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

91–100 of 242 posts

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#91

Post by coldtea »

pyre wrote: post #85
3pt14159 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Yes. So DON'T expand it. The thing is, third party updatable extensions are far less trustworthy than Firefox.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#92

Post by coldtea »

smsm42 wrote: post #81
3pt14159 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I for one don't use any extensions with Chrome. And not even from security concerns. Just from lack of any interest to do so. Why should I? For some marginal utility?

I'd take it more average people don't use extensions either -- if they know what they are in the first place.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#93

Post by hkmurakami »

furyofantares wrote: post #89
gcb0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

also people who don't try to mitigate the effects of Facebook iframes

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#94

Post by smsm42 »

gohrt wrote: post #63
chez17 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I am using AdBlock with whitelist enabled, and I don't see any scammy ads on this page. So whatever Google and AdBlock agreed on, it does not include those scammy ads.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#95

Post by wallunit »

Karunamon wrote: post #79
wallunit wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does somebody fork ABP, just to strip out a featere which can already be disabled in the options?

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 the other hand I think it is way less likely that Adblock Plus will add a lot of features that wouldn't be in your interest, in the near future.

Sure it is a change in the ethical background of the product. Adblock Plus isn't a hobby project anymore. It's a business now. That means that it has to be profitable. But on the other hand that also means that there are more resources available. So the product can be properly maintained, further improved, and ported to new platforms.

I think this "ethical failing" (as you call it), isn't more or less serious, or unexpected, than when Google introduced in-app ads in Android. In the case of Adblock Plus, as well in the case of Android, I'm happy that the company behind the product found a way to make the product profitable. So they can maintain and improve the product.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#97

Post by noneTheHacker »

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.

That's not always true. Some ad models just care that a user may have seen an ad. A lot of sites you can't just "pay them money."

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#99

Post by ceejayoz »

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.

Impression-based costing isn't unheard-of, even today.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#100

Post by opinali »

gohrt wrote: post #63
chez17 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I'm not using any adblocker and I see no scammy ads either.
Post reply on HN