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

Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee

acceptableads.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 105 posts

Re: Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee

#31

Post by manigandham »

We're one of the companies on the committee.

Lots of strong emotions here, as usual with anything ad related on HN. The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for free.

Yes, it's not ideal and the online implementation is poorly done most of the time. It's because of perverse incentives and a lack of regulation in the entire industry that force bad formats, fraudsters, malware, and the pursuit of data and volume to win over quality and user experience.

As much as I don't care for the ABP approach, it's something that can be used to actually make progress and that's what this is, progress. It's finally some outside pressure on the industry to change from the segment of the advertising mechanism that matters most - the people themselves.

Re: Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee

#33

Post by joelthelion »

manigandham wrote: post #27
nilved wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you got downvoted. I will not accept any ads.

Do you expect content producers to get paid?

Not through ads displayed in my browser. There are other ways to get paid, though.

Re: Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee

#34

Post by s3r3nity »

iLoch wrote: post #22
JTon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe to Google attending such an event legitimizes the use of ad-blocking tech. As far as I've seen, Google has either ignored it or been hostile towards it.

They already do that with Google Contributor.

Which has already been sunsetted... for a "new and better" one that hasn't launched yet, so I'm bearish.

https://contributor.google.com/v/signupdisabled

Re: Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee

#35

Post by LeoPanthera »

user5994461 wrote: post #11

1) Left the acceptable ads enabled, didn't care. 2) Made a google search for " " on my mother's computer. 3) All the first results were sponsored links from sites distributing a copy of the real software, but ridden with adware, or worse. 4) Disabled all ads without mercy. *) Switched to uBlock Origin later. ----- 5 years later... 6) Become sysadmin of a global company with more than 10 000 computers. 7) Distribute C…

> with ad blocking software pre-installed

Which?

Re: Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee

#36

Post by LeoPanthera »

SEJeff wrote: post #8

And if you don't want acceptable ads, use uBlock Origin: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa... https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

Now recently made available for Safari! https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari

Re: Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee

#37

Post by manigandham »

joelthelion wrote: post #33
manigandham wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you expect content producers to get paid?

Not through ads displayed in my browser. There are other ways to get paid, though.

So content displayed through browser should be behind a paywall then? What if the solution is ads blocked for a fee?

Re: Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee

#38

Post by georgeott »

manigandham wrote: post #27
nilved wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you got downvoted. I will not accept any ads.

Do you expect content producers to get paid?

Not if I have to allow untested 3rd party Javascript / malware onto my system. No thank you.

Re: Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee

#39

Post by mlmlmasd »

JadeNB wrote: post #12
r00fus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the entire idea of "Acceptable Ads" to be the antithesis for an ad blocker. Ads are an infection vector and privacy leak. It's like concept of "acceptable groping" from an HR department. Completely at odds with their stated intent and standard ethics. Sorry, I'm now using uBlock Origin and/or Safari content blockers. I'll go with those organizations who don't have any interest/stake in permitting ads. If I am…

> Ads are an infection vector and privacy leak. Both of these are undeniably true about specific ads, but surely not the genre of advertising in general? I think that magazine ads, for example, are neither infection vectors nor privacy leaks. To the extent that these can be audited, surely preventing malware distribution and respecting my privacy are part of what should be included in the definition of 'acceptable'.…

> most of us agree that there is no level of groping that's acceptable; whereas I _think_ that, even among those of us who would like a web with no ads, the position that there is no level of advertising that's acceptable is extreme.

Holy shit, could you not come up with a more loaded and ambiguous way of trying to justify ads?

> Nonetheless, since some people do use it, surely this divestiture from a conflict of interest is a good thing, even if it's not perfect.

What are you talking about? Google literally pays ABP to not block some of their ads.

Re: Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee

#40

Post by TeMPOraL »

makecheck wrote: post #30

Well, the definition to me is quite simple: “a non-animating image or line of text that occupies no more than 2% of available space, served directly by the displayed web site domain”. Also, it’s definitely not just advertisers these days that make me go straight for the uBlock Origin settings panel. I’d say on 50% of browsed articles, some obnoxious component halfway down the page auto-plays a VIDEO with SOUND. This…

> some of these video players are buried in about 6 layers of HTML components that appear to have no real value other than to make it harder to find the element that actually makes the video go away.

My impression is that this is just an unintended effect of the proliferation of JavaScript frameworks and the evolving web "best practices". Makes it no less annoying, though.

Post reply on HN