ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

AdBlock Plus To Not Block All Ads

<< < (8/15) > >>

Many people seem just fine with the default save formats of both MS Office and OpenOffice, both of which are *optional*. And many media players don't play or associate with all media formats by default. These don't seem that much different to me. That's the critical thing here, as far as I understand, it's going to be the default to not block some ads, but it will still be *able* to block all ads if desired. It's a preference, just like changing your default save format for MS Office or enabling loading of more media formats in your media player.

It's a change in functionality, which I think is causing the majority of the uproar, but imagine if it had been like this since the beginning. People would still love AdBlock, they would just know they have to configure it right to block everything. Heck that's *already* the case as it won't block all ads by default (through omission rather than design, thus far). This just makes it explicit and intended, but again still leaves the out. I don't think it's a great move, but it's hardly deplorable or unjustifiable in my view.

- Oshyan
-JavaJones (December 13, 2011, 03:54 PM)
--- End quote ---

There is a big difference between supporting a format and discriminating based on content. I don't have an issue with a media player that doesn't support flac and therefore won't play any flac files. I would however have an issue with a media player that won't play Metallica songs, regardless of format, because the developer has ethical issues with Metallica and is on a personal life-long revenge kick for the attack on Napster. Or won't play any country music or jazz files because the developer can't stand country music and jazz. Or a media player that will only play Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga files because that's what the developer likes.

There is also a big difference between a default format in a word processing application and the application refusing to save your essay on global warming, in any format, unless it supports the developer's point of view.

As a developer, your opinion on those matters does not count.

As a developer your opinions on Adsense does not count. I don't care if you like Adsense and think I should see the ads because they don't look ugly or because Google made a big donation to support your project. I, the user, my opinions count...and I have valid reasons for blocking those ads. And blocking those ads is why I use an ad blocker.

I don't use an ad blocker because I want to subscribe to the personal views of the developer and be subjected to his whims of what ads he thinks I should see.

I have an ethical issue with using an ad blocker made by a developer that has ethical issues with blocking ads, all ads, without discrimination.

I have just learned something here.
I was puzzled by the comments in this thread that indicated that the Wikipedia header adverts were getting through AdBlock.
And then Carol Haynes suggested increasing subscriptions to AdBlock lists, and then gave us something we could directly input to block the ads:
If anyone wants to filter those notices the custom adblock filter is:
(at least today)
Actually they have been appearing on and off for years.
-Carol Haynes (December 13, 2011, 10:41 AM)
--- End quote ---

And I wondered why my installation of FF had always been blocking these things without any direct input from me (as far as I could recall).
So, I investigated and discovered that:

* in my FF installation, neither AdBlock Plus nor Element Hiding Helper referenced a block to Wikipedia that would block those particular adverts.
* it was NoScript that was blocking them.
I'd completely forgotten about NoScript. It just quietly sits there doing its thing.

So, in my installation, I have 3 tools which effectively and comprehensively block annoying adverts:

* AdBlock Plus.
* Element Hiding Helper.
* NoScript.
So I guess what this indicates is that, to have comprehensive ad-blocking, you need all three tools - they are complementary.
The degree of coverage in FF in this regard makes it a joy to use for people like me who just don't want the ads.
EDIT: Also learned today that, to get similar NoScript coverage (including removal of those Wikipedia header adverts) in Chrome/Chromium, install NotScripts
(That is "NOTscripts".)

While I see the point that users say "I want a blocker to block!", I can't see why it is so hard for them to just untick the checkbox and calm down ...

Actually, it is a good step into the right direction. The more users only allow static ads, the more ads will be static and less obtrusive and blinking and sounding and requiring Flash and crashing the browser, and one fine day no-one needs ad blockers anymore. Ever thought about it?

I see your points app, and you're right the comparison is not entirely apt. But let's look at this another way. Ad blocking is likely to have an inherently limited life span. Over a long enough period one of 3 things must happen. 1: The websites that rely on ads for revenue die due to lack of revenue. 2: They find an alternate revenue stream, one which people who use ad blockers may not like either. 3: The war between advertisers and ad blockers rages on with ever-escalating and sneaky methods on both sides, on the one to get around blocking measures, on the other to block sneaky content. None of those things sound good to me, maybe they do to you. To my mind the best outcome, short of figuring out a totally different way for sites to support themselves that is also not subscription-based, would be for ads to be "good" ads. Either that or we pay for content. Right now there aren't really any options if we want these sites to continue producing content we like.

So, given the situation as I've described it (which you may well disagree with, but that's how I see it), I think this is a potentially positive move which, while not ending the advertising/blocker war, at least provides some potential relief. Better that advertisers be given incentive to make less obtrusive ads than that they be given incentive to work around the blockers.

Ultimately as it's an option so it does seem to be a lot of noise about the philosophy while ignoring the far less significant and scandalous reality (uncheck the box, all is back to how it is now).

- Oshyan

Google's answer to Adblockplus, sneaking static ads in between search results. lol I guess soon they'll mix the colors and it'll be hard to see if it's ad or not. I'm sure that advertisers are going to get ripped off if they get false clicks or bounced clicks, google is making damn money with this.

AdBlock Plus To Not Block All Ads


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version