
Adblock Plus blocked from attending online ad industry’s big annual conference - japaw
http://arstechnica.co.uk/business/2016/01/adblock-plus-blocked-from-attending-online-ad-industrys-big-annual-conference/
======
riebschlager
An organization called the "Interactive Advertising Bureau" should understand
better than most that this would be a bad move. They'd have to really try hard
to dig their heads deeper into the sand.

What's the worst thing that could happen as a result of letting Adblock Plus
attend? They'd gain a better understanding or ad-blocking technology? Or maybe
get some insight into why so many people feel that ad-blocking is necessary?

I guess Adblock Plus just doesn't fit well with the IAB brand's "core value
proposition".

~~~
dhimes
From the conference notice front page: _Ad blocking is the latest crisis du
jour, a potentially existential threat to the industry._

I would guess you are correct. What's ironic is that adblock plus understands
their value proposition and whitelists advertisers if they are not too shitty.
I run Adblock plus for this very reason (as opposed to a less forgiving
blocker).

Also, they just landed Larry Ellison of Oracle as a featured speaker.

[http://www.iab.com/](http://www.iab.com/)

~~~
JD557
>whitelists advertisers if they are not too shitty.

I don't have any source with me right now, but I've heard that they only
whitelist advertisers that pay them (I recall some people comparing this to
blackmail).

~~~
dhimes
I didn't know this, but they admit it on their site, and explain it.

[https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization](https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization)

TL;DR is that if by participating in the "Acceptable Ads" initiative the
organization gains 10 million _more_ ad impressions per month, then they have
to pay. If they are "smaller" than that, it's free to them.

Everybody has to keep their ads acceptable, however; you can't bribe your way
out of it.

~~~
monochromatic
> Everybody has to keep their ads acceptable, however; you can't bribe your
> way out of it.

Riiiiight.

~~~
creshal
Well, it'd be immediately visible to the users. While I think it _is_
blackmail, ABP has a _lot_ to lose by not enforcing strict standards.

~~~
nugget
They whitelist Taboola, Outbrain, and other native ad networks. I think the
strict standards horse has left the barn.

~~~
pas
Outbrain provides "uses who read this also read these", no? Or do they also do
shady things like splicing in ads between "proper" recommendations?

------
cballard
This reinforced to me that Adblock is a company, while uBlock Origin is just
an open-source project. uBlock doesn't need to go to ad conferences and talk
to people, it just filters content.

[https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md)

~~~
JohnTHaller
And it sometimes bases those filters on personal grudges. Which is why all of
SourceForge is blocked by default due to bad behavior last year on a handful
of projects out of 400,000 that they discontinued after public outcry. Meaning
that there is no forgiveness for giving in to public pressure. At the same
time, tons of download sites with all kinds of malware and bundleware are
allowed right through.

~~~
gorhill
> And it sometimes bases those filters on personal grudges

That I hold "personal grudges" is your personal opinion.

I took care to document the rationale behind my decision to block
`sourceforge.net`[1]. Notice that it is not a hard-block, it is a soft-block,
which purpose is to act as a warning for the uninitiated. One can easily
dismiss and go ahead.

If you followed the project closely you would have seen that I have resisted
adding sites as "Badware risks" unless there are enough well supported,
credible and repeated references in support of such decision.

[1] [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Badware-
risks#sourcef...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Badware-
risks#sourceforgenet)

~~~
joshschreuder
Not the OP, but I've stumbled upon this wiki page before, and I just wanted to
thank you for writing it all up.

Not only was it interesting, but the fact that you're open and transparent
enough to document WHY certain things like this are blocked, is a huge bonus
in using uBlock (which is already an essential tool IMO). Thanks.

------
tyingq
Excerpt from the summary for one of the two keynote speeches...

"But this has brought along the unintended consequences of viewability
challenges, fraud, and ad blocking. What’s more, this myopic pursuit of
success has created burnout and disengagement...2016 must mark a significant
shift in our thinking" [1]

[1] [http://www.iab.com/events/iab-annual-leadership-
meeting-2016...](http://www.iab.com/events/iab-annual-leadership-
meeting-2016/#agenda)

------
Cypher
I know the exact reason, the IAB wanted Mark to experience how an ad is
blocked. Artistic merit.

~~~
woah
They've given ABP a beautiful analogy.

~~~
chris_wot
They can wax lyrical about how effective blocking is, now that they have done
it themselves. Truly, an industry in decline.

~~~
cerlone
It's funny that Ad Block posted the image as to "how dare they, who do they
think they are!? Why shouldn't I be allowed to do something I want"

Yet they do it businesses trying to advertise every day.

------
elsjaako
The ad companies simply don't want ABP to come along and tell them stuff they
don't want to hear. They also don't want ABP knowing what they are talking
about and planning to do. So they used a system to prevent ABP changing their
experience.

Seems fair enough, nothing hypocritical there.

~~~
bainsfather
Selling someone a ticket and listing them as a participant, then later banning
them without an explanation, is pretty bad behaviour, no?

~~~
elsjaako
I was going for irony, I hope it came across.

~~~
bainsfather
Ah, that was way too subtle for me - the number of hn posters who argue weird
(imo) positions means that I need a sarcasm tag to know someone's not serious.

------
chris_wot
"The IAB Annual Leadership Meeting is for serious conversation among important
digital industry stakeholders."

Evidently those who prevent any ads from being served by their oh-so
"important digital industry stakeholders" won't be part of any "serious
conversation".

Adblock, and the many others on the market, will continue to do the non-
serious work of blocking ads.

~~~
cerlone
I would do the same as IAB.

What adblock says to companies is "We feel your advertising is no good so we
will blanket block it for millions of viewers a day"

HOWEVER, if you contact, let us review your advert and then WE decide it's not
a bad add, we'll let it be shown to the millions of visitors that were
supposed to see it anyway...

We'll just take a percentage of the money.

There's certainly a need for this sort of adblocking service on some level but
from a money-making side of thing, their business model is just downright
dirty.

Just imagine if I stood in the middle of the road at the end of your street
and said "NO cars are coming down here because the residents said so"

"However, give me a few bucks because I decided you look like a decent person
and you can come through"

In a real world situation, this would be classed as blackmailing and you'd be
arrested for something.

~~~
coldpie
Reviewing whether an ad network meets their Acceptable Ads policy takes time.
Are you suggesting they should not charge for their time? Or that they should
not have an Acceptable Ads policy at all?

~~~
cerlone
You have a valid point that it takes time.

However, the cost to time ratio isn't sensible.

It's "reported" that Google and some other companies have been paying Ad Block
Plus in the region of $120 million per year for their ads to be whitelisted.

Secondly, their taking 30% of revenue for the whole period the networks ad's
are approved. If they stop paying, their adverts get blocked.

The main issue is that they go into it with a blanket statement of all ads are
evil and are blocked for the "users sake" but we'll make a decision on behalf
of users if we think your paying enough to get the adverts showing.

As a user myself, I hate bad adverts but how do they know what I think is an
acceptable? They've never asked me.

If I said to you, you're not allowed to reply to any thread on Ycombinator
until I've decided you can on behalf of the community, oh, and you need to pay
me 30% of your wages so I can keep "reviewing" the situation... you'd tell me
to bugger off.

------
meirelles
I think is understandable IAB's position. The only reason which makes sense to
me to pay such high fee to get in is chase some big guys into "acceptable ads"
program. Charging money to whitelist is a little questionable attitude to me.
Something between hypocrisy and irony.

~~~
coldpie
Reviewing ads to verify that they meet their Acceptable Ads policy takes time.
Time is money, so they charge for that time. Seems OK to me.

That said, I use uBlock Origin because I think it's better written and also I
morally object to advertising, so there is no such thing as an "acceptable ad"
to me.

------
FussyZeus
I'm reminded of that comic with the dog sitting in the burning house going
"Everything is fine."

------
dfuzwer
This is a statement, _we blocked the blockers_.

I wouldn't be surprised if the openings speech at the conference proudly
announced this decision.

------
aggieben
This is sooo yummy. Nomnomnom.

------
core2
Would it make sense to accept credit card skimmers on Credit Card Conference?

