• Adblock Plus now sells ads -> Start using uBlock Origin
    175 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Aide;51052563]Not only should you use adblock but you should use tracker blockers like disconnect or ghostery.[/QUOTE] Be aware that Ghostery pulls some telemetry bullshit (GhostRank) where it reports back which trackers and ads you block and sells that info to advertisers. If that's fine with you, go for it, but you should consider disabling it because it only really serves to figure out which ads people can't block.
[QUOTE=Aide;51052563]Not only should you use adblock but you should use tracker blockers like disconnect or ghostery.[/QUOTE] you can get similar functionality using the right lists on ublock origin and/or umatrix, but yeah. Something else i like to use is self destructing cookies, any unwhitelisted site's cookies stop existing as soon as i close the tab, sites like a forum i want to stay logged into it takes a couple seconds to whitelist. Do note when first installing it you need to disable it right away before whitelisting sites if you dont want to have to log back into everything.
how much money could that ublock guy be making man if he quietly monetized it he's either really rich, really blind to the financial opportunities, or really apathetic to the potential ublock has financially
Welp, I just uninstalled ABP and moved over to uBlock Origin - I'm a bit slow there.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51053660]Hard to quietly add monetization when all changes and source code are publicly available and anyone could fork it if he did[/QUOTE] forgot about that
Whelp, I just switched over to uBlock. Farewell and fuck you ABP. Like, what's the point of using an ad blocker if it's just going to show your ads anyways? It's like buying a condom with holes built into it.
[QUOTE=Cureless;51053788]Whelp, I just switched over to uBlock. Farewell and fuck you ABP. Like, what's the point of using an ad blocker if it's just going to show your ads anyways? It's like buying a condom with holes built into it.[/QUOTE] The point for years hasn't [I]really[/I] been about blocking ads. It's about dangling Adblock Plus users in plain view but just out of reach of ad companies. The real point is to form a new market with Adblock Plus being the gatekeeper that companies will have to sell their souls to if they want to serve their ads to as wide an audience as possible. Eyeo stands to make an absolute fuck ton of money straight out of the pockets of those aforementioned ad companies. Don't bother listening to their bullshit rhetoric about "wanting a better internet" and "having user best interests at heart" either. No smart user should be using Adblock Plus now anyways, so who knows how big the Adblock Plus market will actually be (probably a lot still). This whole fiasco appears to be bringing a lot of attention to uBlock Origins, which is a far better alternative anyways.
Four pages and no one's noticed that the "acceptable ads" thing is actually optional. There is a checkbox in the settings (on Firefox, at least) that defaults to on, all you have to do is uncheck it. I've never had any performance issues with ABP either, for what it's worth.
[QUOTE=fauxpark;51053852]Four pages and no one's noticed that the "acceptable ads" thing is actually optional. There is a checkbox in the settings (on Firefox, at least) that defaults to on, all you have to do is uncheck it. I've never had any performance issues with ABP either, for what it's worth.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]You can still block all ads, but it's opt-in.[/QUOTE] No, it's been noticed. But reports claim that it'll be unchecked when this system goes live. Meaning you have to opt-in to block those "better" ads rather than opting-out of blocking them.
[QUOTE=Worstcase;51053858]No, it's been noticed. But reports claim that it'll be unchecked when this system goes live. Meaning you have to opt-in to block those "better" ads rather than opting-out of blocking them.[/QUOTE] ...That's exactly what you have to do already. "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" is checked by default.
For people who've been reading this, there's actually a browser that's been doing this as an optional middle ground as well: [url]https://brave.com/[/url] [quote] The new Brave browser automatically blocks ads and trackers, making it faster and safer than your current browser. Soon, micropayments and better ads will give users and publishers a better deal.[/quote] The different ad models are simply a matter of choice in this browser, and you get to decide which you want to use. [QUOTE=TheTalon;51052806]Well I do pay $167 for my internet connection, so nothing's free. ISPs get all this money, get billions in tax breaks, have no competition with each other in the US, already oversaturate television with ads.... They should petition them for money, not my monitor I'm generally fine with the ads on youtube and Twitch because that's real people doing their thing and getting direct support off of it, rather than a greedy corporation who wants that extra 0.5% on top of the millions they made that quarter, and there's 0% chance of it having malware since they're in the video And ads that are made BY the people in the video are even better. Like Linus. They're short, concise, and most importantly RELATED and not about fucking Cialis or some shit[/QUOTE] There's actually no guarantee that the monetized video on a channel was monetized by that person. The video could've been claimed by some major corporation, in which case that corporation will get the entirety of the profit.
[QUOTE=da space core;51051153]I don't like ads, but i wonder what would websites do without a source of income. They would have to make money from selling our info, or by putting their sites behind paywalls[/QUOTE] News websites are more and more-frequently switching to subscription-based models. It's actually become hard to find Australian-based news sites that don't have any form of paywall. On YouTube too, content creators are starting to switch away from relying on traditional Internet ads and towards placing ads within the actual content. Eg product placement, or outright advertisements at the start of the actual video. Even on Facebook and Instagram, Facebook is allowing ads to appear as sponsored posts in your news feed, and celebrities like Kim K are stealthily doing product placement or ads in their photos. I think something like a sponsored photo by a major celebrity can cost the advertiser tens of thousands of dollars. Probably what's going to happen on the web, say in the next few decades, is that pretty much most content is going to be behind paywalls. Want to use Facebook? $5 per month. YouTube? $10 per month. Do Google searches? $20 per year. Etc. [editline]15th September 2016[/editline] Adblockers are only serving to accelerate this process away from a 'free' Internet
Traditional online advertising (spamvertising) is dead, and the sooner corporations catch on to this and work on alternatives, the better.
[QUOTE=bitches;51051432] you're throwing around language like "they can get fucked for wanting money to host their website fuck them"[/QUOTE] they kinda can? nobody promised them any money, and they know that
I don't understand how people can assume some kind of moral high ground by defending ads. Advertising in its current state is just disgusting. I'd much rather support content makers in a different way, if they are worth it. Ads are usually forced on you before you can even make the decision on whether the content is worth supporting or not anyways.
I dunno, I always read both sides of the arguments in these threads and I can never feel bad about blocking ads. They just annoy me that much. People have other options of making money, by selling merch, opening a patreon, ect.
[QUOTE=meek;51054307]Advertising in its current state is just disgusting.[/QUOTE] If [I]only[/I] there were a company with a significant market interest working to change that. [QUOTE=meek;51054307]I'd much rather support content makers in a different way, if they are worth it.[/QUOTE] Historically that typically means paywalls or selling user info. Patreon is emerging as an alternative but at the moment it's not a strong form of income. Well, at least this new development has gotten lots of people to drop the excuse of 'I want to support the websites I like, [I]but[/I] ads are intrusive/a security risk so unfortunately I have to block them' that has reigned supreme in previous Adblock threads, and own up to the fact that they just don't want to see ads instead of trying to pin the blame on the website owner.
I don't mind if they do it right. I use adblock because a lot of ads are scams or lead to infected websites. I have disabled adblock on some websites only to get served potentially dangerous links. The only ads I really hate regardless of content are video ads. Many video ads have double the volume of the actual video I'm watching and it gets annoying really fast. Even youtube has unskippable ads on some videos.
[QUOTE=Durrsly;51050968][URL="http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/13/12890050/adblock-plus-now-sells-ads"]Source[/URL][/QUOTE] Imagine this with viruses. "Norton AntiVirus now sells viruses" :v:
[QUOTE=Reflex F.N.;51052280]I guess I'm going to have to start using uBlock Origin, then. I've recently been thinking about using it instead of ABP, so this is yet another reason to move to it. Since uMatrix has been brought up, I have a question about it: is uMatrix as good as NoScript? One of the reasons I don't use Chrome is because NoScript isn't available for Chrome. NoScript is my favorite add-on.[/QUOTE] uMatrix is more flexible than NoScript. NoScript's functions are more or less comparable to the ones in uBlock Origin. [QUOTE=Snowmew;51053544]Be aware that Ghostery pulls some telemetry bullshit (GhostRank) where it reports back which trackers and ads you block and sells that info to advertisers. If that's fine with you, go for it, but you should consider disabling it because it only really serves to figure out which ads people can't block.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/JxLWtvQ.png[/img] You can disable that.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51054900]uMatrix is more flexible than NoScript. NoScript's functions are more or less comparable to the ones in uBlock Origin.[/QUOTE]Does uMatrix block against clickjacking, as well?
I made the switch from adblock/ghostery/noscript to uBlock origin years ago. Not because of selling out, but because all those running made Firefox run progressively more sluggish as time went on. Made the switch and didn't look back. My browsing experience has been smooth ever since.
[QUOTE=Reflex F.N.;51054958]Does uMatrix block against clickjacking, as well?[/QUOTE] According to [url=https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/issues/297]this[/url] it doesn't have an explicit function to prevent it but the fine-grained control over it still allows you to prevent that. For example blocking scripts, frames, and XHR requests (and possibly plugins as well, I'm not sure on that one but the linked page mentions Flash which falls under plugins) by default on a site means you wouldn't run the risk of running into clickjacking issues.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51055029]According to [url=https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/issues/297]this[/url] it doesn't have an explicit function to prevent it but the fine-grained control over it still allows you to prevent that. For example blocking scripts, frames, and XHR requests (and possibly plugins as well, I'm not sure on that one but the linked page mentions Flash which falls under plugins) by default on a site means you wouldn't run the risk of running into clickjacking issues.[/QUOTE]Oh, all right. Thank you very much for your help! :smile:
I'd like to believe they are gonna handle it responsively but I know all too well to trust some faceless companies with their shitty promises.
[QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;51055095]I'd like to believe they are gonna handle it responsively but I know all too well to trust some faceless companies with their shitty promises.[/QUOTE]Yes, this is exactly how I feel; I can't trust them to make sure that the ads they'll put don't have malware in them.
till data caps dont exist and ads arnt filled with viruses, im never unblocking ads
[QUOTE=bitches;51051582]With the wide-awareness that ABP holds, they're in a position to improve website ads for [I]everyone[/I]. If this idea of theirs were to become very successful, it would change the way internet services view advertising for the better.[/QUOTE] The best they're doing is serving less annoying and approved ads, while taking a slice of the pie for themselves (which would otherwise go to websites/content creators). Adblock Plus is becoming an ad network within the wall they've built themselves. > Your irony meter should implode here < That doesn't really help everyone.
[QUOTE=sb27;51054083] On YouTube too, content creators are starting to switch away from relying on traditional Internet ads and towards placing ads within the actual content. Eg product placement, or outright advertisements at the start of the actual video.[/QUOTE] I'm completely ok with that since I at least know the ad money is going to the creator and the creators typically have respect for the people watching when it comes to ads.
I just see this new system becoming a loop that just gets worse and worse with time. Think about it like this. Ads weren't as bad back in the day as they are now. They were mostly just static images on the sides, header, or footer of the page, sometimes having a link attached, and they were usually for reputable businesses. It then changed with things like audio ads, video ads, and more and more smaller and less reputable entities jumping on the ad money bandwagon. Because they only became more and more annoying, adoption of ad blockers only grew. So, making an "acceptable ads" system isn't really going to help, because what is "acceptable" is going to be constantly pushed and changed. For comparison, let's look at the video game industry. There used to be a major pushback to the idea of DLCs until it became so common in the industry that people just became apathetic to it. Same applies to season passes and microtransactions. In a sense, these things became [B]"acceptable"[/B], because companies kept pushing it, and there was nothing the consumer could do essentially. Yeah, you could not buy their products, but the amount of people who would join such a "boycott" is so relatively small compared to the actual amount of people who are going to buy it/have bought it that it doesn't make much of a difference. And a lot of the people boycotting such a thing might even cave in and buy it anyway. The same basically applies to this ad system. Ad companies will continue to push what is "acceptable", and since most people who install ad blockers don't bother to configure their settings anyway, they'll eventually just grow used to the changes, or stop caring.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.