Monday, December 12th 2011

Adblock Plus To Let ''Acceptable Ads'' Pass, By Default

Adblock claimed its spot under the Sun when it started out as a browser extension that blocked all advertisement frames and popup scripts by default. Apparently, the people behind it feel there is something they call "acceptable ads", and that they should be allowed to pass on to users by default, and will make sure the next version (2.0) of the software will do just that. Ironic? Adblock, thanks to its catchy, self-explanatory name, built a sizable user-base, as typical PC users assume it's a fire-and-forget solution to internet advertisements. This new move to exempt "acceptable ads" might not compute with many.

So what makes up an "acceptable ad"? According to the people behind Adblock, it's that which lacks any form of animation or sound, and that which loads up no more than one script. One could imagine Amazon.com's best deals ads and Google's text-only ads fitting the description more or less, but it throws open a new set of debates: Whether selective filtering only goes on to benefit well-established agencies such as Google as Google's trademarks in the ad frame are an instant credibility boost for those text-ads; and more importantly, why should Adblock's define what should be "acceptable" and why should they be allowed by default to begin with. Pick your topic and fire away.
Sources: The Verge, ExtremeTech
Add your own comment

39 Comments on Adblock Plus To Let ''Acceptable Ads'' Pass, By Default

#26
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Assimilator@Esse, some of us live in countries with subpar internet. Disabling ads (especially the Flash and animated GIFs) conserves bandwidth and allows pages to load at a decent rate.
The fash and animage gifs I can agree with, but the basic text ones aren't really saving any bandwidth. Basic text ads with a small image is maybe 10KB, and most less than that. Those are the ads that will be let through.
EsseMaybe you guys didn't know it but TPUs adverts are blocked by Adblock and are in no way intrusive of TPU's content.
The flashing Zotac one on the right of the main page is insanely annoying and intrusive...
Posted on Reply
#27
Wile E
Power User
As long as I can block them manually, I don't give a shit.
Posted on Reply
#28
Completely Bonkers
Wasnt it sort of agreed that all pr0n on the internet has to move over to special domain names? I'm good with that. E.g. www.abc.xxx

Wouldn't it be a good idea if all ads had to move over to special domain names or subdomains? I think that would be marvellous. e.g. ad.abc.com

We have rights to demand that telephone and postal mail marketeers remove our addresses from their marketing databases. I say the same for advertising on the web. There should be an opt in and opt out ability, and an EASY ABILITY for anyone to do this. I advocate the net demanding the ad. subdomain.

Simple browser options can then allow what domains we accept ad.domains.com from, and we can also accept or reject the type of material being downloaded, e.g. reject >10K, reject gif, etc. etc.

OK, so it would take 5 years to get this implemented fully. But I'm ok with that, than it remaining an unmanaged aduniverse out there.
Posted on Reply
#29
Halk
That's really pretty stupid of you Bonkers.

You don't have the right to opt out of ads on the internet. Not unless you want your browser to negotiate with sites, who are then free to tell you to ram it and you can find your content elsewhere.
Posted on Reply
#30
[H]@RD5TUFF
sneekypeetSo this is like a condom that allows beneficial venereal diseases?
Exactly seems rather self defeating.
Posted on Reply
#31
GoFigureItOut
Am I the only that blocks ads via the HOST file? I find it to be more convenient than using ad-block, because it works on any and every web browser installed on the computer. There's a few drawbacks; such as blocking ads from hulu prevent videos from playing.
Posted on Reply
#32
Unregistered
sneekypeetSo this is like a condom that allows beneficial venereal diseases?
WHAT ????, its their own program. they can chose what is acceptable, if you don't like it don't use it, its simple like that. and please don't said something like that, remember you are a moderator.
#33
pantherx12
wahdangunWHAT ????, its their own program. they can chose what is acceptable, if you don't like it don't use it, its simple like that. and please don't said something like that, remember you are a moderator.
WAAA?

Which part did you find inappropriate? :laugh:

Both condoms and venereal disease are fairly reasonable things for an adult to discuss : ]
Posted on Reply
#34
sneekypeet
Retired Super Moderator
wahdangunWHAT ????, its their own program. they can chose what is acceptable, if you don't like it don't use it, its simple like that. and please don't said something like that, remember you are a moderator.
Here let me fix it for you.....

So this is like a condom a really bad idea for software that allows beneficial venereal diseases companies that pay to play the right to advertise!
Posted on Reply
#35
n-ster
GoFigureItOutAm I the only that blocks ads via the HOST file? I find it to be more convenient than using ad-block, because it works on any and every web browser installed on the computer. There's a few drawbacks; such as blocking ads from hulu prevent videos from playing.
I do too :p but there are always new ad sites... plus the host file DOESN'T block pop-ups, the pop up will come and the it will say unable to connect or wtv
Posted on Reply
#36
mediasorcerer
We pay to use the internet, its not free for most, so why the hell should we put up with advertising that is intrusive and unwanted.?
Posted on Reply
#37
Static~Charge
STCNEI'm completely fine with this, I don't use adblock/noscript as it is because they block out too many things, but a simple version that blocks the most obnoxious ads would be great.
Its more of a hassle un-blocking non-ads than it is to just ignore the ads as they are now.
AdBlock Plus by itself blocks nothing. It is the filter subscription(s) that you use that tell it what to block. You can always build your own block filters to remove just the few things that you don't want to see.
Posted on Reply
#38
WarraWarra
EsseSub-par or not ...
He meant because the internet is so Arizona USA you have to take extreme measures to make sure you are able to use it, also likely he is on a ADSL line that limits him to 30gb per month or a mobile phone internet or similar so limited usage or pay the price of a new car for your over usage.
This does not include high ping 400ms ~900ms normal ping, high latency and high packet loss at very slow speeds. Then there is the international to nation internet usage ratio of 1:64 and the ISP's then load 900 users onto a line that should not even be able to sustain 3x USA 4x person households, this is common practice and becoming part of the USA tricks as well as more user start to join the internet.

Travel a lot internationally, see this first hand and not fun.
It is a miracle that both you NZ and BT India can even view this website or have it load in less than 3 mins per page. You get the idea.
Posted on Reply
#39
Wile E
Power User
mediasorcererWe pay to use the internet, its not free for most, so why the hell should we put up with advertising that is intrusive and unwanted.?
Yeah, but we don't pay website operators to run the websites. 9/10 times advertising does that.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 24th, 2024 05:10 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts