
AdBlock Plus defeats German publishers in court - halfimmortal
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32409952
======
kbart
Advertisers got what they deserved -- annoying pop up windows, animated ads
with sound, floating ads, also user tracking created a market for ads blocker.
I don't mind non intrusive banner ads and enable them on sites I visit
frequently. Make ads user friendly and the problem will be gone (except,
maybe, some geeks who will still use ad blockers, but that's minority anyway).
Trying to solve problems via courts and not addressing the root cause will not
help much.

~~~
austenallred
Is there ad blocker that only blocks the annoying ads, not the ones that we
deem "OK?" Or do we just use the actions of the few to punish all ad-supported
platforms?

I mean I get it, ads are yucky, privacy concerns, etc. But as someone who has
used ad revenue as _the only means_ to pay for content a lot of people loved,
if too many people decide ads are too taxing for them to view, the content can
no longer be supported.

I fear that as adblocker becomes more standard (I'm not sure it's _only_ geeks
using it; I have plenty of friends who aren't "geeks" who do), ad-supported
companies will start to not allow you to see content if you have an adblocker
on (like ESPN) or just make more native content.

Creating things to read or view costs money. If we say the people that create
them don't deserve to make that money back through ad revenue, we also have to
be aware of the consequences - that this type of content will largely cease to
exist. It's your prerogative at the end of the day, but a lot of the stuff I
love wouldn't exist without advertising.

~~~
ceequof

      Is there ad blocker that only blocks the annoying ads, 
      not the ones that we deem "OK?"
    

Yes, it's called "AdBlock Plus". Read the article.

~~~
austenallred
> Website operators that want ads on their site added to the white list must
> seek permission. Although AdBlock Plus states that "no one can buy their way
> onto the white list", it does charge fees for what it terms "support
> services", the details of which are not made public.

So let's call a spade a spade; you can pay AdBlock Plus to review you,
potentially adding you to a white list.

AdBlock does not allow the ads that we deem OK. it allows the ads that it
deems OK that also pay it money. There's a big difference.

Edit: thanks dragonwriter

~~~
dragonwriter
> AdBlock does not only block the ads that we deem OK. it blocks the ads that
> it deems OK that also pay it money. There's a big difference.

I think you mean "allow", not "block" here, both times.

------
germanier
Just heads up, for anyone who hasn't read the article: The publishers mainly
went against AdBlock Plus not because it blocks ads (though surely a welcome
side effect) but because they offer advertisers to put their ads on a
whitelist for a fee.

~~~
nsomaru
@btdollar, just to note, your account is hellbanned.

~~~
abandonliberty
I thought the strategy was not to tell them?

~~~
LukeShu
Generally, yes, because hell-banning is for trolls, bots, and those who
routinely make bad posts. However, sometimes someone gets hell-banned for one
extremely down-voted comment, but in general are making decent comments. It's
a common courtesy to inform these people if you run across it.

------
unicornporn
> Now that the legalities are out of the way, we want to reach out to other
> publishers and advertisers and content creators and encourage them to work
> with Adblock Plus rather than against us. Let’s develop new forms of
> nonintrusive ads that are actually useful and welcomed by users [...]

This is one of the reasons I chose another adblocker (uBlock). I have no moral
qualms when it comes to blocking ads, but I don't feel too hot about this guy
building a business by making other businesses pay him money to let their ads
through.

~~~
devonharvey
I also prefer uBlock. Allowing some ads through in order to extort advertisers
is not only shady, it interferes with Adblock Plus's only function--blocking
ads. Does any user prefer an extension that blocks most, but not all of them?

~~~
coldpie
Users that recognize that some websites rely on their ad revenue for their
existenc eand want to support the continued existence of this business model
might prefer not to block all ads, yes.

I'm not one of them. I'm ready for ad-supported businesses to die.

------
mahouse
From their own website, [https://adblockplus.org/blog/restating-the-obvious-
adblockin...](https://adblockplus.org/blog/restating-the-obvious-adblocking-
declared-legal)

> Now that the legalities are out of the way, we want to reach out to other
> publishers and advertisers and content creators and encourage them to work
> with Adblock Plus rather than against us. Let’s develop new forms of
> nonintrusive ads that are actually useful and welcomed by users; let’s
> discover ways to make better ads; let’s push forward to create a more
> sustainable Internet ecosystem for everyone.

> You know where to reach us.

This is not blackmailing. At all. :-)

~~~
TeMPOraL
This is the kind of blackmailing I will support :). Advertisers are invaders,
we (the consumers) have a right to push back.

EDIT: I didn't know ABP is building a business out of paid whitelisting. I'll
need to read more about that. I am, however, still fully supporting publishers
being forced by all ad blockers to find a less malicious way of earning money.

~~~
mahouse
How short-sighted.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Could you elaborate on why exactly is this short-sighted?

~~~
mahouse
You don't care about that blackmailing, but you will probably start caring
when publishers start paying AdBlock cash so they show their ads.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I've read some other comments; I didn't realize that ABP is building a sort of
"pay me to show ads" business. This is something I don't like and I will re-
evaluate my position on this particular piece of software. I am, however,
still supporting the proliferation of ad blockers in general, and forcing
publishers to find ways to earn money that don't involve forcing crap down
people's throats.

~~~
mahouse
Of course. I support that view. Switch to uBlock. 😉

------
a3n
The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and
refuse to deliver content to adblocker users.

Publishers and content creators say "If you don't like what you hear from
someone on the TV or radio, change the channel." It's free speech, after all.

Maybe it's time for publishers and creators to live that credo, and not
deliver to consumers that they don't like.

~~~
danieldk
_The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects,
and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users._

What could possibly go wrong? :) Let's not forget that e.g. Die Zeit actually
has subscribers (i.e. my wife) who might not be amused and end their
subscriptions.

Why not seek different models for non-subscribers instead. E.g. for my native
language (Dutch) Blendle [1] is becoming more and more popular. They are
basically a paywall, but offer many newspapers, reasonable curation, a money-
back guarantee (if an article is not what you expected), and recommendations
based on e.g. Twitter followers. Monthly, I am probably spending the price of
a subscription, because they have made it so easy to actually purchase content
without ads and other annoyances.

[1] [https://blendle.com/](https://blendle.com/)

~~~
celticninja
If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the
hell do you have to view the ads too?

I can understand the need to show ads to people viewing content for free I
just don't understand why charge an access fee and show ads. This is why
people use ad blockers.

~~~
a3n
> If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the
> hell do you have to view the ads too?

But your subscription isn't necessarily paying the amount of money that the
publisher has decided it wants. In that case, it's divided its revenue between
your subscription and selling ads. It's hoping that the ads won't annoy you
enough to block them or leave. For most people that's probably true.

------
EpicDavi
> "It infringes the freedom of the press."

How so? Just because an article is published by the press, does not mean I am
obligated to view it. The users who install AdBlock are doing so on their free
will, not being forced by governmental or other propaganda groups.

~~~
danneu
Seems like this is what they're referring to:

    
    
        > Their publishers had sought damages, but said their motivation
        > was to challenge the software provider's wider business model.
        > While AdBlock Plus offers its web browser add-on to the public
        > for free, it makes money by operating a "white list" of adverts that
        > it allows to get through its filters.
    

For example:

    
    
        > In February, the Financial Times reported that one unnamed 
        > media company had said it had been asked to pass on the
        > equivalent of 30% of the extra revenues it would have made
        > by having ads on its platform unblocked.

------
dec0dedab0de
Isn't the simple solution to just deliver the ads from the same server as the
content? If abp can't tell the difference between an advertisement, and an
image that is part of the article, then they can't block it. Sure, it will
kill a lot of the things current ad networks are doing, but good riddance.

~~~
shultays
Websites can detect adblock. They can already block the content if they wish,
they chose not to

~~~
Lawtonfogle
They can detect current versions. It'll be an arms race if they fight it too
hard.

------
phkahler
Funny - "It infringes the freedom of the press." I don't know about Germany,
but in the US freedom of the press allows them to publish stuff, it does not
force people to read it.

~~~
at-fates-hands
Agreed.

I was pretty appalled by this statement from the publishers. As if my ability
to control what I want to see and be exposed to is somehow compromising your
ability to get your message out. The last time I checked, the internet is
merely one part of an advertising platform.

Maybe these publishers should try another avenue to get your message out
instead of annoying people with its invasive pop-up ads.

------
vbezhenar
It seems like adblock got huge user base on premise to block ads and now
monetizes that user base by selling them ads. Does not look like honest
strategy to me. It won't work well for them as well, competitors are already
there.

------
mkesper
"giving people the ability to control their own screens by letting them block
annoying ads and protect their privacy"

Bold statement for a company selling its own ads:
[http://www.ghacks.net/2011/12/12/adblock-plus-to-allow-
accep...](http://www.ghacks.net/2011/12/12/adblock-plus-to-allow-acceptable-
ads/)

~~~
forgotpasswd3x
It's not selling it's own ads, it's allowing some ads to go through if they
meet the following criteria: [https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-
ads#criteria](https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria)

Also, you can turn it off.

~~~
mattmanser
It's right there in the article, if you'd read it:

 _Although AdBlock Plus states that "no one can buy their way onto the white
list", it does charge fees for what it terms "support services", the details
of which are not made public.

In February, the Financial Times reported that one unnamed media company had
said it had been asked to pass on the equivalent of 30% of the extra revenues
it would have made by having ads on its platform unblocked.

That has led some critics to claim that the Eyeo is engaged in a "racket". _

~~~
true_religion
If it truly happened, what's the harm in the company naming itself. They would
have proof--emails or other communication from Adblock Plus.

------
Geekette
Good for AdBlock Plus! Even if they lost, what's to stop hundreds of
(potentially untrackable) clones suddenly popping up to continue helping users
block ads? I guess it is easier for big press to push/bully to maintain the
status quo, rather than think through a new online revenue model.

------
Lancey
Of course, rather than attempt to fix poor ad practices and encourage users to
disable adblockers on their sites, these publishers have decided to go after
the software itself. Who can blame users for using an adblocker when it
regularly blocks 20+ ads per page?

~~~
TheHypnotist
Not to mention they are chasing what might be the most advertiser friendly
adblocker out there.

------
sarciszewski
I use AdBlock Edge, which doesn't offer a whitelist of "acceptable" ads. :)

~~~
gtk40
Same. I switched as soon as I heard about this policy. My only exception is
that I still use ABP in IE, as I don't know of a better solution for that
browser.

~~~
sarciszewski
I don't use IE anymore (rarely on a Windows box outside of work).

------
DannyBee
I gotta say, pay-per-whitelist seems a lot like an extortion racket to me.

(the rest of the arguments they make, sure, moronic, but ...)

------
hobarrera
The fact is, AdBlock Plus is standing in a very delicate ground. They're not
selflessly defending users from ads: they're actually making money via their
whitelist, and giving an advantage to their partners. While many will say it's
a fair business practice, we'll still have to see how long it's stand in court
(appeals?).

AdBlock Edge, on the other hand, is on far firmer ground, IMHO.

------
RegW
I believe that everyone is entitled to make a living from what they do, and
that ads support much of the creation of the content I want to read. So for
sometime I only used AdBlockPlus to block particular ad venders that really
got my goat with intrusive material. However, the vendors would switch domain
names constantly, and it just got to be taking up to much time to keep adding
each new one to the list. Now I just block them all.

I guess it is only a matter of time before ad blocking becomes the norm for
users, and site owners will forced to bake ads into their pages. Lets hope
that when they take back control, they also try push up the quality of the ads
they take.

------
Jamie452
What if it's in a websites terms of service that adverts must be viewed to
access the site - how would that work, and who would be in breach of
agreement?

~~~
Zikes
Website TOS is shrink-wrapped. There's no way for me to get to it without
violating it in that case, except to whitelist new sites by default, which
would make me vulnerable to tracker ads.

Shrink-wrapped agreements are legally tenuous at best. [1]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract)

------
balabaster
This is awesome... perhaps AdBlockPlus can work on a box that I can sit
between my cable box and my TV to block the ads on that too :P

------
hackuser
I don't object to the ads, I object to being tracked. If they posted ads
without tracking me, I wouldn't object.

------
CodeSheikh
AdBlock has become evil by introducing this "whitelist" thing. I wonder who
seeded them in recent past...

------
ssivark
The argument against AdBlock seems disingenuous, like spammers complaining
about spam filters.

------
kazinator
People who think they can put up a website with some content and make money
purely from people visiting it and nothing else are incredibly naive. In this
day and age, everyone and his dog wants you to look at their site. There is a
content glut.

In the context of making money, a website is something which provides an
enhanced service front end for an existing business which makes money in some
other way. We expect every business we interact with to have some kind of web
presence, even if minimally functional. (If nothing more, than at least a
static page with the address and opening hours). Maintaining the site is a
_business expense_.

Sites which don't have a business attached, are just someone's hobby.
Complaining about AdBlock is just "Waaah, you're not paying for me for viewing
the results of my hobby."

(What's worse; most of the content is self-promotional, so it's more like,
"Waah, you're not paying for reading my opinions and my self-promotion.")

I don't care if some website perishes because it couldn't make money. The web
would be better off if all such sites went away, leaving only the sites that
provide a "web presence" for a real business, and the sites of those people
who have something to present _and_ the money to put it out there.

If you can't fund a web site entirely out of your own pocket, you basically
don't belong on the web. You're not able to put "your money where your mouth
is", literally.

There is commercially valuable content out there that people will pay for.
That content proves itself to be that way because it can be put behind a "pay
wall", and still sustain the site. People do pay for content; look at the
growing subscribership of Netflix, for instance.

That provides us with a good litmus test: _can your content be pay walled such
that your site at least breaks even financially?_ If not, then it has
insufficient commercial value. If you still want people to view it, that means
_you have an agenda_. Your agenda is a promotional one, and it goes something
like this: "this content is somehow valuable to _me_ , and I want others to
know it and like it." If you have such an agenda, it falls upon you to _fund_
it. Ironically, just like those business whose ads you serve through your site
are paying to promote _their_ agenda!

Also, there is an irony in web advertizing is that it only generates revenue
when people click on the ads. But when people click on ads, what are they
doing? They are _navigating away_ from the content to look at something _more
interesting_. The theory is that the original site's content "brought" people
to the advertizement. But in fact that is not true. What actually happened is
more like this: someone was searching for content, and landed on the site. The
site turned out to be garbage, filled with stuff not relevant to the search.
But, oh, an interesting ad caught the visitor's eye; and so off that visitor
went.

Hypothesis: _When people actually click on ads, it 's because your content is
worse than garbage, so that going to the ads is a more attractive alternative.
The content is just search engine bait to get people to the ad, nothing more._

~~~
TeMPOraL
I agree only with about half of your point.

> _I don 't care if some website perishes because it couldn't make money. The
> web would be better off if all such sites went away, leaving only the sites
> that provide a "web presence" for a real business, and the sites of those
> people who have something to present and the money to put it out there._

You're missing the probably most valuable kind of sites - those that are there
to provide information. Not everything on this planet runs around making money
- most of the time, whatever runs around it is probably shit.

The things that are actually valuable for people - like Wikipedia, like
articles from domain specialists, are usually free and supported by either
donations, said specialist's own pockets or by some other mechanism _that
doesn 't include authors profiting from the information they publish_.

That's why when you want to learn something about, well, anything, you go to
subreddits or to Hacker News, and view the comments and not the articles. Or
you visit bloggers that don't run said blogs as their primary occupation.
Because all that content is created for free, out of people's spare time, in
order to help one another. People running business charging you for their
articles? It's them who have an agenda, and you can easily see it reflected in
the low quality and trustworthiness of said articles.

~~~
kazinator
The Wikipedia runs on the egos of the people who create accounts. It provides
a stage for them showing off how smart they are, for fighting against one
another, and for promoting their narrowly focused interests to the world.

I suspect that people are willing to pay to do that. In other words, that
Wikipedia would still work if it charged people to create editor accounts (but
viewing the content remained free).

Basically, it's a form of web hosting (but with rules governing content).

It's the fact that anyone can create an account for free and start editing
that ruins the Wikipedia; that the one single thing that is responsible for
the vandalism, and poor quality of some of the material, as well as its
banality.

If Wikipedia charged for editing, people would think twice about writing a 40
page treatise on some pop song _du jour_ or Pokemon character.

~~~
TeMPOraL
If Wikipedia charged for editing, it also wouldn't exist. "The fact that
anyone can create an account for free and start editing" is the sole reason
Wikipedia is as big as it is and contains as much quality information as it
does. People _like_ sharing their knowledge for free, and when they do it,
it's usually better quality than if they were paid for it. Intrinsic vs
extrinsic motivation, instrumental vs. terminal goals, you name it.

What actually surprised me about your comments is that you seem to show a
money-centric view, i.e. the only things that are worth something are those
someone paid for. I happen to hold exactly the opposite worldview. Correct me
if I'm wrong about the view you're trying to present here.

~~~
kazinator
> _If Wikipedia charged for editing, it also wouldn 't exist._

While I understand the obvious intuition behind your suspicion, consider that
people pay money to participate in running races (which also feature
volunteers who donate their time, and spectators who don't pay anything).

If there was no such thing in the world as a runner-funded running race, you
might think, "come on, who would _pay_ to run in such a thing, when you can
just put on your shoes and run for free?" Yet it turns out that people _do_!

There are incentives: competition, having your time publicly noted. There is
also the intangible benefit of just being part of the event. The entry fees
are justified as paying for the expenses, and charities. (Some races have cash
prizes for the winners, though obviously that's not an incentive for anyone
who has no such hope.)

It's also a matter of how much. If the site asked people to pay $100 a year
for accounts, then that would likely be dead in the water. At $5 per year:
definite maybe! There could be built-in incentives. The best editors could get
cash rewards, so end up in the green.

> _What actually surprised me about your comments is that you seem to show a
> money-centric view, i.e. the only things that are worth something are those
> someone paid for._

My view isn't that extreme, but I believe that connecting some systems with
money in the right way can fix some of their problems.

~~~
TeMPOraL
With that I agree. There is of course caution needed when structuring
incentives; introduce too much money in wrong places, and you can instantly
lose the quality and motivation of people.

$5 per year could definitely work, though I believe it would still drastically
reduce the amount of content Wikipedia has. A lot of really good stuff (and a
lot of really bad stuff, too) is created by teenagers - the only large group
that is both smart enough to meaningfully contribute _and_ has free time to do
it. And the one thing they don't have is money.

~~~
kazinator
> _There is of course caution needed when structuring incentives_

Absolutely! For instance paying cash for blood donations is an obviously bad
idea. You don't want blood from the kinds of people who would donate for
money. Moreover, some people would donating excessively, thereby harming their
health or even losing their lives.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That's exactly one of the examples I had in mind!

