
Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee - shoniko
https://acceptableads.com/en/blog/independent-committee
======
user5994461
1) Left the acceptable ads enabled, didn't care.

2) Made a google search for "<popular software>" on my mother's computer.

3) All the first results were sponsored links from sites distributing a copy
of the real software, but ridden with adware, or worse.

4) Disabled all ads without mercy.

*) Switched to uBlock Origin later.

\-----

5 years later...

6) Become sysadmin of a global company with more than 10 000 computers.

7) Distribute Chrome and Firefox to all of them with ad blocking software pre-
installed.

~~~
LeoPanthera
> with ad blocking software pre-installed

Which?

------
SEJeff
And if you don't want acceptable ads, use uBlock Origin:

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-
origin...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/)

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-
origin/cjpa...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-
origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en)

[https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock)

~~~
ethana
How long until the ABP guys stop their generosity and either 1) incorporate
its acceptable ads into EasyList (which they maintain) or 2) block every other
ad-blocker from leeching off their lists. I predict former. There are already
tons of white-listed rules in EasyList.

Until other ad blockers actually start to maintain their separate list, I
don't see a reason to stop using ABP. Ghostery is the only extension that
doesn't use EasyList as far as I know. But they too have their own telemetry
tracking.

~~~
gorhill
> How long until the ABP guys stop their generosity

EasyList is not owned neither maintained by Adblock Plus.[1]

Adblock Plus ("ABP"), like other blockers benefits from the work put into
EasyList by volunteers.

[1]
[https://easylist.to/pages/about.html](https://easylist.to/pages/about.html)

------
danbruc
I just read the criteria for acceptable ads the first time. Not that I really
expected otherwise, but all the criteria are just about non-intrusiveness and
recognizability, tracking is not mentioned once on the entire site. At least
for me blinking text is not the primary concern, it is being tracked on every
click I make. So in my opinion acceptable ads is not even roughly heading in
the right direction.

~~~
sgdread
Context is the king.

Ads acceptable only when their subject matches context of browsing and the
user intent. And works only when done in non-interruptible manner. If you
break context and/or flow, people get uncomfortable, frustrated, angry. Angry
people will install ad-blockers.

Some examples:

\- if you search for a solution on how to fix a fridge, then fridge ads are
acceptable. Google does exactly that in their search.

\- if you're on sports stats tracking site, then athletic gear, food, etc are
acceptable

\- if I search stackoverflow for specific problem with my code - NO ads
please, I'm not in a mood to buy something.

\- in movies: John Wick is using TTI Glock 17 - having TTI ad near is
perfectly fine (people will crave to know what's those cool things he's
using). I.e. product placement is the way to go. What's happening on TV?
You're watching Keanu shredding through the movie, then it suddenly stops and
Chevy ad coming in. WTF?!111

~~~
danbruc
As long as the context is what you are watching or searching right here and
right now, that seems acceptable. If the context includes what I did a few
minutes ago on another site, that is in my opinion no longer acceptable. And
personally I would not mind if the entire advertising industry just went out
of business, I think ads are simply a bad idea.

------
manigandham
We're one of the companies on the committee.

Lots of strong emotions here, as usual with anything ad related on HN. The
fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for
free.

Yes, it's not ideal and the online implementation is poorly done most of the
time. It's because of perverse incentives and a lack of regulation in the
entire industry that force bad formats, fraudsters, malware, and the pursuit
of data and volume to win over quality and user experience.

As much as I don't care for the ABP approach, it's something that can be used
to actually make progress and that's what this is, progress. It's finally some
outside pressure on the industry to change from the segment of the advertising
mechanism that matters most - the people themselves.

~~~
mlmlmasd
> The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you
> consume for free.

I've never had free internet... which ISP do you use?

> It's because of perverse incentives and a lack of regulation in the entire
> industry that force bad formats, fraudsters, malware, and the pursuit of
> data and volume to win over quality and user experience.

The whole point of advertising is to trick people into buying shit they don't
need.

> As much as I don't care for the ABP approach, it's something that can be
> used to actually make progress and that's what this is, progress.

This is a step backwards, not progress.

> It's finally some outside pressure on the industry to change from the
> segment of the advertising mechanism that matters most - the people
> themselves.

Bullshit. This is a way of lifting the pressure on the industry, and this
initiative is mostly supported by players in the industry. Not the people.

~~~
click170
I don't agree that this is a step backwards, but I certainly do agree that
this is not a step forward.

Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising,
until we see that there is no progress and this is all talk.

I do enjoy that both sides are trying to improve the situation, but I still
feel like the ad industry has yet to acknowledge that _they are the root cause
of the problem_.

We almost need an advertising "intervention"... If the creation and rapid
adoption of adblocking software isn't the embodiment of that though, I don't
know what is.

~~~
manigandham
> Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising

That's exactly the point. Advertising is necessary, but showing that we _all_
agree to a better implementation of it will let us move forward rather than
making things worse.

The people in the industry know the reason, but again it's about incentives
and lack of oversight. Far easier to just look the other way and make a few
dollars than try to go against the grain.

~~~
mlmlmasd
> Advertising is necessary

No it's not.

------
makecheck
Well, the definition to me is quite simple: “a non-animating image or line of
text that occupies no more than 2% of available space, served directly by the
displayed web site domain”.

Also, it’s definitely not just advertisers these days that make me go straight
for the uBlock Origin settings panel. I’d say on 50% of browsed articles,
_some_ obnoxious component halfway down the page auto-plays a VIDEO with
SOUND. This isn’t advertising, this is just some web site’s utterly misguided
thinking in what a person might want when visiting a _written_ article
_online_ over a limited data channel! And yet, “ad”-blocking tools work just
as well: select obnoxious element, turn it off. (And you can sort of tell they
expect you to do this now, because some of these video players are buried in
about 6 layers of HTML components that appear to have no real value other than
to make it harder to find the element that _actually_ makes the video go
away.)

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _some of these video players are buried in about 6 layers of HTML components
> that appear to have no real value other than to make it harder to find the
> element that actually makes the video go away._

My impression is that this is just an unintended effect of the proliferation
of JavaScript frameworks and the evolving web "best practices". Makes it no
less annoying, though.

------
valine
I'm okay with this. It's not like Adblock Plus is the only option or even the
best option for ad blocking right now. I switched to uBlock Origin and never
looked back.

------
jasonkostempski
There are really 3 separate things lumped into the word "ads". Advertisements
(obvious); annoying UI/audio/video (modal dialogs, video, etc); and 3rd-party
tracking.

Advertisements in general I accept and I don't have any desire to prevent
people or companies from including it in their own content, although, if
included, I'll likely view the content as less reputable and the creator as
having less integrity. Some people flat-out hate all ads and that's why they
have an ad blocker. Their acceptable ad list would have 0 entries.

Tracking is a non-starter for me, advertising is possible without tracking but
it's not generally done that way, it works for TV and radio. Most "ad"
networks don't actually give a hoot about advertising, they care about
tracking and tricking companies into footing the bill for collecting the data.
I use my ad blocker as a tracking blocker, I wouldn't have bothered to install
it if tracking weren't possible. I have no qualms about preventing someone
from collecting information about me. I'd want anything ads that come from a
third-party to be off the acceptable ad list (effectively an empty list).

Annoying UI I can tolerate to a point. Most of this is blocked by my "ad"
blocker so I only see how bad it really is out there in the wild when I forget
to install it. Assuming the ad blocker didn't do that, if things get too
annoying I'd leave the site, if I find myself returning to the site and
getting annoyed often, I'll filter out links to the site wherever I can. There
are handful of really annoying sites that come up often enough that I've made
a browser plug-in for myself to do link filtering on. Right now most of the
sites on the list have a pay-wall or "ad" block blocker and keep playing the
cat & mouse game and winning (good for them, they must imagine Sisyphus
happy).

This is how I wish "ad blocking" worked: Community driven list of "bad
players", bad being any tracking, dark patterns, or very annoying UI; links to
bad players get removed from all pages, I never want to see them or their
click-baity titles ever again; white-list for site you want to let track,
trick and annoy you; grey-list for sites you want to see but still block in
the traditional way. This would also provide feedback to bad players, giving
them a chance to change their ways and new players would fear getting added.

~~~
manigandham
> Most "ad" networks don't actually give a hoot about advertising, they care
> about tracking and tricking companies into footing the bill for collecting
> the data.

Where did you get this info from? Ad networks care very much about the ads.

------
COMPUTERLOSER
No ads are acceptable if I choose to have an ad-blocker installed.

~~~
nilved
Not sure why you got downvoted. I will not accept any ads.

~~~
manigandham
Do you expect content producers to get paid?

~~~
joelthelion
Not through ads displayed in my browser. There are other ways to get paid,
though.

~~~
manigandham
So content displayed through browser should be behind a paywall then? What if
the solution is ads blocked for a fee?

------
maxaf
I'm opposed to all advertising and marketing on ethical grounds. In my book
human attention isn't for sale, and all attempts to sell my attention will be
dealt with by technical means with extreme prejudice. It's true that content
producers need to get paid; it's not true that human attention is an
acceptable currency for which this payment must be exchanged.

Find some other way. Show some fucking adaptability.

~~~
accountface
The current concept of advertising has been around for more than 200 years
now... I think the "all ads have to go away forever" approach is doomed to
fail.

~~~
openasocket
Depending on your definition, advertising has been around for millennia. Hell,
there are billboard advertisements in Pompeii.

[https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sept10/2010/11/29/the-
evolution-...](https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sept10/2010/11/29/the-evolution-of-
advertising-from-papyrus-to-youtube/)

------
JadeNB
Based on just a skim of the story: I'm sure that people will complain about
this, and I'm sure that there genuinely is much to complain about—advertising
is, almost by its nature I think, an adversarial business—but:

Ever since ABP announced the Acceptable Ads program, the biggest complaint
lodged against them has been that it's within their control, and so in their
interest not to enforce policies strictly in their users' interest. (See
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Adblock%20Plus%20Acceptable%20...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Adblock%20Plus%20Acceptable%20Ads&type=comment)
.) I am certain that this latest step is not perfect, but it _is_ a step
forward, and a sign of at least apparent willingness to listen to the
community, and I am glad to see it.

~~~
r00fus
I find the entire idea of "Acceptable Ads" to be the antithesis for an ad
blocker. Ads are an infection vector and privacy leak.

It's like concept of "acceptable groping" from an HR department. Completely at
odds with their stated intent and standard ethics.

Sorry, I'm now using uBlock Origin and/or Safari content blockers. I'll go
with those organizations who don't have any interest/stake in permitting ads.

If I am going to pay for content, I'll do so. If that's not kosher with the
content producer, I'll simply abstain.

~~~
JadeNB
> Ads are an infection vector and privacy leak.

Both of these are undeniably true about _specific_ ads, but surely not the
genre of advertising in general? I think that magazine ads, for example, are
neither infection vectors nor privacy leaks. To the extent that these can be
audited, surely preventing malware distribution and respecting my privacy are
part of what _should_ be included in the definition of 'acceptable'. (If they
are not included, then I would argue that that is a failure of a specific
implementation of "acceptable ads", not of the notion of acceptability
itself.)

> It's like concept of "acceptable groping" from an HR department. Completely
> at odds with their stated intent and standard ethics.

While that is a potent analogy, I would argue that there's a difference: most
of us agree that there is no level of groping that's acceptable; whereas I
_think_ that, even among those of us who would _like_ a web with no ads, the
position that there is _no_ level of advertising that's acceptable is extreme.

> Sorry, I'm now using uBlock Origin and/or Safari content blockers. I'll go
> with those organizations who don't have any interest/stake in permitting
> ads.

I agree, and don't mean to argue against those options. For what it's worth, I
also use µBlock; I left ABP over what I perceived as conflicts of interest,
and I am not interested in going back. Nonetheless, since some people _do_ use
it, surely this divestiture from a conflict of interest is a good thing, even
if it's not perfect.

~~~
rootlocus
> Both of these are undeniably true about specific ads, but surely not the
> genre of advertising in general? I think that magazine ads, for example, are
> neither infection vectors nor privacy leaks.

We're obviously not talking about magazine ads, and an infection vector
doesn't necessarily carry an infection (just like not all flies carry
disease).

> I _think_ that, even among those of us who would like a web with no ads, the
> position that there is no level of advertising that's acceptable is extreme.

There are some people who block all javascript. That's far beyond "no level of
advertising".

> Nonetheless, since some people do use it, surely this divestiture from a
> conflict of interest is a good thing, even if it's not perfect.

ABP has always sought revenue. Every time I installed it back in the day, a
web page with the author and his significant other would pop up saying
something like "I want to marry my fiance, please give us money!". Later ABP
turned into a bait and switch. They gathered a lot of people who thought were
protecting themselves, reducing load times and cleaning up the web, and then
they violated their user's trust by making them targets for the highest
bidder. I find that infuriating and disgusting.

------
anilshanbhag
I am surprised Google does not have a seat at the table.

~~~
JTon
Maybe to Google attending such an event legitimizes the use of ad-blocking
tech. As far as I've seen, Google has either ignored it or been hostile
towards it.

~~~
iLoch
They already do that with Google Contributor.

~~~
s3r3nity
Which has already been sunsetted... for a "new and better" one that hasn't
launched yet, so I'm bearish.

[https://contributor.google.com/v/signupdisabled](https://contributor.google.com/v/signupdisabled)

------
belovedeagle
Raise your hand if you're surprised that the only unfilled seats are the ones
who will be in favor of fewer ads. I wonder how many meetings have been held
already to discuss strategy, in their absence. I also wonder whether it will
matter, with 7 seats for ad agencies (4+3; I'm not fooled by this "expert"
bullshit for one second), and 3 for anti-ad advocates, plus some rando.

~~~
tgsovlerkhgsel
The good thing is that everyone, including the ad agencies, has a motivation
to not allow shitty ads. The acceptable ads program only affects people who
have already demonstrated tech-savvyness (either directly or by having a
relative helping with it) and unwillingness to tolerate bad ads by installing
an adblocker in the first place.

They know that if the ads get too annoying, people will block them completely,
and they've seen how much it sucks when that happens.

Hence, if they're smart, they'll try to be decent about the criteria (and
might find a way to get rid of the taboola/outbrain clickbait that makes
people disable acceptable ads, but is tolerated by ABP because it pays). If
not, that's OK too - acceptable ads will die, and their ads will be blocked
completely.

------
CodeWriter23
AdBlock. The software that unblocked ads. Orwell intended 1984 to be a
cautionary tale, not an instruction manual.

------
mlmlmasd
Fuck off ABP. Use uBlock Origin.

