[SLASHDOT][QUOTES] AdBlock Plus Successful Scam

ALSO SEE:

http://insurgencymod.blogspot.de/2015/06/slashdotquoteadblock-plus-vs-adblock-vs.html

RE "AdBlock Plus"
http://insurgencymod.blogspot.com/2014/12/pro-tip-microblock-adblock-like-chrome.html
http://insurgencymod.blogspot.com/2013/03/pro-tip-firefox-adblock-without.html
http://insurgencymod.blogspot.com/2013/02/pro-tip-block-ads-like-pro-checklist.html
http://insurgencymod.blogspot.com/2012/11/pro-tip-rogue-browser-extensions.html

RE uBlock
http://insurgencymod.blogspot.com/2015/06/rantprotip-ublock-origin-vs-ublock.html
http://insurgencymod.blogspot.com/2015/06/noted-ublock-config.html
http://insurgencymod.blogspot.com/2015/04/protip-what-happed-to-ublock-aka.html

Source:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7570271&cid=49940893

Re:This is about "Adblock Plus" not "AdBlock" (Score:2)

by xenoc_1 (140817) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @07:38PM (#49940893) 

And I say unto thee, "RTFP". I explicitly noted that with this: "has that feature turned on by default, so most non-techies see ads from Eyeo customers."

Wherein I made clear that most non-technical users, which are not most of us Slashdot members, will leave it as-is. Implied, and from years of experience with non-technical users, because non-techies don't know/don't understand how/are afraid, to change anything from "normal".

Which means that Eyeo, Inc. continues to create a big user base of "pay for play" payola opportunities to sell to Google, Amazon, and other ad networks. And indeed they do sell the right to be listed as "Acceptable Ads" - it's right on their website, buried in weasel-words but there, and it's been in plenty of news articles about them. You do the DuckBingGoogle if you want cites of sites. Yes, the small guys, like my blog or yours, can probably get listed as "Acceptable" for free, and Eyeo will have a big public discussion on each and every one of those on their site, because, "transparency". But the details of the huge moneyflows from Google et al will not be there.

Here's the thing: Ad blockers are not default in any browser nor as part of any operating system. Which means that anyone who installs an ad blocker has already made an affirmative choice to block ads. That means it's contrary to common sense and clearly against the desire of the user, for any "ad blocker" to have a default setting that deliberately allows ads - ANY ads.

Unless, of course, the "user" AKA "the customer" is NOT the person who installs the adblocker. Unless that person is the product. And for Eyeo, the person using Adblock Plus is no longer the user/customer, they are the "product" - the eyeballs being sold to their real customer, the companies that pay Eyeo to be part of the "Acceptable Ads" program.

It's not "you can just turn it off". It's how the very concept of a partially non-blocking adblocker, and a very non-transparent financial arrangement between Eeyo and "BigAdNetworks", is inherently contrary to the baseline concept and user case for an adblocker.

Obviously I didn't need somebody to lecture me about the existing of Adblock Edge, or the ABP checkbox, or the other various adblocking options, when I put references to such things right in my post.

And for the record, in the years of using Adblock Edge, its brief predecessor Adblock Light, the pre-Acceptable Ads Adblock Plus, and since this month, uBlock and now after reflection on their ethics, uBlock Origin instead, I have and continue to un-block many sites, specific third-party networks, major affiliate-link trackers such as Amazon Associates, Commission Junction, Shareasale, Linkshare, etc., so that small webmasters and some large websites who aren't eyebleed-inducing, can get some potential monetization from my use. I even sometimes go back to look for and click through an ad of specific interest, or via a site's affiliate link, to a product/service I'm considering buying. I also run a few affiliate link ads on some of my own sites - and make sure I do nothing to force people to unblock them. In fact, I suggest adblockers and privacy blockers right in the privacy policy on my sites.

Difference between that and the skeevy policies of Adblock Plus/Eyeo: Transparency and full choice. Choice on my part as to ads I want to see, choice on visitors to my sites on how they can not see ads and not get into my analytics. No pay-for-play, no whitelisting decisions made for somebody else.

Anybody who can't see the difference is either a) brainwashed, b) a sockpuppet for the ad industry, c) a sockpuppet for Eyeo/Adblock Plus (which really is part of the ad industry at this point), or d) naïve.

Ghostery, Inc is totally open and fully upfront about their connection to the advertising industry. And their not-quite-equivalent feature is OPT-IN, rather than OPT-OUT.

AdBlock (Chrome) as far as I know was never really Open Source - it was one-time-nag (install-time) donationware but not with a "libre" license. I may misremember that. They have an OPT-IN for "I like that text ads on Google search, let me see them" and I always opt-IN. Because, it's MY proactive affirmative choice. Just like Ghostery's OPT-IN to GhostRank, which I ignore and it defaults to the most-private setting.

Ghostery does not block anything by default, but they are clear about it, and the whole idea is to choose what to block.

There's nothing unethical about what either Ghostery or AdBlock are doing. There is plenty unethical and contrary-to-concept of what Eyeo/Adblock Plus is doing. And there's possible something sketchy about what uBlock is doing, which is why I have switched to the original creator's uBlock Origin.