
AdBlock Plus wins in court - helly
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32903235
======
leejoramo
To the pro-advertisers reading this, I feel your pain. I have long standing
clients who depend on ad revenue, such as print publications that early on
successfully transition to the web, who are now really struggling.

However, I aggressively use ad blockers. Here is why:

* the majority of the ads I see on the Internet are of the sort that I use to find in the back of magazines. Crap I would never read is now force feed to me front and center

* nearly every single web page is OVERLOADED with ads. Take a look at a print copy of the New Yorker, Sports Illustrated, etc. Feature articles often have few or even NO ads. In fact, feature articles often start with two pages of JUST content.

* the way the ads work often kills my battery life. NOT COOL. You have no right to kill my battery life.

* You track us with no way to really opt out with out using ad blockers.

* You use the tracking info to target people. Including targeting children and at-risk (mentally impaired) adults. It is very different to have a scam artist with a small ad in the back of a magazine, compared to a phishing web ad that is trying to take advantage of an elderly grandma whose bank account is a click away.

* you burn my bandwidth. this is bad on WiFi, evil on cell data. You have no right to rack up cellular charges on my behalf.

* I don't trust the Kirby vacuum sales person in my home, I don't trust your javascript laden ads on my computer.

While I blanket block ads on the Internet, I do allow ads on sites that only
use simple graphics and text for ads. And who demonstrate that they respect me
as a reader and potential client.

edit: clarified I was referring to the "print" editions of the New Yorker & SI

~~~
irl_zebra
The worst for me is when I open something on my phone and start reading and a
huge ad appears and takes up my whole screen telling me to put in my email to
subscribe to the website. Then I have to scroll around to find the little X to
close it. It's maddening.

Only slightly less worse is the same thing happening on my laptop after I have
had a few seconds to start reading the first paragraph, then the whole page
dims and a full-page ad appears.

Adblock gets rid of this stuff and it's why I use it and will continue to do
so in the future, but I do leave the whitelist on for unobtrusive advertising.

I just wish AdBlocker could get rid of that awful Forbes "Thought of the Day"
page that always opens. Unfortunately the best it can do it get rid of the ad
on that page, but still annoying.

~~~
snsr
Any page that pops a modal or interstitial on landing is an instant-close for
me.

------
d_theorist
Good. Although I prefer Ghostery.

The main thing for me isn't even blocking ads as such. The main thing is
blocking the absurd amount of crappy javascript that clogs up my browser, in
which I have no interest.

I find the unfiltered web insufferable these days.

~~~
uxp
I used to love Ghostery, until I learned that their business model is to
resell your browsing habits and profile back to advertisers.

If you want a suggestion for an alternative, I really don't have one. I'm
currently using µBlock, which isn't bad, but requires a bit more setup than
Ghostery.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock)

~~~
aroch
>until I learned that their business model is to resell your browsing habits
and profile back to advertisers.

...If you voluntarily opt into that program (Ghostrank), after reading the
straight-forward description.

I don't understand why people find their business model so abhorrent when its
entirely opt-in and they don't weasel around what ghostrank does. Surely you
must find every service on the internet that you use for free, particularly
Google, to be horrible as well?

~~~
d_theorist
Yes. I have no problem with their model. They are completely open about it and
it does me no harm. Ghostery does exactly what I need.

------
eli
I don't read German, but I believe the main complaint in the case was AdBlock
Plus charging money as part of its ad "whitelisting" service. ABP said it was
to cover the cost of verifying the ads are safe and responsible. Publishers
called it extortion (e.g. pay us this money if you want your ad impressions
back).

~~~
profinger
IMO, if I downloaded something that is supposed to block the ads, I don't want
the damn ads. I've not used ABP in a while but I'd be pretty pissed if it
started loading ads again just because the people had paid for it. They had to
figure out some way to make money, though, I guess.

~~~
irl_zebra
You can uncheck the "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" line on AdBlock. I
don't mind some ads as I know people need to make money and I'll click if it's
compelling. Just hate the large gif ads.

------
deepnet
I read a lot on a screen.

This is tiring.

 _Adverts make it impossible to read the web_ \- they are designed to catch
the eye - even when still they are eye catching.

 __To concentrate on text near an advert takes extra mental resources and I
tire very much quicker. __

Not to mention loading hangs as pages wait for badly overloaded ad-servers
before they show the page.

So I am getting exhausted so websites can get $0.003 - this model is a lame
duck.

 __My attention is worth a lot more than $0.003 __so figure out a better way
because I cannot afford look at that dross.

Text Ads in a similar font - that attract my interest because they are
relevant - no problem - your site is unblocked.

Subtly Sponsor content I want then I will look favorably on your brand.

------
baldfat
Personally I don't use Ad Blockers just due to the fact my own personal ethics
feels I am stealing when I do use it.

When I am teaching I have ad blocker installed because I don't want to get in
trouble for what advertisement will be shown, especially YouTube.

AdBlock Plus and their paid white list is the worst and I don't know why
people use them.

~~~
sparaker
I don't use AdBlock Plus but i do use AdBlock. I think its my decision to
choose which ads i watch and which i don't. It's not stealing, Webmasters can
detect if someone is using AdBlock or not.

~~~
Kiro
> It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not.

So what's your view on sites blocking people with AdBlock?

~~~
nathanlied
Perfectly acceptable. I believe it's within everyone's right to filter what
hits their browser (and what their browser gets in the first place) as much as
it is the website's right to serve whomever they want.

They should attempt to use technical means, though, as it's unlikely that a
simple 'Do you use adblock?' prompt is going to work very well.

~~~
a3n
As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I whitelisted Reddit when they noticed my
ad blocker and they politely asked me to think about it. It can be done. One
solution among probably many.

------
erikb
TIL: Firefox has configurable tracking protection!
[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-
fir...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-firefox)

~~~
mahouse
I enabled it and I still see social buttons. :(

~~~
discreditable
It's fairly spartan compared to other anti-tracking services. I haven't been
able to find a policy regarding what is included in the list.

------
aikah
Adblockers are not that popular yet, but each time I show adblock and co to
someone, that persons just doesn't go back and recommends adblock and co to
his family,friends and coworkers. The rise of adblocking solutions WILL be
exponential, the heck now some businesses make all their browsers block ads..
It's today that advertisers or sites relying on ad revenue need to find
solutions.

One could bare people using adblockers from seeing content("free" pornsites
are starting doing that). but then it will just be an escalation in
technology. Adblockers will become smarter and ultimately defeat detection
techniques.

One can appeal to user's "conscience" by displaying a message stating one
relies on ad revenue. I think it's a good compromise if one promises that his
ads are discrete like simple pictures or text.

Frankly, years of ad abuse, loud auto-play video ads and flash ads that take
over the whole window have made users weary of online advertising.

~~~
discreditable
>heck now some businesses make all their browsers block ads

As one such business (a school) which blocks ads on company computers, I can
say it has drastically reduced our malware-related incidents from
teachers/staff. My gut feeling is that search result ads and false download
buttons were the source of many of our infections. Users do not think before
they click, and it seems like most of them that expect to be able to find
useful software behind an advertisement often pay a price.

------
jpmattia
Maybe OT, but does anyone have decent estimates for what percentage of users
are blocking ads? Would also be interesting to know percentage vs browser.

------
Fastidious
Interestingly enough, AdBlock (different from the one the article refers to)
blocks 7 ads on that page.

~~~
jsingleton
The BBC is weird. In the UK (bbc.co.uk) there are no ads as it's paid for by
the license fee but abroad (bbc.com) there are ads as it's a different
(commercial) entity.

~~~
Robadob
It's also worth noting that, you can't view BBC worldwide content from within
the UK either due to regional restrictions. I've heard this is due to the BBC
policy forbidding them showing adverts to UK users, yet it's content regularly
not freely accessible (without adverts) to UK users either, as its a separate
entity.

There's been several occasions that BBC worldwide has had articles that I've
been unable to read, or find on the standard BBC news website.

------
honest_joe
This is sad day for content creators. If the site is full of ads you are not
comfortable to view do NOT VISIT such sites again. It's stealing, it's
manipulating the statistics.

We can't get good content because corporations taught people to not pay for
content and now we will not get good content because people will slice the
income of those who use ads.

~~~
struppi
Do you switch channels on your TV when the commercials start and switch back
when the show resumes? Blocking online ads is basically the same. i.e.
perfectly legitimate.

Only you hurt the creator more online, since the advertisers can now measure
the views+clicks. Which is also perfectly fair - They should not have to pay
for ads nobody sees. This would also be fair on TV - But there it's impossible
to measure.

~~~
honest_joe
First of all I do not watch TV. I assume that's why netflix is so popular.
Please pardon me i am not sure if it has an ads in it or not but i assumed
since it's a content on demand it does not.

Also simply blocking something because you can but you should not is cheating.

~~~
lagadu
Cheating? How is it that controlling what my software, running in my hardware,
running on my power does or does not do is cheating? Should I not have control
over what's mine?

If a website finds that their business model became unsuited for modern times,
it's their responsibility to change it, not mine.

