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

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#81

Post by smsm42 » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:42 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #76

driverdan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly are ad blocking extensions a security risk? Blocking at the domain level gives you no control. What if you need to see what a site looks like without ads blocked? I have a few of my own content sites that use ads. By blocking outside of the browser I wouldn't be able to see what they look like to other users.

Because they could be updated and now your whole browser is pwnd. This is how sites like Compete.com get their metrics.

There's nothing different from any other extension, so what you're saying nobody should be using extensions in their browsers. Good luck with convincing people not to do it.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#82

Post by gingerlime » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:43 PM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #65

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

This doesn't however block things like google ads inside Gmail, which ad blocker browser extensions typically can and do block.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#83

Post by asperous » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:43 PM UTC

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.

Some ad companies pay per view

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#84

Post by drdaeman » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:44 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #76

driverdan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly are ad blocking extensions a security risk? Blocking at the domain level gives you no control. What if you need to see what a site looks like without ads blocked? I have a few of my own content sites that use ads. By blocking outside of the browser I wouldn't be able to see what they look like to other users.

Because they could be updated and now your whole browser is pwnd. This is how sites like Compete.com get their metrics.

Disable automatic updates and review the code before installing any updates manually.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#85

Post by pyre » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:44 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #76

driverdan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly are ad blocking extensions a security risk? Blocking at the domain level gives you no control. What if you need to see what a site looks like without ads blocked? I have a few of my own content sites that use ads. By blocking outside of the browser I wouldn't be able to see what they look like to other users.

Because they could be updated and now your whole browser is pwnd. This is how sites like Compete.com get their metrics.

  > Because they could be updated

So, this is a rally against all extensions? Expanding this argument, we basically get to a point where we don't trust any software:

  1. No more browser extensions.
  2. Want ad-blocking in Firefox? Request feature.
  3. Feature request denied.
  4. Fork Firefox.
  5. Add ad-blocking to Firefox fork.

This leaves us with a couple of issues:

1. The bar to adding functionality to a browser has now been raised significantly. With a larger barrier to entry, we will see fewer extensions for trivial things like 'adding collapsible threads to HN', which can make your life easier, but isn't worth a fork of the entire browser to achieve.

2. Trust. You still have to trust the developer of the browser fork that same way that you have to trust the developer of the browser extension.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#86

Post by natch » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:48 PM UTC

tr4656 wrote: post #10

webwanderings wrote: post #8

Just uncheck the Allow non-intrusive option and this becomes a non-issue. With recent onslaught of attack on Ghostery and Ad-block, I wonder if these two tools are doing exactly what they're supposed to do: help people.

What were the attacks on Ghostery? I seem to have missed them.

This: http://i.imgur.com/cocSwhF.png

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#87

Post by smsm42 » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:48 PM UTC

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.

I have been using AdBlock for years, and I have no problem with this feature, provided that they select their whitelist carefully and enforce the rules aggressively. I wouldn't have any problem with ads if they weren't such a disaster. If there are providers that can do ads responsibly - no animations, no sound, no taking valuable space where content should have been, then I have no problem with giving them the edge. I'm not opposed to the idea of advertisement in principle, I use AdBlock because otherwise bad ads (which are on 99% of sites) make using the web extremely tiresome and annoying.

If the Google leads the fight in making ads good citizens on the web and profits from it - fine, all power to them. If they would start abusing it - I'll turn off the whitelist and all their money would be spent for nothing.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#88

Post by s3r3nity » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:49 PM UTC

asperous wrote: post #83

programminggeek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some ad companies pay per view

Yeah but CPM (cost per impression metric) is not a scalable business model alone -- CPC (cost per click) or CPA (cost per acquisition) metrics have arisen because sites will spam impressions to people in Malaysia who will never buy anything...cheap impressions don't power a site for very long unfortunately.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#89

Post by furyofantares » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:50 PM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #65

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

Would you also be shocked if there are people who make no attempt to block ads at all? I would not be shocked by that, but I'd guess not blocking ads at all is a greater security risk than running ABP.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#90

Post by s3r3nity » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:52 PM UTC

Recoil42 wrote: post #34

guelo wrote: post #25

Here is the "non-intrusive" filter https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx... It does seem to have a lot of google.

It does seem to have a lot of google. Google's a rather large advertiser, and put a good deal of work into ensuring their ads behave better than most.

"...[P]ut a good deal of work into ensuring their ads behave better than most."

It's more like they have a lot more data and scale to target better ads at individuals. And when you have many many ads competing for X amount of spots, the average ad quality increases. Google doesn't really need to do anything other than create the platform that gathers lots of data on individuals and allow for appropriate targeting.