501–504 of 504 posts
At first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would incredibly increase the number of ads blocked. My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an industry body from big advertisers, like Google. I'm pretty sure "Don't store user data" isn't included in that "standard"
What we need is a Sarbanes-Oxley for the Internet. If you track users and store their data, you have to be Internet-SOX compliant to prove you're handling it in a responsible way. Especially with the anti-fraud protections on credit cards these days, storing PII and browsing history is a lot more dangerous than a credit card breach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we should really come up with a community-driven criteria for Acceptable Ads Isn't that what ABP / Eyeo is doing? You may criticize them for the fee they ask of the Ad companies to include / review their ads, but it's not like the fees are unfair or they aren't doing work that needs to be paid somehow. They even set up a non profit to deal with this matter. > or should disable un-vetted/not-whitelisted JavaScript a…
What Eyeo is doing amounts to theft or blackmail: Pay us or have your revenue reduced. They are a venture-funded company, so they are in it for more than the community, and can find other ways to monetize their service.
As you pointed out, we're a company. That means making money to defend against lawsuits, paying employees, etc.
It's not blackmail though, because as it was also pointed out, most websites join for free. No strings attached. Well, the strings are that the ads they want to display need to meet all of the Acceptable Ads criterias, which we found most users don't mind.
That allows us to find a middle ground between "we're drinking all the beer and pay nothing" that other, more scorched-earth-like adblockers go for, and the "oh gods my eyes"-design some ad-bloated websites go for, which no one really wants.
From a publisher perspective, we're not the evil guys either. We're not reducing anyone's revenue, we're allowing publishers to recuperate some of the losses caused by the user's choice of opting out of really annoying ads.
Hope this made sense!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What Eyeo is doing amounts to theft or blackmail: Pay us or have your revenue reduced. They are a venture-funded company, so they are in it for more than the community, and can find other ways to monetize their service.
Hey, official eyeo (we're written with a lower letter now because it's fancy) representative here. Just clearing things up. As you pointed out, we're a company. That means making money to defend against lawsuits, paying employees, etc. It's not blackmail though, because as it was also pointed out, most websites join for free. No strings attached. Well, the strings are that the ads they want to display need to meet al…
Also, it's frustrating to still see your company play the "help us out we're broke" card by asking for donations after install even though you're a venture-funded company.
If anything, you guys should be going after the ad-networks since they are the ones allowing the malicious and rude ads to be placed - not the people whose livelihood depends on ads.