to recommend how I spend my money is an advertising platform.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#193

Post by kintpuash »

wallunit wrote: post #58
znowi wrote: post #13

I think it was immoral and dishonest to sneak in a whitelist feature into AdBlock, which is in direct opposition to the core product value. Imagine a firewall that whitelists certain networks. And background updates add more networks that bought their way into your machine. Not a product I'd be willing to use.

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…

Your comment sounds like astroturfing as it uses company talking points whether you intended to or not. An astroturf account was unconvered on reddit recently using nearly the same language.

http://www.reddit.com/r/HailCorporate/comments/1h3xdm/accoun...

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#194

Post by fpgeek »

gcb0 wrote: post #166
njharman wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

FYI, on mobile, Adblock Plus and Adblock Edge (among others) are available for mobile Firefox.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#195

Post by fpgeek »

programminggeek wrote: post #74
mst wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I installed AdBlock Plus because of the addition of the whitelist. I want to encourage sites providing me with free content to show me adverts that don't annoy me. And it was announced well enough that I, a non-user, heard of it, so I think 'sneak in' is frankly disingenuous.

You aren't helping them unless you actually plan on clicking on the ads. Seriously, if you want to help out sites you like, pay them money.

Where did mst say that they didn't plan on clicking on any ads?

I'd imagine that most of the time people would only consider clicking on ads they found "not annoying" in the first place.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#196

Post by gtirloni »

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.

I can't find these "laws" that you mention, do you have an URL?

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#198

Post by dchichkov »

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.

I'm finding your argument to be a bit on the ridiculous side. There are no "laws" that state that you should consume ads with the content. You are free to ignore ads in any way you like.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#199

Post by gtirloni »

kbenson wrote: post #161
BrainInAJar wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Are you saying that avoiding ads is fair game only if you use the resources that Nature has given us (i.e. your brain noticing them and moving your attention elsewhere) while any other "3rd-party" resource that helps in avoid ads is a violation?

Just apply it to every other area of you life and see how it goes.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#200

Post by gtirloni »

takluyver wrote: post #69
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…

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 add the websites I care to the whitelist so they can benefit from the ad revenue.
Post reply on HN