
AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default - chaud
https://adblockplus.org/development-builds/allowing-acceptable-ads-in-adblock-plus
======
randomwalker
It is unfortunate that many people commenting here didn't bother to RTFA. In
particular, from the FAQ:

 _Are you stupid? Nobody wants this!_

 _The results of our user survey say something different. Only 25% of the
Adblock Plus users seem to be strictly against any advertising. They will
disable this feature and that's fine. The other users replied that they would
accept some kinds of advertising to help websites. Some users are even asking
for a way to enable Adblock Plus on some websites only._

<https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads>

That page is the real article, linked from the first paragraph of the
submitted article, which is more like a changelog.

Please also note that Wladimir has been talking about this for _years_ and
didn't suddenly get this into his head. From a 2009 post:

 _As I stated many times before, my goal with Adblock Plus isn’t to destroy
the advertising industry. ... So the idea is to give control back to the users
by allowing them to block annoying ads. Since the non-intrusive ads would be
blocked less often it would encourage webmasters to use such ads, balance
restored._

<http://adblockplus.org/blog/an-approach-to-fair-ad-blocking>

~~~
nupark2
I've "read the fucking article", and my take-away is that Wladmir is, in
effect, selling ads.

In return for some sort of consideration and a pledge to only provide
"acceptable" advertising, Wladmir will unblock your ads by default in
_AdBlock_ Plus:

> _We have agreements with some websites and advertisers that only advertising
> matching our criteria will be used, their ads will be unblocked then. We
> hope to grow our list significantly over time._

Given that selling advertisements runs entirely contrary to the purpose of
"Adblock", and that Wladimir's incentives are now inversely aligned with the
user's incentives, I imagine we're going to see the same descent into
increasingly obtrusive advertising that you almost _always_ see once an
organization heads down this path.

~~~
mst
Actually, Wladimir's incentives are now aligned precisely with mine - to
provide a means for me to not have to see all the noisy, obtrusive crap but
still support websites providing me with free content in general (note: this
means whitelists are -not- sufficient for me, and blacklists would be overly
irritating to maintain).

In fact, as a result of this article I've just installed AdBlock Plus for the
first time since it now does, by default, exactly what I've always wanted in a
blocking tool - and I appreciate as a feature the fact that it required
exactly zero configuration to do so.

~~~
nupark2
I think you misunderstand incentives. If Wladmir accepts money from
advertisers, there's an innate incentive to accept more money from more
advertisers, and to lower his standards for what makes an acceptable
advertisement. He might _want_ to support non-obtrusive ads, but the major
incentive (money) is entirely contrary to that goal and your own preferences.

That aside, I wish to address the "free content" dichotomy (either we accept
ads, or we lose free content ).

First of all, the content is not free; there are both tangible and intangible
costs to you; advertising is funded through higher prices on the products we
buy, and there are the intangible costs to being inundated with ads.

Second, advertising is surely not the only viable model. If adblocking were to
actually succeed in undermining the web advertising industry, it would also
provide impetus for the development of low-resistance web payment mechanisms,
similar to the app stores and in-app purchasing that have revolutionized
content purchasing on mobile devices.

In other words: 100% blocking of advertisements would not lead to the loss of
"free" (but not really free) content, it would merely lead to the
establishment of a more direct and efficient mechanism for funding that
content.

~~~
darklajid
You argue in absolutes. That's - difficult.

First of all: You can opt out of that feature with minor hassle. I usually
don't like opt-in by default features, but here he has a point, imo.

Now - if you opt out, where is your problem with the change? If he would break
future versions of AdBlock to force ads on you, someone would step up and make
sure that there's an AdBlockBlock plugin.

Are you, by chance, using applications on the mobile OS of your choice that
displays ad to gain revenue?

~~~
nupark2
I'm not actually sure if you intended to respond to my post, or another one in
the thread. I've only addressed incentives involved, and the inexorable
conclusion of misaligned incentives.

Whether that results in Adblock plus plus or not isn't something I tried to
address, though the eventuality seems likely.

> _Are you, by chance, using applications on the mobile OS of your choice that
> displays ad to gain revenue?_

No. Few apps of any quality push ads, as they're incredibly detrimental to the
UX on such a small screen device.

~~~
darklajid
Yes, I wanted to respond to your post and the subthread that you started with
'he is selling ads'. I think that gives your position away.

Now it's fine to be critical and to dislike that change, but I considered your
'he takes money (according to another subthread that's planned but not the
case just yet) and that will lead to more and more ads being "okay"' too -
simple.

Mobile apps w/ ads: Angry Birds on Android?

~~~
nupark2
> _Yes, I wanted to respond to your post and the subthread that you started
> with 'he is selling ads'. I think that gives your position away._

Well, the fact that he plans to financially benefit from displaying
advertisements (or allowing them to be displayed) is key to understanding the
alignment of his incentives: money for ads, insofar as his userbase will put
up with it.

> _Mobile apps w/ ads: Angry Birds on Android?_

Haven't played it; I'd assumed it was a paid game. It's 99 cents on iOS.
Unclear why it's free on Android.

------
hammock
Beginning of the end. It's nice that the developers are giving users a choice,
even if it's opt-out not opt-in. But AdBlock Plus is a tool to remove ads-
that's it. And they're extremely good at it. The moment they become
politicized and try to be "a tool to support small websites" or whatever
nonsense, marks the beginning of the end.

~~~
bad_user
The problem is that AdBlock Plus is becoming popular.

Advertisers are noticing it too. And it will become a whac-a-mole game, in
which advertisers will come up with creative ways to get around ADP or
publishers will just block users with ADP enabled, or just setup a paywall.

We are indeed tired of intrusive advertising. But some websites are good
citizens and shouldn't be punished for the mistakes of others. It wouldn't be
in our long-term interest.

For example - Reddit is a good citizen. It only has an image in their right
toolbar. Many times they just advertise for other reddits you might be
interested in, which is also cool. I even clicked it a number of times.

So why punish websites like Reddit for the mistakes of others? We shouldn't.
Reddit provides a valuable service too and the developers working on it need
salaries too. And there are other websites like Reddit, also good citizens. It
is in our interest to reward these websites - this way advertisers will start
getting a clue.

~~~
maximusprime

      * It's not becoming popular. It's about 1% of users.
      * It's trivial to get around. Other options would be for
        webmasters to give Adblocking users a watered down
        version or just serve them up crapply encoded
        videos/images etc
        If adblock ever became popular, webmasters would quickly
        work around it, and you'd have an arms race, with the
        webmasters winning.
      * Adblock probably blocks 50% of adverts. The other 50%
        people don't realize are adverts.

~~~
icebraining
_It's not becoming popular. It's about 1% of users_

One percent of whose users? That fails to account for the audiences of
specific websites. If it's 1% for all browser users, I bet you that tech
related websites are seeing much, much larger percentages.

~~~
maximusprime
I don't think it's related to how 'techie' you are. It's more to do with
culture.

Let's not pretend this is a "early adopter tech people know how to block ads,
the masses will surely follow in time" thing. It's not.

You'd find similar massive disconnects if you asked who has a TV, who loves
"Transformers" movies, and so on.

~~~
icebraining
Frankly, I find that hard to believe. Tech people are much more likely to
follow tech news and be informed of addons like ABP than the majority. If you
look at the Firefox and Chrome adoption, for example, that certainly happened,
so I don't see why would this be any different.

I'm not saying every tech people uses it, of course (I don't), but without
data I think the existence of a strong correlation between the two is a fair
assumption.

~~~
maximusprime
I just think anecdotally and based on content on here, that the majority are
far removed from "mainstream". I'd expect people here to not hang out at the
mall, watch american idol, eat at mcdonalds, own a TV, watch fox news, click
on ads, and so on. The recent poll showed 65% or something to block ads which
demonstrates what a niche/bubble HN is.

AdBlock filters and censors content. Personally, that's why I don't use it. I
don't want to see a censored internet, I want to see it as it was intended to
be seen. If that means I get pissed with a website doing intrusive advertising
and never go back there, then that's a good thing, as it's good feedback for
that website. There is more than enough choice on the internet which means I
will go to websites that play nice.

Adblock usage has been around 1% for the last few years, so I don't see any
sign it'll increase.

</rant>

------
gergles
One of the "non-intrusive" ads on the whitelist are ads on sedo domain-
squatter pages. That really says about all I need to know about how thoroughly
he's vetted the "non-intrusiveness" of these ads.

~~~
AllenKids
And I think it is clear he made a deal with Google, with or without monetary
compensation I do not know.

Please slap me with proof that I'm wrong, I so wish to be wrong.

~~~
ahoge
Guilty unless proven innocent?

Google's text ads certainly aren't intrusive.

~~~
atomicdog
Depends on their content:

An ad for a local garage? Fine. But I would class "Mom discovers new TEETH
WHITENING solution! Don't listen to your DENTIST! CLICK HERE TODAY!" to be
pretty distracting and intrusive.

~~~
wizard_2
Those ads are usually not allowed on the networks they run on. They're often
posed by affiliate's as the original companies have long since been blocked.
Unfortunately finding the article on this is harder then finding a real teeth
whitening product...

------
antoviaque
One of the authors, Ares2, gave some details on how it works technically.
[https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8872&#...](https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8872&sid=81eef5456f34c3c0e9364021924fe2e7#p52785)

There is a whitelist, mentioned in the FAQ, which lists a few companies which
made it there: [https://easylist-
downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...](https://easylist-
downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt)

Additionally (but the FAQ omits to mention it), a business partner of ABP can
obtain a key - adding <html data-
adblockkey="XXXXXKEYXXXXX_XXXXXSIGNATUREXXXXX"> to his page, which will
whitelist the content.

The main author Wladimir Palant then replies to the transparency concerns
raised on the thread about this solution:

"Adding each domain name to the list individually simply wouldn't have been
possible. The implementation is pretty complicated to make sure that this
feature doesn't get abused - only one company can use this filter (because
they have the corresponding private key) and we have a contractual agreement
with them concerning how they can use it."

"We hope that the demand will be high :)"

~~~
DiabloD3
That is incredibly interesting. That essentially boils down to "make ads that
don't piss off users, or be blocked".

I think this is a viable truce between people who hate ads and people who make
ads. The only people who suffer from this on-going war to increase the snr of
the Internet are website owners themselves.

~~~
soult
I read that as "Make a contractual agreement with us or be blocked".

~~~
DiabloD3
The contractual agreement is mainly "don't piss off users, and we WILL enforce
this if you fail".

------
antoviaque
I asked the author to know if this would be a source of revenues for Adblock,
and why they did make this a default choice rather than a yes/no question:

1) Does AdBlock developers get, directly or indirectly, any benefits from a
third party because of this change? (Including, but not exclusively,
money/donation/jobs/whatever by an entity supported by ads like Google,
continued inclusion in the Chrome store, etc.)? Or any negative consequences
if the change wasn’t implemented?

Wladimir Palant: I don't think that we get anything yet but we indeed hope to
get some income this way to make the project sustainable. This doesn't mean
that paying us is the requirement to be added to the exceptions list - the
requirements a formulated here and they will probably become more precise as
we gain experience (suggestions are welcome). As to Google: no, they have
nothing to do with it. We didn't talk to Google, we didn't take money from
them, there is no conspiracy here. We did look at Google Ads as a typical
example (unblocking them is the most common request we get yet most people
lack the knowledge for that) but they don't meet our requirements at the
moment. Google's search ads are a different thing and they can meet our
requirements depending on how the website configures them - and we did add an
exception for them on one particular website.

2) If the goal is to allow people who would like to see ads to see them, why
not have asked if people wanted to see them (ie, neutral “yes/no” question),
rather than pushing a default setting which shows those “non intrusive” ads?

Wladimir Palant: We made some bad experience when asking people to make a
decision, quite frequently people would ignore the question on the first-run
page for one reason or another and then wonder why Adblock Plus "isn't
working". In fact, that's the reason why the first-run page was reworked -
rather than asking, we now subscribe people to a filter list automatically and
allow them to revert the decision easily (simplifying Filter Preferences
dialog was an important requirement for that). It's the same with "acceptable
ads" - asking people to make a decision when it might be a wrong time, when
they don't know what we are asking about (I tried to keep the explanation page
short but it certainly isn't) etc. isn't going to work well. Instead we
focused on making opt-out as simple as possible at any time.

[https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8872&#...</a>

~~~
kahawe
> _We made some bad experience when asking people to make a decision, quite
> frequently people would ignore the question on the first-run page for one
> reason or another and then wonder why Adblock Plus "isn't working"_

...sooo, instead you default a feature that WILL make people go "it isn't
working!!!", really?

I am sorry, this is way too much polit-speak and shows that they have just
become too big, too popular. But this should change sooner or later now.

------
tikhonj
I use AdBlock on Chrome (which is fine, coincidentally). When it's installed,
you get one question: do you want Google's text-only ads. This is less broad
than what AdBlock Plus is suggesting, but it's of similar intent.

It works. I have no complaints at all. If I ever want to block those ads, I
can just check a checkbox.

If AdBlock Plus also offered a choice when installed (I don't know if it does
now), it would not be an issue at all. If they instead hide the option away, a
lot of nontechnical--and probably some technical--people will be confused
about why the behavior changed.

I think that the ultimate quality of the change depends on exactly how they
handle the UX behind.

As for the intent and general idea, I support it entirely. As others have
said, I do not hate all ads, just annoying, distracting, loud, obnoxious and
sometimes vulgar ads which some websites employ.

~~~
billybob
A footnote: AdBlock for Chrome is a completely different project created by
Michael Gundlach (who also created AdBlock for Safari). I happen to know that
he doesn't have any deal with advertisers; he just thinks that users should be
able to allow non-annoying ads to be shown.

------
ceol
From their FAQ on the subject:

 _> Starting with Adblock Plus 2.0 you can allow some of the advertising that
is considered not annoying. By doing this you support websites that rely on
advertising but choose to do it in a non-intrusive way. And you give these
websites an advantage over their competition which encourages other websites
to use non-intrusive advertising as well. In the long term the web will become
a better place for everybody, not only Adblock Plus users. Without this
feature we run the danger that increasing Adblock Plus usage will make small
websites unsustainable._

Part of me is extremely disappointed ABP made this change, but part of me
knows there's got to be some compromise between absolutely no ads and
annoying, intrusive ads. Not every website can offer a pay service. I'm happy
they're making this change with small website owners in mind, and I'm also
happy they're allowing users to turn off all ads by going in to settings.

~~~
Kaizyn
Why does there have to be a compromise? Please don't take this as some sort of
flame bait. Instead it is a serious question about why some advertising must
exist and be tolerated.

~~~
mootothemax
_Why does there have to be a compromise?_

Running a website costs money. Some people also want to make profit, but
that's beside the point. Micropayment solutions at present are sadly lacking -
especially for international audiences. Don't forget also that you and I are a
technical audience; I know at first my mother thought that websites got a
split of her ISP bill when she viewed their pages. So advertising bridges a
lot of these gaps.

 _Instead it is a serious question about why some advertising must exist and
be tolerated._

I don't believe anyone is saying that you _must_ tolerate advertising :-)

~~~
nupark2
So ... why not integrate a micropayment solution _into_ the adblocker
extensions. Bootstrapping problem solved!

------
gkoberger
On one hand, I applaud this. Ads aren't evil, and rewarding ads that play nice
would benefit everyone involved. And, it's just an option that can be
disabled.

All that being said, I see this ending badly for ABP. It won't be long until
someone creates a version that blocks all ads again by default.

~~~
SquareWheel
"It won't be long until someone creates a version that blocks all ads again by
default."

This version will still be able to block all ads. By does it matter if it's by
default?

~~~
ericd
Because the vast majority of people never stray from defaults, and will think
that it's just bad at doing it's job.

~~~
icebraining
Does that really apply to most ABP users?

~~~
ericd
Yeah, I would assume so. Its name certainly implies that it's meant to block
all ads. If something called AdBlock was letting through some % of ads, the
Occam's razor explanation is that it's just buggy/imperfect, since it's
actually a hard problem to get 100% coverage of anything.

------
Geee
How are those 'non-intrusive ads' selected? Is there a global white list,
which is maintained by the author?

Just recently I had this idea that there should be a independent organization
or work group which maintains this kind of white list, and websites would gain
a badge if their ads are non-intrusive and polite. There would also be an
agreed standard which all ads should comply to gain the badge.

This way it would be easy to implement in ad blockers, and it would be clear
to website visitors what kind of ads they would see. Being an independent
organization, the motivation should be just to make web a better place, not to
benefit a few specific companies.

~~~
bryanlarsen
From <https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads> :

* Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar)

* Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images

* At most one script that will delay page load (in particular, only a single DNS request)

------
mahmud
Rick Patnel, creator of AdBlock Plus died two years ago. I don't think he
would have approved this new development.

Just saying.

~~~
jeroen
According to wikipedia, Rick Petnel is the creator of EasyList and ABP was
created by Michael McDonald.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus>

------
burgerbrain
_"We have agreements with some websites and advertisers..."_

Uh huh..

~~~
supar
Cannot upvote this enough. I think that's actually the whole point. ABP was
always "impartial": all ads were blocked. Deciding which ads are blocked, and
which ones aren't is already a subjective decision. _BUT_ , knowing that you
can make _agreements_ with ABP folks to get your ads through is insane. Makes
all other arguments moot.

~~~
MartinCron
I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until the point where an
actually intrusive ad (according to their criteria) gets the green light based
on making a payment. Until then, it's just conjecture.

------
petercooper
As a publisher, I say bring it all on. The reducing effectiveness of display
advertising online has forced publishers to find different, and more
profitable, models. Some have gone the 'payola' route (tailoring content to
advertisers' whims - whether discree or not), and others, like me, have
started to produce products that can be directly promoted within our content.

Happily, these techniques are far more profitable, better tolerated by users,
and not affected by ad blockers at all :-) So block ads all you like - the
agile publishers will adjust and the ones relying on garish display ads will
go under.. which means more opportunities for the agile ones.

~~~
16s
The ads are distracting (period). That's why I use blockers or disable
javascript, but the latter breaks many sites these days.

Some tech sites (/.) have ads that show attractive women with large breasts
wearing tight t-shirts. The ad is printed on the t-shirt so I'm forced to
stare at her boobs to read the ad. That's distracting to me. I can't focus
when boobs are popping-up in ads.

So I want all ads disabled. Even pure words with no pictures can be
distracting while glancing at a page if it has the right words in it.

------
mbell
I'm sort of torn on this.

On one hand I do want to support sites that I like and I know that for many
this occurs through advertising.

On the other hand, I am honestly confused by what the web looks like with ads.
Its been so long since the very first thing I did on any new computer, vm, or
even non-technically inclined friend's machine wasn't to install ad block.

In many cases this wasn't really to not see the ads, but rather to make things
appear where I'm used to seeing them. While I probably wouldn't find the "non-
intrusive" ads themselves annoying. What I would find annoying is that the
removal of the ads in many cases changes the layout of the page. All of a
sudden what used to be the top right "module" maybe with recent posts or
something is now the middle right module with an ad above it. Or even worse,
some div that i'm used to seeing 'above the fold' now requires scrolling to
see. All of a sudden my intuition and learned behavior for the interface has
changed.

~~~
slewis
But your initial decision was to turn off ads, in opposition to your desire to
support sites you like, which led to your current notion of where things
should be on the page.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> But your initial decision was to turn off ads, in opposition to your desire
> to support sites you like, which led to your current notion of where things
> should be on the page.

Basic sanity determines where things should appear on the page. Ads, by
definition, try to draw your attention from useful content. If they provided
the content you wanted, we wouldn't call them ads.

~~~
memset
Allow me to offer a different take on this. I spend a lot of time looking for
companies who will fabricate printed circuit boards for my small business. So
much time, in fact, that I often see ads for circuit board companies.

And these are actually welcome! I click through, check their prices, and
sometimes in the course of doing so I find good deals on other related
products (business cards, shipping materials, etc.) How else would I know
where to find some of these things?

I'm not saying that all ads are good, but that I sometimes benefit from
companies advertising to me for services which I am actively looking to
purchase. Sometimes, when I don't hit an exact search query, ads are indeed
content I want!

~~~
JoshTriplett
Only by chance, though, not by design. The ads you see don't represent the
most relevant results; they represent the results provided by someone willing
to pay for an ad. Given the choice, I'd prefer to see faster-loading pages and
no extraneous paid listings rather than seeing a sea of ads in the hopes that
one of them might prove relevant. And thanks to Adblock Plus, I have that
choice.

Regarding companies who can do small-run circuit board fabrication, I highly
recommend Screaming Circuits: <http://www.screamingcircuits.com/> . They do
both fabrication and assembly. Also check out Sunstone:
<http://www.sunstone.com/>

------
huhtenberg
It should've been neither an opt-out nor an opt-in. Since it's a one-time
notification, it should've explained the rationale behind this feature and
asked for a decision. _That_ would mean treating users as intelligent adults.
Pre-selecting a good-deed option for them is annoying and insulting. I know
that I don't like a good Samaritan behavior stuffed down my throat, so I
would've gone and disabled this feature just as a matter of principle (even
though I agree it is reasonable).

~~~
Deestan
> Since it's a one-time notification, it should've explained the rationale
> behind this feature and asked for a decision. That would mean treating users
> as intelligent adults.

I disagree. This is the cowardly and helpless solution to the problem: When in
doubt, throw Yet Another Dialog or installation wizard page in the user's
face.

Programs should _confidently_ do Something Sensible by default, and instead
let the 25% who want something different be able to easily change it.

Less choices makes more happy:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less)

~~~
huhtenberg
Huh? _Cowardly_? Are you serious?

If I am installing Ad _Block_ , I quite naturally expect it - surprise! - to
block things. It is double more so if I am already running the AdBlock and
just going through an upgrade. So for all intents and purposes the Sensible
Thing to do is to opt users out by default from this new feature. This however
would provide zero traction to the feature as it needs an exposure. Now, do
tell me how the hell one would let discerning users know and opt-in without
throwing yet another dialog at them?

~~~
Deestan
You are yelling angrily. Stop that. It is annoying.

> Huh? Cowardly? Are you serious?

Yes, if the developer _knows_ at least 75% of the user base needs and wants A,
but still gives the choice between A and B, it is just because he is afraid of
dealing with the noisy minority afterwards.

> If I am installing Ad Block, I quite naturally expect it - surprise! - to
> block things.

And it does block things. Whether it blocks _all_ the things, blacklisted
things, non-whitelisted things or whatever is another discussion.

> It is double more so if I am already running the AdBlock and just going
> through an upgrade.

A completely valid concern. The behavior of an existing product should not
change during an upgrade.

> So for all intents and purposes the Sensible Thing to do is to opt users out
> by default from this new feature.

No, that would be an Insensible Thing, because 75% of users want _the other
thing_.

> Now, do tell me how the hell one would let discerning users know and opt-in
> without throwing yet another dialog at them?

There's nothing to opt-in to, because the partial block isn't a "feature".
It's now the core functionality of AdBlock.

The Hell A) The Block Everything feature could be available in happy colors in
the first page of the options.

The Hell B) The AdBlock plugin blurb could say "The entire purpose of AdBlock
is to block the "bad" ads [feasability of deciding badness is another
discussion]. If you want to block _all_ ads, consider installing
NameOfTheAdBlockFork instead."

------
theBobMcCormick
I think this is great! I've got no problem with reasonable and discrete ads,
particular if it helps support sites I use and like. I'd prefer not to have to
run an ad blocker at all, but frankly I've been forced into by the number of
obnoxious ads out there. My personal pet peeve are ads that play music, sound
or video. Damn it, I don't need the tab I loaded in the background to suddenly
start blaring some obnoxious ad pitch at me! :-(

------
gst
No reason for me to enable ads, as long as they have a huge impact on my
privacy. I don't intend to send a list of every single site I view to Google.

Make a sane ad system, where ads are proxied through the same webserver as the
remainder of the page, and I would have no problems with activating them.

~~~
gujk
If ads were proxies through he content site, the site would still send your ID
to Google to personalize the ad, but you would be unable to block it.

~~~
quotemstr
If ads were proxied through the site, the site would have no way of giving
Google the information that would allow them to tell you from Adam. The entire
purpose of externally-served advertising is cross-site tracking and
correlation.

------
dazbradbury
I suspect most people who install adblock plus, aren't the kind of people who
click on ads. So I suspect, even if (theoretically speaking) blocking ads was
made impossible, the net impact would be much smaller than imagined.

This will just impact those people who had it installed for them, and who
happen to update. I doubt that will be the saviour of many small sites - if
adblock plus was killing them in the first place that is.

~~~
ghani
I know Google Adsense pays out a bit for "impressions", just displaying their
ad on the page. I'm not sure how much revenue this really generates for very
small sites though.

~~~
X-Istence
Google Adsense doesn't pay at all for impressions ... at least I haven't ever
received money from them just for impressions.

~~~
nikcub
the standard adsense doesn't, but the publishing network does (with
doubleclick)

------
plinkplonk
So what is a good alternative to AdBlockPlus ? (that blocks everything and
doesn't play these "non intrusive ads" games EDIT:adding ' by default.' ).

EDIT 2:

I did read the article and I know it is an option but making viewing ads of
any kind opt _in_ vs opt _out_ is (imho) dubious. When the user installs an
extension called ad-BLOCK plus, explicitly to block adds, just block them by
default dammit and let any users who want to, opt _out_ selectively.

I also don't want a situation where a user has to opt out with every upgrade
and so on. Nutshell, I don't trust the devs anymore,who seem to be selling out
the users.

I don't know much about ad networks or javascript so on _Hacker_ News I am
asking for alternatives, from those who _are_ experts. Why the downvotes? wtf?

~~~
jaredsohn
If AdBlock Plus goes evil, another option might be AdBlock (not sure what they
block, but it is an alternative.)

And I think both extensions are open source so somebody could just fork it.

------
SoftwareMaven
The problem I have with this is not the display of some ads; it is the
tracking that advertising networks perform. I would love to support some
smaller sites, but not at the expense of my privacy.

~~~
GertG
In that case, maybe ghostery.com is more suitable for you.

------
budley
For all the people complaining: this will encourage websites to use less
annoying ads.

------
cousin_it
I cannot tell from the announcement whether ABP is now getting paid to allow
some ads, but if it is, that looks like a textbook conflict of interest.
Wikipedia has a list of ways to mitigate such conflicts:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest#Ways_to_mi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest#Ways_to_mitigate_conflicts_of_interests)
, maybe adopting some suggestions from there would help?

Also I'm a little confused by the talk of "making small websites
unsustainable". Do ads really make small websites sustainable, or is the
mention of "small websites" just an applause light?

~~~
corin_
It depends how you define "small".

My company runs a few content sites that are primarily monetised through
advertising. They're not small as in "some guy updating them in his free
time", but they're small as in a few paid members of the editorial team, a few
million pages a month. For us, yes, advertising is the difference between us
being a profitable company and us not being a company at all.

That said, a.) we are doing OK before this adblock change and b.) our adverts
don't fit what are being defined as "acceptable" here. We do make sure we
never get too obtrusive, we don't do automatic playing videos, we don't do
roadblocks, we don't do anything with sound, we don't do anything that covers
content or expands when you mouseover... but some of the banners we serve are
flash with basic animations. We, and the majority of our users, are happy that
this is a good way to advertise without letting it become an annoyance, but we
wouldn't make it onto ABP's whitelist.

~~~
cynwoody
I don't run AdBlock Plus, but I do use FlashBlock, mainly to cut down on fan
noise.

I also have a few entries in my /etc/hosts ...

    
    
        127.0.0.1	googleads.g.doubleclick.net
        127.0.0.1	ak.p.openx.net
        127.0.0.1	tags.expo9.exponential.com
        127.0.0.1	resources.infolinks.com
        127.0.0.1	resources.intextscript.com
        127.0.0.1	kona.kontera.com
    

Google ads was simply responding too slowly. Too many pages were not rendering
correctly or at all, pending a response from them. That's probably the fault
of web authors not embedding the Google ads correctly. But not to worry. Now I
just see error IFrames.

As for the others, the damned double-underscore spam links were getting to be
just too annoying while reading text — especially the ones that would react to
mouseovers.

------
CGamesPlay
Personally, I've always used AdBlock not because I hated ads, but because I
hated distracting ads. In fact, I remember when I first installed AdBlock
being sad that text ads might get blocked as well. I especially want to
support those website owners who wish to have ads but are respectful to their
readers by not making them distracting ads.

Regardless of if money is changing hands as a result of any agreement, I think
this is a great move that will be able to positively affect the web
advertising landscape.

------
nitrogen
Is there any risk of a bidding or lobbying war between advertising firms
trying to coerce the list maintainers into marking their ads as "non-
intrusive?"

------
kmfrk
Sounds like a great idea. I'd love to allow ads like The Deck and Fusion ads,
but my Ad Muncher (on Windows) practices a scorched earth policy where
everything is hidden. If I had my own site, I would probably not even be able
to see them.

This sounds perfect, and it's more in line with a cogent policy of rewarding
good ads and punishing bad ones.

------
hhastings
All I can think is... whatever happened to the good 'ole days of top quality
advertising? There was a time, I'll admit - before I was born, that the
population was excited for the next Coca-Cola ad. It was artistic and unique.
It was something to look forward to. What happened to those days, and how can
we get them back?

~~~
bobds
In the age of the internet, you have to grab the viewer's attention in mere
seconds. A lot of marketers don't know how to do that without being annoying.

------
bryanlarsen
Good work & excellent timing. I've been relying on Flashblock to disable the
most intrusive ads, but Apple's success in killing off Flash has meant that
non-Flash ads are getting more intrusive. I will be installing ASAP.

------
Joakal
The current non-intrusive ad list so far: [https://easylist-
downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...](https://easylist-
downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt)

I wonder how to get on that list.

~~~
fl3tch
It looks like all German web sites, except for the last one.

! Text-based search ads on suche.netzwelt.de ! Static image ads on t3n.de !
Text ads with small static images on focus.de ! Text ads on Sedo parking
domains

In other words, they're not whitelisting Google or any other major web sites,
so the vast majority of people won't notice, even with the white list turned
on.

------
dmauro
Wow, lots of doom and gloom on here. As someone who doesn't use AdBlock Plus
(not particularly to support websites, but that does factor in) I think this
is move should be applauded. They continue to serve their customers with the
same product they always have (an adblock list manager) and might be able to
pull in some money from it as well.

The obtrusiveness of the ads they let through will directly affect the number
of users they have, so their interests are still aligned with their users. But
they are simply more aligned with the 75% who don't blanket oppose all ads.

------
DiabloD3
Honestly, I'm not sure what the big deal is. Ads that do not distract from the
content I would not mind being displayed.

Notice, however, "display" does not equate to "I'm actually looking at it,
reading it, and then clicking on it", my mind's own ad blocker will happily
ignore it.

I am not someone who believes in website ads as no one seems to have gotten
rich advertising their product with website ads; I am not opposed to putting
them on my own website, of course, advertisers are welcome to pay me, I just
don't see the point in becoming one.

------
huhtenberg
The list of exception filters in question -

[https://easylist-
downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...](https://easylist-
downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt)

------
therandomguy
Someone got a call from Google :)

On a serious note, this is a great move. I will finally install the plugin
because I do believe advertising, if done right, keeps the internet free (as
in beer).

------
antirez
Very good move, this way it is a deterrent for sites that use "bad"
advertising, and not an economical problem for sites using ADs reasonably.

------
LeafStorm
I mostly block ads due to speed, usability, and privacy concerns, and if this
results in advertisers delivering nicer ads that aren't privacy risks, then I
am perfectly OK with that. I think a lot of people agree, and mostly block
_all_ ads because it's not yet technically feasible to block only the worst.
This should change that.

~~~
rjd
Also don't forget security concerns. Ads are a common attack vector when new
exploits surface.

------
jasonkostempski
I'd also like to be able put any ad that doubles+ the load time of a page in a
penalty box for a day.

~~~
hullo
if they're doing what they're saying they're doing (only one DNS request
allowed) your concerns will be met by this product. most modern display ads
use many, many more than that.

------
HaloZero
Unfortunately it's still not available on Chrome (at least the beta install
for it didn't have it?).

I think this is a good step in the right direction though I'm not sure
entirely if its a great idea to have the developers decide, maybe a wiki-style
process?

------
saulrh
I already exempt some small sites that I want to support, mostly webcomics.
Looking at their current list of exemptions, this change won't make me see any
more ads than I already do. I have no real problem with it.

------
jronkone
All I can see is confusion about what is deemed "non-intrusive" and by whom.

------
lkozma
This is unfortunate. It is not the obtrusive ads I find most annoying, those I
can filter out mentally with no difficulty. It is the non-obtrusive ads that
masquerade as content that I dislike.

------
sirn
This sounds like a good change to me.

As someone who never run Adblock for the past two years, I can't see how is
this a big deal. IMHO, if what you want is a distraction-free reading,
Readability/Reader is the answer. Maybe it's because the kind of sites I often
visits, but situation on ads has improved a lot in the past few years.

I've clicked a lot of ads in the past year, some even led me to actually
purchase something. Recent ones I can recalled from memory are Parallels
Desktop $20 off deal (bought second license for my notebook), GraphicRiver's
bundle pack (which led me to know the site and bought a ton more stuff from
GR) and few books via Amazon affiliate links.

Apart from privacy concern, I can't see why someone always think ads are evil.

------
vaksel
anyone who is using AdBlock, will be changing that option right away...and
since this is obviously a money grab, you can bet that option gets turned on
every time they release a new update

~~~
billybob
"you can bet that option gets turned on every time they release a new update"

That's a rather unfair assumption.

~~~
vaksel
All you have to do is look at Facebook and privacy settings.

And here there'll actually be extra revenue at stake, so there is more
incentive

~~~
billybob
You're ascribing Facebook's tendencies to someone else. Why?

------
LocalPCGuy
I like this. I've been toying with the idea of turning it off so that my
favorite websites can get a bit of revenue from it, but I like this option
even better.

------
motters
Who decides which adverts are "considered not annoying" ?

------
eftpotrm
Just another data point that's quite happy with this. I only installed an ad
blocker after years of happily accepting the advertising because a few sites I
didn't want to stop using started running ads that were actively annoying and
/ or offensive. Most sites aren't a problem though and I'd happily enough see
their ads, and a refinement to permit this more easily would be good for me.

------
cjfont
So much crying and boo-hooing over having to change a config setting? Can we
imagine for a minute what the Internet would be like if _everyone_ used an ad-
blocker?

~~~
moheeb
It would be freaking awesome!?

First of all we don't have to imagine that scenario. Going back to the
beginning of the internet there weren't really any ads to speak of. Secondly,
using the Internet Wayback Machine we can actually see what that internet
looked like back then. And because the Wayback Machine doesn't save most
images, you can get an even better feel for what the internet would look like
if everyone used an ad blocker.

~~~
cjfont
So where would the websites whose business depends entirely on ads get their
revenue from? It's not like companies are blindly going to pay them to host
ads which they know no one is going to look at. Perhaps you would prefer to
pay an Internet fee? Of course an Internet with no ads seems great, but it's
not something that would be sustainable, at least not the Internet we know
today.

There are some sites which I feel are worth paying for, and others
(particularly news sites), that which I don't yet I'm still willing to wade
through the non-obtrusive ads in exchange for keeping it free.

~~~
moheeb
If you're asking me that question I have to say that for the most part I don't
care about the ads one way or the other. In the second paragraph I pointed out
that we don't have to imagine your scenario because there was a time with no
ads in the past and we have a method to see that history.

 _Perhaps you would prefer to pay an Internet fee?_

I feel dumb for needing to point this out to you but...I already pay an
internet fee. Everyone I know pays a fee to access the internet.

Maybe your Corporate Overlord Internet Dream can't be sustained without ads
but I know my internet can. I connected for years to BBS's that were free and
maintained by volunteers. To believe that the internet can't function without
ads is shortsighted.

------
hendrix
Hah, looks like they got bribed by google to start running ads. Never mind
that ABP breaks google's business model David and Goliath style. FF should add
ABP or similar as default and destroy 20% of google's ad-revenue, that would
be the day. (just in case you forgot the 2038 cookie thing & all of googles
other privacy abuses.)

~~~
thematt
Why would FF do that? They get funded by Google.

~~~
jrockway
To be fair, it would ruin the business model of Google's competition too.

------
mkramlich
Somewhere somebody is updating a product/marketing guide to add an example of
how something can be mind-bogglingly counter-intuitively named. A poster boy
for how to do it wrong.

------
ColdAsIce
Where is AdBlockPlus2? The fork?

------
zobzu
While the title is as usual, crap and misleading: \- i think adblock makes the
hard, but right decision \- ill switch it off

And finally, I do think ads are evil because done wrongly - spammed. (Even
thus the decision is right, because I also accept that our society works like
that and DNT needs to be respected.)

I do not recall ANY ads that brought true value on the Net to my purchasing
needs.

They're bad.

Examplification: I browse review for the latest phone. It looks cool. If ads
aren't blocked, I get hundred of "buy this phone here and there" "get cables
for the phone" yada yada and some random totally unrelated ads.

I don't care for any of those. Why? Because If I wanna buy the phone,
accessories, or related stuff I'm not just going to click on the first link
and click buy. That's dumb.

I'm going to go to a price checker online, and decide which one has the best
price/shipping/quality/rating/etc ratio!

So instead, if the ads would link me to that, and refer the review site if I
do buy, I'd be much happier.

Of course I realize this cannot be because, the comparison site would be
corrupted eventually, as we're talking big amount of moneys here.

My 2cts as usual. ;-)

