Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted • Hacker News Board

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#61

Post by nwilliams » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:10 PM UTC

chez17 wrote: post #55

tommi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that the definition of annoyance is the amount of cash paid to AdBlock Plus, not the actual annoyance from user's perspective.

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.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#62

Post by kevingadd » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:10 PM UTC

pygy_ wrote: post #39

kevingadd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure it would require an extreme amount of subjectivity to find random noise blaring out of your speakers or drive-by trojan installs acceptable. But sure.

I think you missed his point. He was referring to the fact that you don't mind the ABP policy, while you may find some images offending.

Those ads aren't vile specifically because they have an image of a woman in them; they're vile because they're psychological manipulation primarily based on the objectification of women and intended to funnel clicks to shady online game websites that basically operate as a mechanism for scamming as much money out of gullible players as possible.

Or to put it another way: Typically the ads that do the most annoying stuff are from advertisers that obviously aren't particularly legit. Microsoft and Apple aren't blaring noise out of your speakers or shoving pictures of scantily clad women in your face to get you to play microtransaction games and Amazon doesn't do it to get you to buy books or movies.

Of course the definition of taste and acceptability is subjective, but there is definitely a line between legit advertisers that aren't hostile to web surfers, and the advertisers who will do absolutely anything if it increases revenues - including tracking users or outright lying to them.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#63

Post by gohrt » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:10 PM UTC

chez17 wrote: post #55

tommi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that the definition of annoyance is the amount of cash paid to AdBlock Plus, not the actual annoyance from user's perspective.

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…

Not that the '"Download Now!" ads on download sites' ARE published by google. Google text ads are just one part of Google's inventory.

The scammy fake-Download links on this famous page, for example, are provided by Google AdChoices

http://www.alternative.to/Google_Reader,29653017#nav-7647923...

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#64

Post by zobzu » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:12 PM UTC

chez17 wrote: post #55

tommi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that the definition of annoyance is the amount of cash paid to AdBlock Plus, not the actual annoyance from user's perspective.

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…

it doesn't have much with "being adult" so "copping with the crap". It has to do with:

- morals. I don't think unsolicited ads are moral. I'd rather pay. But I generally don't get that choice without an adblocker.

- More choice and ethics. Again. I'm the one to decide what I want to see, not adblock people using a revenue model where they're in a position to force companies to pay them to be on a whitelist. That's extorsion.

And.. I'm pretty sure you get revenue from adverts.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#65

Post by gcb0 » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:17 PM UTC

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

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#66

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:21 PM UTC

chez17 wrote: post #55

tommi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that the definition of annoyance is the amount of cash paid to AdBlock Plus, not the actual annoyance from user's perspective.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#67

Post by nwilliams » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:21 PM UTC

kevingadd wrote: post #7

As long as they're only whitelisting text ads, I don't think I mind. Even image ads that aren't animated are okay with me if they aren't offensive. The only reason I have AdBlock plus installed in the first place is the really vile shit - noisy SWFs, scantily clad women, drive-by PDF 0 day exploits, etc...

See my other post. Text ads on Yahoo and Bing are not whitelisted because they don't pay. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5995895

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#68

Post by md224 » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:21 PM UTC

chez17 wrote: post #55

tommi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that the definition of annoyance is the amount of cash paid to AdBlock Plus, not the actual annoyance from user's perspective.

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…

Has there been any work done from an information-theoretic perspective on the effect of sponsored information added to a page of search results? There's gotta be an academic paper on this somewhere...

I'm particularly interested in the implicit information conveyed by the mere position of a search result on the page, and how that compares to the implicit information contained by the presence of sponsored content. I would think that sponsored content would on average contain maybe half the amount of information as an organic result, since the presence of the ad is partially a function of its relevance but also a function of the amount paid for its placement, whereas organic result position is a purely a function of relevance.

Then again, perhaps the amount paid could also be considered an implicit source of information on the content being offered, but that seems less reliable.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#69

Post by takluyver » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:22 PM UTC

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 want them flashing all over my screen when I'm trying to get stuff done.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#70

Post by B-Con » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:26 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #19

fintler wrote: post #9

Since it seems to be a common misconception, I'd just like to point out that "Adblock" and "Adblock Plus" are two different extensions made by different people.

Yeah, for the longest time I thought the latter was an enhanced (paid?) version of the former. I can't believe naming browser extensions in a similar manner like this is allowed. It causes nothing but confusion.

I feel really old now, but Adblock Plus was actually forked from the original Adblock. The "plus" part implied it was supposed to improve on the original project.