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

231–240 of 242 posts

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#231

Post by celeritas9 »

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…

They are a distraction. I feel annoyed when they appear. If I want looking at a particular web page and 30% of the web page is filled with useless/unnecessary ads then I'd be annoyed big time. I have been using internet since last 9+ years. And I haven't found a single useful advert since then. I think that would be the case with most of us.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#232

Post by frankster »

bpatrianakos wrote: post #183
Retric wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see vary few advertisements and as a result I don't buy much stuff. Sure, I have missed out on say video games I would have enjoyed playing, but at the same time it's also removed a lot of disappointment and stress from my life. Generally, when I walk into a store brands mean nothing to me so I make some random choice and then decide to either stick with it or try something new. And honestly most big brands are goo…

You're kind of implying that being advertised to means you automatically end up buying more than you want it need. I think that can be true but not necessarily. I see tons of advertisements but buy very rarely. For example, I see tons of advertising for tablets. As a developer and the owner of the iPad 1 I don't feel the need to upgrade at all. Mine still does what I want it to. When I find it becomes a nuisance then…

Perhaps the point is...you have an ipad 1.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#234

Post by mahranch »

enraged_camel wrote: post #170
kbenson wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't find anything about the Tivo case being settled. On the wikipedia page for commercial skipping, the only court case is one with ReplayTV, which didn't finish due to the company going bankrupt.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#236

Post by pydave »

RyanZAG wrote: post #144
kbenson wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can just twist the words a bit then - instead of Google paying for Bing's traffic to be reduced, they could simply pay for their traffic to always be sent first. Not affecting anybody but Google then, right? Also, sponsoring Adblock is changing the market conditions. Adblock can use the money provided by Google to make sure any non-Google ad is blocked more efficiently. They can also advertise their addon better,…

So is Google's altruistic alternative to find ways to sabotage Adblock so it won't block anyone's ads? To create their own adblocker that doesn't block Google ads? Or just to pay Adblock to go away and stop blocking all ads?

Is there any action that Google could take that would appear ethical?

I do see your point that other advertisers are unlikely to have "acceptable" ads because they rely on flash and images, but shouldn't they have to make themselves competitive if they want to maintain a level playing field?

If this pushes advertising further away from flashing, shouting, animated ads then it sounds like a brighter future to me.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#237

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…

I realize this is a bit late, but ABE is not unmaintained. It is based on an older version of ABP, yes, but it is under active development.

Last commit was in May, and besides, the nature of the product (single purpose app) is that it won't have a lot in the way of code changes aside from the odd bug fix. It doesn't need any other feature.

Most of the busywork is being handled in the block lists, and ABP and ABE use the same source (EasyList and others)

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#239

Post by transitionality »

All it takes is one click on a checkbox.

Anyone is free to fork AdBlock Plus' codebase and prepare a version that doesn't require that checkbox.

I, for one, am happy that AdBlock Plus is being funded (and will continue to provide a great, reliable product) at the expense of users too stupid or ignorant to click on a single checkbox.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#240

Post by mparramon »

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…

Another alternative is blacklisting sites via your hosts file, which means it applies to all applications and not only the browser. Also, it works in any UNIX-based OS: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
Post reply on HN