IAB Chief Blasts Adblock Plus as an 'Immoral, Mendacious Coven of Techie Wannabes' - Polidicks

[QUOTE] When Adblock Plus said it had been "disinvited" from this week's Interactive Advertising Bureau's Leadership Summit, it raised virtual eyebrows across the Web. Wasting little time and mincing no words, the IAB's leader kicked off the event by firing back. "Now, you may be aware of a kerfuffle that began about 10 days ago, when an unethical, immoral, mendacious coven of techie wannabes at a for-profit German company called AdBlock-Plus took to the digisphere to complain over and over that IAB had 'disinvited' them to this convention," CEO Rothenberg told the audience in his opening keynote Monday. "That, of course, is as much a lie as the others they routinely try to tell the world." Adblock Plus, a software company that lets consumers block digital promos, had touted its willingness to speak with its adversaries, holding a self-styled "Camp David" meeting late last year with major publishers. And it seemed to feel shunned when the IAB refunded its conference registration fee. Rothenberg blasted Adblock Plus' depiction of the situation and called the group "an unethical, immoral, mendacious coven of techie wannabes."[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/iab-chief-blasts-adblock-plus-immoral-mendacious-coven-techie-wannabes-169194[/url]

Damn, all subtlety out the window. They REALLY pissed him off.

well fuck you, Give us screened ads that doesn't fucking give you malware.

Wow, what a baby. Maybe if ads didn't represent a security risk and massive annoyance something like AdBlock wouldn't be needed in the first place. The fuck do I know though?

"Coven"? Seriously? Hang on, my phone's ringing. Okay, that was the 17th century calling, they want their moral panic button back.

[quote]unethical, immoral, mendacious[/quote] Is there a page I missed about Adblock Plus where they did something horrible or is this guy just a gigantic cunt because ABP is pretty much the bane of advertising on the net?

Nothing like making millions off of that hard labor put into virtual ads online then bitching about it.

[QUOTE=Abaddabadon;49606357]Nothing like making millions off of that hard labor put into virtual ads online then bitching about it.[/QUOTE] He totally has the right to bitch about people blocking advertisements when that's how most of the internet makes money. Just like we have the right to ignore the ass and keep on blocking until they start putting out acceptable no risk ads. [editline]25th January 2016[/editline] Someone's going to fold first and it's probably not going to be the people using ad blockers.

Isn't ABP's dev actually really morally good? From what I know keeps the service open source and busted AdBlock dev lying and mining user information [url=https://palant.de/2014/07/29/which-is-better-adblock-or-adblock-plus][x][/url]

Using an ad blocker gives me even more pleasure knowing how angry it makes them

dude's just mad. I fucking hate how people can try and protect themselves from my malicious productions.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;49606414]Isn't ABP's dev actually really morally good? From what I know keeps the service open source and busted AdBlock dev lying and mining user information [url=https://palant.de/2014/07/29/which-is-better-adblock-or-adblock-plus][x][/url][/QUOTE] If we're talking about morals here, the people behind ABP made enough money to start their own company, and started the acceptable ads program. uBlock Origin specifically refuses donations and the idea of acceptable ads. [url]https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md[/url]

[QUOTE=Talishmar;49606414]Isn't ABP's dev actually really morally good? From what I know keeps the service open source and busted AdBlock dev lying and mining user information [url=https://palant.de/2014/07/29/which-is-better-adblock-or-adblock-plus][x][/url][/QUOTE] Adblock was mining my info? Looks like I'm moving to ABP.

I actually agree with Rothenberg's statement that Eyeo/ABP is unethical, but calling them "techie wannabes" is childish and hypocritical, as the IAB itself is also unethical...

dont give us malware then

[QUOTE=rilez;49606487]If we're talking about morals here, the people behind ABP made enough money to start their own company, and started the acceptable ads program. uBlock Origin specifically refuses donations and the idea of acceptable ads. [URL]https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md[/URL][/QUOTE] I really like the acceptable ads program idea personally. It shows ad providers that there is middleground.

[QUOTE=rilez;49606487]If we're talking about morals here, the people behind ABP made enough money to start their own company, and started the acceptable ads program. uBlock Origin specifically refuses donations and the idea of acceptable ads. [url]https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md[/url][/QUOTE] This manifesto confuses me. It claims that user choice is paramount... Without recognizing that the user's choice is to allow acceptable ads. It's an option. I can get ABP and disable acceptable ads and my choices are enforced. Clearly uBlock is violating their own manifesto because they also give me the choice to enforce acceptable ads through my own personal whitelists. Also, their reasoning for acceptable ads being unacceptable is that it's because it makes somebody somewhere money. Guess people being for-profit is a bad thing, better be a luddite and destroy that computer there buddy because a lot of people made a whole bunch of money on your computer purchase.

The best way to win back people who use adblock isn't to make ads less intrusive and more secure, it's by insulting them so they wouldn't want to stop ever using adblock just out of principle.

[QUOTE=Banned?;49606323]Wow, what a baby. Maybe if ads didn't represent a security risk and massive annoyance something like AdBlock wouldn't be needed in the first place. The fuck do I know though?[/QUOTE] Lets be honest, security risks are not the number 1 reason Adblock software exists.

[QUOTE=a wet towel;49606563]The best way to win back people who use adblock isn't to make ads less intrusive and more secure, it's by insulting them so they wouldn't want to stop ever using adblock just out of principle.[/QUOTE] My adblocking is purely a security concern. I would uninstall uBlock if I could be guaranteed I wouldn't get a virus from it. I have no problem with content creators I enjoy getting some money from me watching ads.

unethical, immoral, mendacious coven of trump supporters

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49606535]This manifesto confuses me. It claims that user choice is paramount... Without recognizing that the user's choice is to allow acceptable ads. It's an option. I can get ABP and disable acceptable ads and my choices are enforced. Clearly uBlock is violating their own manifesto because they also give me the choice to enforce acceptable ads through my own personal whitelists. Also, their reasoning for acceptable ads being unacceptable is that it's because it makes somebody somewhere money. Guess people being for-profit is a bad thing, better be a luddite and destroy that computer there buddy because a lot of people made a whole bunch of money on your computer purchase.[/QUOTE] [URL]https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization[/URL] "Acceptable ads" are a joke. It's a way for Eyeo to make a bunch of money from companies like Google and Microsoft, who pay them millions of dollars to remain whitelisted. It certainly does not cost that much money to maintain ABP as a service, and pay their employees. It's unethical. The point of an Adblock is to block ads. Acceptable ads being left on by [B]default[/B] (which many users might not notice or care about) is a shitty conflict of interest. uBlock blocks all ads by default, and then gives you the option to whitelist the sites you care about. Calling me a luddite is also unfair, because I believe people deserve to be rewarded for their hard work. What strikes me most about gorhill is that he flat out refuses financial assistance for his work, which says to me that he must seriously care about the work he's doing.

uBlock Origin is the best one atm, as far as I know.

[QUOTE=rilez;49606693][URL]https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization[/URL] "Acceptable ads" are a joke. It's a way for Eyeo to make a bunch of money from companies like Google and Microsoft, who pay them millions of dollars to remain whitelisted. It certainly does not cost that much money to maintain ABP as a service, and pay their employees. It's unethical. The point of an Adblock is to block ads. Acceptable ads being left on by [B]default[/B] (which many users might not notice or care about) is a shitty conflict of interest. uBlock blocks all ads by default, and then gives you the option to whitelist the sites you care about. Calling me a luddite is also unfair, because I believe people deserve to be rewarded for their hard work. What strikes me most about gorhill is that he flat out refuses financial assistance for his work, which says to me that he must seriously care about the work he's doing.[/QUOTE] That's actually really disgusting. It's like an open bribe.

[QUOTE=rilez;49606693][URL]https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization[/URL] "Acceptable ads" are a joke. It's a way for Eyeo to make a bunch of money from companies like Google and Microsoft, who pay them millions of dollars to remain whitelisted. It certainly does not cost that much money to maintain ABP as a service, and pay their employees. It's unethical. The point of an Adblock is to block ads. Acceptable ads being left on by [B]default[/B] (which many users might not notice or care about) is a shitty conflict of interest. uBlock blocks all ads by default, and then gives you the option to whitelist the sites you care about. Calling me a luddite is also unfair, because I believe people deserve to be rewarded for their hard work. What strikes me most about gorhill is that he flat out refuses financial assistance for his work, which says to me that he must seriously care about the work he's doing.[/QUOTE] Very good point, but I wasn't directly calling you the luddite... I was criticizing the manifesto and suggesting the author there be the luddite if they are against for-profit pursuits, which is the implication I am taking from the manifesto. [editline]25th January 2016[/editline] I would also like to see the sources on Google and Microsoft paying him millions to bypass the acceptable ad rules that are in place.

I threw a DNS server on my Raspberry Pi with an adblocking IP-table. No ads exist on my network now, its great! [url=https://pi-hole.net/]Incidentally this is the sketchiest method to install software on linux ever.[/url]

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49607678]Very good point, but I wasn't directly calling you the luddite... I was criticizing the manifesto and suggesting the author there be the luddite if they are against for-profit pursuits, which is the implication I am taking from the manifesto. [editline]25th January 2016[/editline] I would also like to see the sources on Google and Microsoft paying him millions to bypass the acceptable ad rules that are in place.[/QUOTE] There's no source for a number because they refuse to disclose the number (which IMO is also unethical). Adblocking services certainly cost ad companies many millions of dollars annually, and from the link I posted earlier: "For these entities, our licensing fee normally represents 30 percent of the additional revenue created by whitelisting its acceptable ads." 30 percent is a big cut of revenue from companies like Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon, Taboola, Reddit, Imgur... [editline]25th January 2016[/editline] The fact that they white-list Taboola also shows that their white-list rules are actually garbage, and not making ads "better" like they claim. For those of you who don't know, Taboola makes those awful click-bait ads with huge images like this: [img]http://i.imgur.com/Qi9OBBL.png[/img]

Hold on a sec, let me jus- [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TpwJ5rOl.png[/IMG] -usssst turn my blockers back on again.

[QUOTE=rilez;49607733]There's no source for a number because they refuse to disclose the number (which IMO is also unethical). Adblocking services certainly cost ad companies many millions of dollars annually, and from the link I posted earlier: "For these entities, our licensing fee normally represents 30 percent of the additional revenue created by whitelisting its acceptable ads." 30 percent is a big cut of revenue from companies like Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon, Taboola, Reddit, Imgur... [editline]25th January 2016[/editline] The fact that they white-list Taboola also shows that their white-list rules are actually garbage, and not making ads "better" like they claim. For those of you who don't know, Taboola makes those awful click-bait ads with huge images like this: [img]http://i.imgur.com/Qi9OBBL.png[/img][/QUOTE] Which proves the failings of the program because per the criteria. [t]http://i.imgur.com/LuWocxR.png[/t] As I said I like the acceptable ads idea, but this ABP's implementation is greatly flawed.

I don't really feel any moral qualms about using adblockers. These companies have chosen to put their content up for free, hoping that people look at the adds while they're there. I signed no contract to view the adds, I didn't agree to view the adds, etc. I have no responsibility to view the adds. It's purely my choice if I want to view the adds or not. In the same way I wouldn't be in the wrong to pay someone (or having someone for free) cut out the adds in a newspaper before I viewed it it isn't wrong to block adds on websites. Take a site like Forbes that has recently blocked anyone with an adblocker from going to their site. I don't have a problem with that either, but they have to know that I probably won't go to their site anymore.