13 ms·

Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

426 points by cowchase 13y ago

kmfrk 13y ago
Saw the same thing with AdMuncher, I believe, and was wondering whether they had entered the same sort of agreement.
- jfoster 13y ago
  I know the founder of AdMuncher. Pretty sure they don't whitelist.
naner 13y ago
I thought this was assumed to be the case when AdBlock added the "Allow non-intrusive advertising" feature?
scotth 13y ago
Is this a bad thing? AdBlock has made no promises to me, and it continues to be useful. The day it doesn't, I uninstall it and find an alternative.
bwy 13y ago
That explains Google sponsored links showing up again. Oh well, that's just another filter I'll have to add.
- lfcode 13y ago
  There is a setting to disable whitelisting ,so you don't have to add the filter manually.
  - hobs 13y ago
    And it is in a very obvious place, even though I dislike the whitelisting, they did tell me about it and make it clear how to change it. I see it as the adware installers in legit software you can uninstall, it is there to catch the unwary and make money off of them.
jpdoctor 13y ago
Quick ref to get rid of Google Ads (and some others too) on Adblock Plus: FOR CHROME: Go to "Settings" Find Extensions in the list on the left Find AdBlock, select "Options" Click the tab "Filter Lists" Uncheck: "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" FOR FIREFOX: Go to the Firefox menu in the upper left corner Select "Add-ons" Select "Extensions" Find Adblock Plus, select Options. Find the "Filter Preferences" Button Select the tab "Filter Subscriptions" Uncheck: "Allow some non-intrusive advertising"
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- cake 13y ago
  And don't forget to support the websites that you visit the most by whitelisting them.
  - programminggeek 13y ago
    Um, that's dumb unless you plan on clicking their ads. Seriously, just showing a CPC ad doesn't help them. Showing a CPM ad doesn't help much either if they are getting $5-10 CPM. You literally could just pay them $5 or $10 and be more valuable than whitelisting them.
    - eli 13y ago
      Yes, and some sites do charge $5 or $10 for access or for additional features. But I'm glad the whole web doesn't work that way.
    - tomflack 13y ago
      If a site can show they have a lower percentage of adblock users than standard, it's a boon for them. If I am not blocking their ads, there is a chance I'll see something that interests me and click on it. You don't need to explicitly state "I will click ads every day" to make it not "dumb".
- CrazedGeek 13y ago
kevingadd 13y ago
As long as they're only whitelisting text ads, I don't think I mind. Even image ads that aren't animated are okay with me if they aren't offensive. The only reason I have AdBlock plus installed in the first place is the really vile shit - noisy SWFs, scantily clad women, drive-by PDF 0 day exploits, etc...
- diggan 13y ago
  Well, what others find offensive, you find funny and what you find offensive, other people don't even notice. It's a pretty subjective thing no?
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure it would require an extreme amount of subjectivity to find random noise blaring out of your speakers or drive-by trojan installs acceptable. But sure.
    - pygy_ 13y ago
      I think you missed his point. He was referring to the fact that you don't mind the ABP policy, while you may find some images offending.
      - kevingadd 13y ago
        Those ads aren't vile specifically because they have an image of a woman in them; they're vile because they're psychological manipulation primarily based on the objectification of women and intended to funnel clicks to shady online game websites that basically operate as a mechanism for scamming as much money out of gullible players as possible. Or to put it another way: Typically the ads that do the most annoying stuff are from advertisers that obviously aren't particularly legit. Microsoft and Apple aren't blaring noise out of your speakers or shoving pictures of scantily clad women in your face to get you to play microtransaction games and Amazon doesn't do it to get you to buy books or movies. Of course the definition of taste and acceptability is subjective, but there is definitely a line between legit advertisers that aren't hostile to web surfers, and the advertisers who will do absolutely anything if it increases revenues - including tracking users or outright lying to them.
webwanderings 13y ago
Just uncheck the Allow non-intrusive option and this becomes a non-issue. With recent onslaught of attack on Ghostery and Ad-block, I wonder if these two tools are doing exactly what they're supposed to do: help people.
- tr4656 13y ago
  What were the attacks on Ghostery? I seem to have missed them.
  - webwanderings 13y ago
    Ghostery was in news recently, there was also a big thread here on HN. Sorry, don't have links handy right now.
  - Kylekramer 13y ago
    I imagine it has something to do with the fact Ghostery is owned by an advertising company. Not sure if that is this particular "attack", but a lot of people use it without understanding why it is made and it periodically gets widely reported to some backlash.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    That they were/are being paid for sending analytics to ad companies. I actually don't mind, but it should be in red blinking 20 point script on the page where you download it. I can't find the news.ycombinator threads, though.
    - DoubleMalt 13y ago
      It is opt in. However they named it pretty inconspicuously ...
  - jotaass 13y ago
    Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5897682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5897682
  - 13y ago
fintler 13y ago
Since it seems to be a common misconception, I'd just like to point out that "Adblock" and "Adblock Plus" are two different extensions made by different people.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Yeah, for the longest time I thought the latter was an enhanced (paid?) version of the former. I can't believe naming browser extensions in a similar manner like this is allowed. It causes nothing but confusion.
  - B-Con 13y ago
    I feel really old now, but Adblock Plus was actually forked from the original Adblock. The "plus" part implied it was supposed to improve on the original project.
SomeRandomUser 13y ago
Although the ethics of paying as the method for being whitelisted can be subject to debate, IIRC Adblock states that whitelisted ads could be those that aren't animated, block access to content or distract the normal flow of browsing. Adwords are just blocks of text. Ugly blocks of text, but they don't distract too much. And promoted search results are a fair tradeoff imo. Anyway, disabling the display of whitelisted ads is not a complex task.
znowi 13y ago
I think it was immoral and dishonest to sneak in a whitelist feature into AdBlock, which is in direct opposition to the core product value. Imagine a firewall that whitelists certain networks. And background updates add more networks that bought their way into your machine. Not a product I'd be willing to use.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  Agreed completely. For what it's worth, on Firefox anyways, there's a fork of Adblock Plus called Adblock Edge that has no such ethical issues, and as far as I can tell, works with all the addon plugins that worked with ABP like the element hider and popup blocker.
  - wallunit 13y ago
    Why does somebody fork ABP, just to strip out a featere which can already be disabled in the options?
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      Because that "feature" existing points to a serious ethical failing and conflict of interest on the part of the author (namely, taking money to help advertisers bypass the plugin) Firefox plugins auto-update, who's to say the next update won't have something more objectionable?
      - wallunit 13y ago
        I just noted that Adblock Edge is still based on version 2.0.4 of Adblock Plus, which is outdated for a while. It seems that Adblock Edge isn't maintained anymore and probably never was. So Adblock Edge will probably get incompatible with future versions of Firefox, anyway. And if there are security issues in the code, it is rather unlikely that they will get fixed, as fast as in upstream Adblock Plus, if at all. On the other hand I think it is way less likely that Adblock Plus will add a lot of features that wouldn't be in your interest, in the near future. Sure it is a change in the ethical background of the product. Adblock Plus isn't a hobby project anymore. It's a business now. That means that it has to be profitable. But on the other hand that also means that there are more resources available. So the product can be properly maintained, further improved, and ported to new platforms. I think this "ethical failing" (as you call it), isn't more or less serious, or unexpected, than when Google introduced in-app ads in Android. In the case of Adblock Plus, as well in the case of Android, I'm happy that the company behind the product found a way to make the product profitable. So they can maintain and improve the product.
leeoniya 13y ago
time to dig around in the Adblock Plus source and see what's behind that "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" checkbox.
- pathy 13y ago
  Right next to it, there is a link to whitelist. You won't have to do that much digging :) https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...
- Narretz 13y ago
  There's no need to dig around in the source. AdBlock Plus is setting certain ad providers on its whitelist. In theory, the decision of who is whitelisted should be made by the community. But as a German blogger recently found out, Adblock plus owners and investors have connections to some AdProviders, and those are favored, while others are still blocked. The article in question: http://www.mobilegeeks.de/adblock-plus-undercover-einblicke-in-ein-mafioeses-werbenetzwerk/ http://www.mobilegeeks.de/adblock-plus-undercover-einblicke-...
brendoncrawford 13y ago
The whitelist also allows ads for Reddit and Amazon.
mknits 13y ago
Use AdBlock Edge instead of the normal ABP, you'll have no further worries.
mratzloff 13y ago
I defined an exception for AdWords when I first installed an ad blocker. I just want to block the annoying ads, but I understand that many sites have to advertise to stay online. I can live with text ads, but not auto-start videos with sound, animated banner ads, pop-ups, etc.
- calbear81 13y ago
  It doesn't help a site if you show text blocks from AdSense since they get paid only when there's a qualified click.
  - amalter 13y ago
    The first step in getting a click is gettin an impression. On the other extreme, I've actually found myself right clicking into an organic search because I feel bad for charging UPS for my laziness. (Yes I do realize how ridiculous this is on so many levels. However, do not assume that well plassed text ads do not get click thrus)
guelo 13y ago
Here is the "non-intrusive" filter https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx... It does seem to have a lot of google.
- Recoil42 13y ago
  It does seem to have a lot of google. Google's a rather large advertiser, and put a good deal of work into ensuring their ads behave better than most.
  - s3r3nity 13y ago
    "...[P]ut a good deal of work into ensuring their ads behave better than most." It's more like they have a lot more data and scale to target better ads at individuals. And when you have many many ads competing for X amount of spots, the average ad quality increases. Google doesn't really need to do anything other than create the platform that gathers lots of data on individuals and allow for appropriate targeting.
tenpoundhammer 13y ago
This whitelist was highly publicized, I even listened to a segment on NPR that interviewed an Ad Block Plus employee about it(Link below). For all you outraged individuals this was a very openly communicated addition and comes by default, but it can be easily turned off. Oh the outrage... http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/may/10/adblock-plus-internets-ad-gatekeeper/ http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/may/10/adblock-plus-internets...
calbear81 13y ago
I understand the apprehension in this community about ads in general but when it comes to search engine ads, it does add value (and relevance improvement) to many "commerce" oriented queries. Google also already knows categories that generally don't get high ad engagement and doesn't show them for those. An example would be "chuck norris biography" - the intent is clear that you're looking for information primarily and even though I'm sure Amazon or others buy tons of ads against "chuck norris movies", etc. Google is smart enough to know not show you those irrelevant ads.
- opinali 13y ago
  [chuck norris] won't show any ads either -- and Google will show you Chuck's knowledge graph entry, including a random Chuck Norris Fact :)
- ruswick 13y ago
  I don't believe that I've ever clicked on a text ad. (That is to say, I had never clicked on one prior to starting using an ad blocker two years ago.) If I'm attempting to research a product or product category, I'll go to an aggregator like Gdgt or an editorial site like The Wirecutter. I can't comprehend why one would ever click on ads when intending to spend money. The last source I would ever trust to recommend how I spend my money is an advertising platform.
atirip 13y ago
Yeah, money talks, bullshit (you, the product) walks.
Apocryphon 13y ago
Mozilla's main source of revenue is from Google, as well. Are many of these non-profit entities dependent upon Google funding?
- dendory 13y ago
  Except Mozilla doesn't try to hide that fact, and it can be argued to be in users interest by providing a search bar, instead of no search function at all. Here, someone who uses Adblock Plus decided to block ads. Adding them behind their backs is dishonest.
6cxs2hd6 13y ago
As others noted, AdBlock and Adblock Plus are two different companies. I donated to AdBlock a couple years ago. Should have earlier. And should do again. Not claiming to be a saint. But I gave them some actual money. I'd like to think that enough people doing this, makes it possible for AdBlock to avoid doing what AdBlock Plus did. I think this is a variation on the theme, "If you're not the customer, you're the product." Usually we talk about this WRT free web services. In this case it applies to what, back in the day, some of us would refer to as "shareware".
dropdownmenu 13y ago
I can understand google trying to protect their revenue source, but actions like this undermine the openness of the platforms that they are trying to promote. Open and free platforms need to allow people to say no.
cupcake-unicorn 13y ago
I did notice this recently and have been having to uncheck the box on all the new PCs I install it on. While the ads are "unintrusive" I have a media PC where I've turned the font up to huge to be able to read from the couch. Some search terms will cause maybe up to 4 different text ads to show up and that will effectively block out the actual search results when your font is large. I'm glad I found out about this though. I always felt vaguely guilty unchecking it, because I thought it was maybe AdBlock trying to support the "Good Guys" of online advertising, but if Google themselves are paying for it, I no longer care.
vnchr 13y ago
Many people love AdBlock being free (incl. myself) and many people would admit Google's Ads are comparatively less intrusive and comparatively more relevant. I assumed this was the case when I installed it, similar to the situation with Firefox using Google search by default while being compensated to the tune of $1B[1]. Why is this surprising or upsetting? [1] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398046,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398046,00.asp
driverdan 13y ago
Solution: Use AdBlock instead of AdBlock Plus. You can add your own whitelists if you want but it doesn't have any itself. Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiob... Source: https://code.google.com/p/adblockforchrome/ https://code.google.com/p/adblockforchrome/
RyanZAG 13y ago
I was thinking about this further, and while it comes off as fairly irrelevant to start with, it's actually an extremely bad thing. In essence, this has set up two tiers of advertising: those we have paid for white list privileges, and those who haven't. This is heavily in Google's interests as they are the only advertiser powerful enough to get by with only text adverts - nobody else has a platform like Google search where text only adverts are enough to overcome costs and provide viability. By using Adblock Plus as a weapon against non-Google adverts, Google is removing the ability for other players to compete on level footing. It's very similar to the idea of paying AT&T for prioritization for Google traffic, and it destroys a lot of the foundations that the web is built on. It definitely crosses into 'evil' territory for me, in the same way as paying AT&T to slow down access to Bing would be. While it's just an add on, it's a bad precedent to set.
- md224 13y ago
  It's interesting that people are upset about Google being able to pay to get their content around certain barriers, when this is essentially what Google AdWords is: a system for advertisers to pay to get their content displayed in prominent locations rather than relying on position in organic search. And yet nobody really takes it seriously as a Real Problem. Not trivializing your complaint, btw... just pointing out that using money to get your message to the forefront is kind of the point of advertising itself, so the fact that Google is paying to get their advertising displayed is kind of... meta? I'd love to have a discussion on HN about the necessity of advertising in the Information Age. I think we would all like to live in a world where purchasing decisions are based on reviews from people that have actually used a good or service, and I would think that the ubiquity of the web has made this kind of crowdsourced intelligence quite feasible. Does advertising provide a valuable service beyond subsidizing information flow? If not, are there alternate viable strategies for subsidizing information flow, such as Wikipedia's donation model? Is a post-advertising world possible, or even desirable?
  - sandossu 13y ago
    "I think we would all like to live in a world where purchasing decisions are based on reviews from people that have actually used a good or service, and I would think that the ubiquity of the web has made this kind of crowdsourced intelligence quite feasible." Would you really like all advertising to move in that direction? You should realize it's impossible to know if a person really owns and likes a product or it's just a sponsorship. Nobody would be trusted anymore.
justplay 13y ago
for some reason I am thinking that how smart peoples are making money with his hack-ish idea.
darkstalker 13y ago
Ad blocking should be a core feature of web browsers.
- aw3c2 13y ago
  It is in Opera (or was, rather, until version 12).
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  Web browsers developed by advertising networks or funded mainly through advertising networks aren't likely to consider it a wise addition to the core features however.
- psbp 13y ago
  Most sites would go down this way. Very few sites could survive purely on donations or tiered pricing.
downandout 13y ago
I was always curious as to how they made money. He used to ask for donations. Asking for money in exchange for not taking actions that will harm another person's business (i.e. blocking their ads) seeing seems awfully close to extortion. Yelp was sued for extortion, and their conduct was far less egregious than this. Google probably couldn't handle the PR hit after the NSA stuff, but I'll bet their first inclination was to sue rather than write a check.
- jmharvey 13y ago
  Adblock and Adblock Plus are different.
  - downandout 13y ago
    I changed it to "they". It doesn't change the fact that someone managed to extort money from Google.
nemoniac 13y ago
Disabled AdBlock Plus. Added Adblock Edge.
dotmanish 13y ago
It's not just advertising that Google stands to benefit from. The Google Ads also help them keep a track of where the person has been around the web and also acts as a proxy site stats data for Google (irrespective of whether you use Google Analytics or not).
redvining 13y ago
No shit, Sherlock!
tlrobinson 13y ago
I don't run an ad blocker right now, but I'd totally run one that only blocks advertisers who have paid AdBlock Plus.
nivla 13y ago
Although I can understand the need to whitelist non-intrusive or "acceptable" ads, it seems shady to base the list on who pays the most. If adblock plus is a community plugin, the list of acceptable ads should be voted on. I have switched to Ghostery (after reports of adblock plus injecting referral tags), so can someone clarify if whitelisting is enabled by default? Despite ads being the main source of revenue for Google, it is really cool of them to allow ad-blockers on the Chrome extension store (although Andriod is another story). However, paying to be whitelisted puts the rest of the advertisers at a disadvantage. It is a very well known fact that there isn't a good alternative to Adsense and things like this will only puts a dent into the remaining competition.
dendory 13y ago
I suspected something like that when I realized Google Ads were now showing up on my screen a few weeks ago. I went to the Adblock Plus forum and all it said was that those ads had been added to the list, no reason why. I personally find it appealing and hope everyone switches away to an Adblock fork, if only by principle. Sure it's the extension' maintainer's right to take bribes, but the consequence should be that no one trusts the extension again.
osth 13y ago
I would have thought Adblock's userbase too small to be of concern to Google.
suyash 13y ago
So what is the alternative, in the comments two of them have stood out: http://www.ghostery.com/ http://www.ghostery.com/ & AdBlock. Any prefrences or any other good ones, I'm going to get rid of AdBlock Plus right now so looking for a solution.
hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
The other day I was thinking about how Google keeps printing "download button" traps [1], despite it being in clear conflict with their TOS [2], for obvious reasons (abnormal high revenue from clicks). Now, they "bribe" the author of AdBlock to keep a flawed model alive. Advertising is a shitty industry, but boy, is Google taking it to the next level. And the nerds are too distracted with their shinny things and job offers to notice. [1] http://www.ghacks.net/2012/06/17/how-deceiving-ads-trick-you-on-download-sites/ http://www.ghacks.net/2012/06/17/how-deceiving-ads-trick-you... [2] https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/topic/1308149 https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/topic/1308149
- cbr 13y ago
  Looking at your [1] link I don't see any "download traps" there being served by Google. (No "ad choices" triangle in the upper right.)
pjbrunet 13y ago
Paying was easier than obfuscating the js.
lifeguard 13y ago
The Evil just keeps on coming from the googleplex lately, doesn't it?
jojolebobo 13y ago
Funny that people would focus on google in this case. It seems to me adblock plus is the culprit here. First it gained a much significant footprint, then added the whole "acceptable ads" concept, then got paid by advertisers to be whitelisted. Seems like adblock plus is abusing its position of power to extort money and doesn't care about the user.
GoldfishCRM 13y ago
Adblocking it self is evil. The current ecosystem where users get contents for publishers for "free", advertisers pays publisher for producing content and viewing it to users and last users pay advertisers (buying there product). If users dont see advertising, advertising has no interest in paying publishers and then publishers gets no money. Not many people understand the ecosystem and I have seen developers living of advertising and still blocks ads online. That is crasy if you think about it.
alokyadav15 13y ago
if they are doing so , well we have to lookup for another adblock option
pvdm 13y ago
The question to ask is does google allow you to make informed and rational decisions.
straight_talk 13y ago
I personally use a commercial ad blocker - AdMuncher. Blocks more ads than ABP and I know I'm the customer, not Google. Only supports Windows unfortunately, but on Linux I run an XP VM and proxy through it.
1giangpnda 13y ago
Replace google with any other major company.. let the real unbiased discussion begin.
tinybird 13y ago
wwjd?
transitionality 13y ago
All it takes is one click on a checkbox. Anyone is free to fork AdBlock Plus' codebase and prepare a version that doesn't require that checkbox. I, for one, am happy that AdBlock Plus is being funded (and will continue to provide a great, reliable product) at the expense of users too stupid or ignorant to click on a single checkbox.

426 points by cowchase 13y ago

kmfrk 13y ago

Saw the same thing with AdMuncher, I believe, and was wondering whether they had entered the same sort of agreement.

jfoster 13y ago
I know the founder of AdMuncher. Pretty sure they don't whitelist.

naner 13y ago

I thought this was assumed to be the case when AdBlock added the "Allow non-intrusive advertising" feature?

scotth 13y ago

Is this a bad thing? AdBlock has made no promises to me, and it continues to be useful. The day it doesn't, I uninstall it and find an alternative.

bwy 13y ago

That explains Google sponsored links showing up again. Oh well, that's just another filter I'll have to add.

lfcode 13y ago
There is a setting to disable whitelisting ,so you don't have to add the filter manually.
- hobs 13y ago
  And it is in a very obvious place, even though I dislike the whitelisting, they did tell me about it and make it clear how to change it. I see it as the adware installers in legit software you can uninstall, it is there to catch the unwary and make money off of them.

jpdoctor 13y ago

Quick ref to get rid of Google Ads (and some others too) on Adblock Plus: FOR CHROME: Go to "Settings" Find Extensions in the list on the left Find AdBlock, select "Options" Click the tab "Filter Lists" Uncheck: "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" FOR FIREFOX: Go to the Firefox menu in the upper left corner Select "Add-ons" Select "Extensions" Find Adblock Plus, select Options. Find the "Filter Preferences" Button Select the tab "Filter Subscriptions" Uncheck: "Allow some non-intrusive advertising"

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cake 13y ago
And don't forget to support the websites that you visit the most by whitelisting them.
- programminggeek 13y ago
  Um, that's dumb unless you plan on clicking their ads. Seriously, just showing a CPC ad doesn't help them. Showing a CPM ad doesn't help much either if they are getting $5-10 CPM. You literally could just pay them $5 or $10 and be more valuable than whitelisting them.
  - eli 13y ago
    Yes, and some sites do charge $5 or $10 for access or for additional features. But I'm glad the whole web doesn't work that way.
  - tomflack 13y ago
    If a site can show they have a lower percentage of adblock users than standard, it's a boon for them. If I am not blocking their ads, there is a chance I'll see something that interests me and click on it. You don't need to explicitly state "I will click ads every day" to make it not "dumb".
CrazedGeek 13y ago

kevingadd 13y ago

As long as they're only whitelisting text ads, I don't think I mind. Even image ads that aren't animated are okay with me if they aren't offensive. The only reason I have AdBlock plus installed in the first place is the really vile shit - noisy SWFs, scantily clad women, drive-by PDF 0 day exploits, etc...

diggan 13y ago
Well, what others find offensive, you find funny and what you find offensive, other people don't even notice. It's a pretty subjective thing no?
- kevingadd 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure it would require an extreme amount of subjectivity to find random noise blaring out of your speakers or drive-by trojan installs acceptable. But sure.
  - pygy_ 13y ago
    I think you missed his point. He was referring to the fact that you don't mind the ABP policy, while you may find some images offending.
    - kevingadd 13y ago
      Those ads aren't vile specifically because they have an image of a woman in them; they're vile because they're psychological manipulation primarily based on the objectification of women and intended to funnel clicks to shady online game websites that basically operate as a mechanism for scamming as much money out of gullible players as possible. Or to put it another way: Typically the ads that do the most annoying stuff are from advertisers that obviously aren't particularly legit. Microsoft and Apple aren't blaring noise out of your speakers or shoving pictures of scantily clad women in your face to get you to play microtransaction games and Amazon doesn't do it to get you to buy books or movies. Of course the definition of taste and acceptability is subjective, but there is definitely a line between legit advertisers that aren't hostile to web surfers, and the advertisers who will do absolutely anything if it increases revenues - including tracking users or outright lying to them.

webwanderings 13y ago

Just uncheck the Allow non-intrusive option and this becomes a non-issue. With recent onslaught of attack on Ghostery and Ad-block, I wonder if these two tools are doing exactly what they're supposed to do: help people.

tr4656 13y ago
What were the attacks on Ghostery? I seem to have missed them.
- webwanderings 13y ago
  Ghostery was in news recently, there was also a big thread here on HN. Sorry, don't have links handy right now.
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  I imagine it has something to do with the fact Ghostery is owned by an advertising company. Not sure if that is this particular "attack", but a lot of people use it without understanding why it is made and it periodically gets widely reported to some backlash.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  That they were/are being paid for sending analytics to ad companies. I actually don't mind, but it should be in red blinking 20 point script on the page where you download it. I can't find the news.ycombinator threads, though.
  - DoubleMalt 13y ago
    It is opt in. However they named it pretty inconspicuously ...
- jotaass 13y ago
  Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5897682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5897682
- 13y ago

fintler 13y ago

Since it seems to be a common misconception, I'd just like to point out that "Adblock" and "Adblock Plus" are two different extensions made by different people.

enraged_camel 13y ago
Yeah, for the longest time I thought the latter was an enhanced (paid?) version of the former. I can't believe naming browser extensions in a similar manner like this is allowed. It causes nothing but confusion.
- B-Con 13y ago
  I feel really old now, but Adblock Plus was actually forked from the original Adblock. The "plus" part implied it was supposed to improve on the original project.

SomeRandomUser 13y ago

Although the ethics of paying as the method for being whitelisted can be subject to debate, IIRC Adblock states that whitelisted ads could be those that aren't animated, block access to content or distract the normal flow of browsing. Adwords are just blocks of text. Ugly blocks of text, but they don't distract too much. And promoted search results are a fair tradeoff imo. Anyway, disabling the display of whitelisted ads is not a complex task.

znowi 13y ago

I think it was immoral and dishonest to sneak in a whitelist feature into AdBlock, which is in direct opposition to the core product value. Imagine a firewall that whitelists certain networks. And background updates add more networks that bought their way into your machine. Not a product I'd be willing to use.

Karunamon 13y ago
Agreed completely. For what it's worth, on Firefox anyways, there's a fork of Adblock Plus called Adblock Edge that has no such ethical issues, and as far as I can tell, works with all the addon plugins that worked with ABP like the element hider and popup blocker.
- wallunit 13y ago
  Why does somebody fork ABP, just to strip out a featere which can already be disabled in the options?
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    Because that "feature" existing points to a serious ethical failing and conflict of interest on the part of the author (namely, taking money to help advertisers bypass the plugin) Firefox plugins auto-update, who's to say the next update won't have something more objectionable?
    - wallunit 13y ago
      I just noted that Adblock Edge is still based on version 2.0.4 of Adblock Plus, which is outdated for a while. It seems that Adblock Edge isn't maintained anymore and probably never was. So Adblock Edge will probably get incompatible with future versions of Firefox, anyway. And if there are security issues in the code, it is rather unlikely that they will get fixed, as fast as in upstream Adblock Plus, if at all. On the other hand I think it is way less likely that Adblock Plus will add a lot of features that wouldn't be in your interest, in the near future. Sure it is a change in the ethical background of the product. Adblock Plus isn't a hobby project anymore. It's a business now. That means that it has to be profitable. But on the other hand that also means that there are more resources available. So the product can be properly maintained, further improved, and ported to new platforms. I think this "ethical failing" (as you call it), isn't more or less serious, or unexpected, than when Google introduced in-app ads in Android. In the case of Adblock Plus, as well in the case of Android, I'm happy that the company behind the product found a way to make the product profitable. So they can maintain and improve the product.

leeoniya 13y ago

time to dig around in the Adblock Plus source and see what's behind that "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" checkbox.

pathy 13y ago
Right next to it, there is a link to whitelist. You won't have to do that much digging :) https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...
Narretz 13y ago
There's no need to dig around in the source. AdBlock Plus is setting certain ad providers on its whitelist. In theory, the decision of who is whitelisted should be made by the community. But as a German blogger recently found out, Adblock plus owners and investors have connections to some AdProviders, and those are favored, while others are still blocked. The article in question: http://www.mobilegeeks.de/adblock-plus-undercover-einblicke-in-ein-mafioeses-werbenetzwerk/ http://www.mobilegeeks.de/adblock-plus-undercover-einblicke-...

brendoncrawford 13y ago

The whitelist also allows ads for Reddit and Amazon.

mknits 13y ago

Use AdBlock Edge instead of the normal ABP, you'll have no further worries.

mratzloff 13y ago

I defined an exception for AdWords when I first installed an ad blocker. I just want to block the annoying ads, but I understand that many sites have to advertise to stay online. I can live with text ads, but not auto-start videos with sound, animated banner ads, pop-ups, etc.

calbear81 13y ago
It doesn't help a site if you show text blocks from AdSense since they get paid only when there's a qualified click.
- amalter 13y ago
  The first step in getting a click is gettin an impression. On the other extreme, I've actually found myself right clicking into an organic search because I feel bad for charging UPS for my laziness. (Yes I do realize how ridiculous this is on so many levels. However, do not assume that well plassed text ads do not get click thrus)

guelo 13y ago

Here is the "non-intrusive" filter https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx... It does seem to have a lot of google.

Recoil42 13y ago
It does seem to have a lot of google. Google's a rather large advertiser, and put a good deal of work into ensuring their ads behave better than most.
- s3r3nity 13y ago
  "...[P]ut a good deal of work into ensuring their ads behave better than most." It's more like they have a lot more data and scale to target better ads at individuals. And when you have many many ads competing for X amount of spots, the average ad quality increases. Google doesn't really need to do anything other than create the platform that gathers lots of data on individuals and allow for appropriate targeting.

tenpoundhammer 13y ago

This whitelist was highly publicized, I even listened to a segment on NPR that interviewed an Ad Block Plus employee about it(Link below). For all you outraged individuals this was a very openly communicated addition and comes by default, but it can be easily turned off. Oh the outrage... http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/may/10/adblock-plus-internets-ad-gatekeeper/ http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/may/10/adblock-plus-internets...

calbear81 13y ago

I understand the apprehension in this community about ads in general but when it comes to search engine ads, it does add value (and relevance improvement) to many "commerce" oriented queries. Google also already knows categories that generally don't get high ad engagement and doesn't show them for those. An example would be "chuck norris biography" - the intent is clear that you're looking for information primarily and even though I'm sure Amazon or others buy tons of ads against "chuck norris movies", etc. Google is smart enough to know not show you those irrelevant ads.

opinali 13y ago
[chuck norris] won't show any ads either -- and Google will show you Chuck's knowledge graph entry, including a random Chuck Norris Fact :)
ruswick 13y ago
I don't believe that I've ever clicked on a text ad. (That is to say, I had never clicked on one prior to starting using an ad blocker two years ago.) If I'm attempting to research a product or product category, I'll go to an aggregator like Gdgt or an editorial site like The Wirecutter. I can't comprehend why one would ever click on ads when intending to spend money. The last source I would ever trust to recommend how I spend my money is an advertising platform.

atirip 13y ago

Yeah, money talks, bullshit (you, the product) walks.

Apocryphon 13y ago

Mozilla's main source of revenue is from Google, as well. Are many of these non-profit entities dependent upon Google funding?

dendory 13y ago
Except Mozilla doesn't try to hide that fact, and it can be argued to be in users interest by providing a search bar, instead of no search function at all. Here, someone who uses Adblock Plus decided to block ads. Adding them behind their backs is dishonest.

6cxs2hd6 13y ago

As others noted, AdBlock and Adblock Plus are two different companies. I donated to AdBlock a couple years ago. Should have earlier. And should do again. Not claiming to be a saint. But I gave them some actual money. I'd like to think that enough people doing this, makes it possible for AdBlock to avoid doing what AdBlock Plus did. I think this is a variation on the theme, "If you're not the customer, you're the product." Usually we talk about this WRT free web services. In this case it applies to what, back in the day, some of us would refer to as "shareware".

dropdownmenu 13y ago

I can understand google trying to protect their revenue source, but actions like this undermine the openness of the platforms that they are trying to promote. Open and free platforms need to allow people to say no.

cupcake-unicorn 13y ago

I did notice this recently and have been having to uncheck the box on all the new PCs I install it on. While the ads are "unintrusive" I have a media PC where I've turned the font up to huge to be able to read from the couch. Some search terms will cause maybe up to 4 different text ads to show up and that will effectively block out the actual search results when your font is large. I'm glad I found out about this though. I always felt vaguely guilty unchecking it, because I thought it was maybe AdBlock trying to support the "Good Guys" of online advertising, but if Google themselves are paying for it, I no longer care.

vnchr 13y ago

Many people love AdBlock being free (incl. myself) and many people would admit Google's Ads are comparatively less intrusive and comparatively more relevant. I assumed this was the case when I installed it, similar to the situation with Firefox using Google search by default while being compensated to the tune of $1B[1]. Why is this surprising or upsetting? [1] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398046,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398046,00.asp

driverdan 13y ago

Solution: Use AdBlock instead of AdBlock Plus. You can add your own whitelists if you want but it doesn't have any itself. Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiob... Source: https://code.google.com/p/adblockforchrome/ https://code.google.com/p/adblockforchrome/

RyanZAG 13y ago

I was thinking about this further, and while it comes off as fairly irrelevant to start with, it's actually an extremely bad thing. In essence, this has set up two tiers of advertising: those we have paid for white list privileges, and those who haven't. This is heavily in Google's interests as they are the only advertiser powerful enough to get by with only text adverts - nobody else has a platform like Google search where text only adverts are enough to overcome costs and provide viability. By using Adblock Plus as a weapon against non-Google adverts, Google is removing the ability for other players to compete on level footing. It's very similar to the idea of paying AT&T for prioritization for Google traffic, and it destroys a lot of the foundations that the web is built on. It definitely crosses into 'evil' territory for me, in the same way as paying AT&T to slow down access to Bing would be. While it's just an add on, it's a bad precedent to set.

md224 13y ago
It's interesting that people are upset about Google being able to pay to get their content around certain barriers, when this is essentially what Google AdWords is: a system for advertisers to pay to get their content displayed in prominent locations rather than relying on position in organic search. And yet nobody really takes it seriously as a Real Problem. Not trivializing your complaint, btw... just pointing out that using money to get your message to the forefront is kind of the point of advertising itself, so the fact that Google is paying to get their advertising displayed is kind of... meta? I'd love to have a discussion on HN about the necessity of advertising in the Information Age. I think we would all like to live in a world where purchasing decisions are based on reviews from people that have actually used a good or service, and I would think that the ubiquity of the web has made this kind of crowdsourced intelligence quite feasible. Does advertising provide a valuable service beyond subsidizing information flow? If not, are there alternate viable strategies for subsidizing information flow, such as Wikipedia's donation model? Is a post-advertising world possible, or even desirable?
- sandossu 13y ago
  "I think we would all like to live in a world where purchasing decisions are based on reviews from people that have actually used a good or service, and I would think that the ubiquity of the web has made this kind of crowdsourced intelligence quite feasible." Would you really like all advertising to move in that direction? You should realize it's impossible to know if a person really owns and likes a product or it's just a sponsorship. Nobody would be trusted anymore.

justplay 13y ago

for some reason I am thinking that how smart peoples are making money with his hack-ish idea.

darkstalker 13y ago

Ad blocking should be a core feature of web browsers.

aw3c2 13y ago
It is in Opera (or was, rather, until version 12).
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
Web browsers developed by advertising networks or funded mainly through advertising networks aren't likely to consider it a wise addition to the core features however.
psbp 13y ago
Most sites would go down this way. Very few sites could survive purely on donations or tiered pricing.

downandout 13y ago

I was always curious as to how they made money. He used to ask for donations. Asking for money in exchange for not taking actions that will harm another person's business (i.e. blocking their ads) seeing seems awfully close to extortion. Yelp was sued for extortion, and their conduct was far less egregious than this. Google probably couldn't handle the PR hit after the NSA stuff, but I'll bet their first inclination was to sue rather than write a check.

jmharvey 13y ago
Adblock and Adblock Plus are different.
- downandout 13y ago
  I changed it to "they". It doesn't change the fact that someone managed to extort money from Google.

nemoniac 13y ago

Disabled AdBlock Plus. Added Adblock Edge.

dotmanish 13y ago

It's not just advertising that Google stands to benefit from. The Google Ads also help them keep a track of where the person has been around the web and also acts as a proxy site stats data for Google (irrespective of whether you use Google Analytics or not).

redvining 13y ago

No shit, Sherlock!

tlrobinson 13y ago

I don't run an ad blocker right now, but I'd totally run one that only blocks advertisers who have paid AdBlock Plus.

nivla 13y ago

Although I can understand the need to whitelist non-intrusive or "acceptable" ads, it seems shady to base the list on who pays the most. If adblock plus is a community plugin, the list of acceptable ads should be voted on. I have switched to Ghostery (after reports of adblock plus injecting referral tags), so can someone clarify if whitelisting is enabled by default? Despite ads being the main source of revenue for Google, it is really cool of them to allow ad-blockers on the Chrome extension store (although Andriod is another story). However, paying to be whitelisted puts the rest of the advertisers at a disadvantage. It is a very well known fact that there isn't a good alternative to Adsense and things like this will only puts a dent into the remaining competition.

dendory 13y ago

I suspected something like that when I realized Google Ads were now showing up on my screen a few weeks ago. I went to the Adblock Plus forum and all it said was that those ads had been added to the list, no reason why. I personally find it appealing and hope everyone switches away to an Adblock fork, if only by principle. Sure it's the extension' maintainer's right to take bribes, but the consequence should be that no one trusts the extension again.

osth 13y ago

I would have thought Adblock's userbase too small to be of concern to Google.

suyash 13y ago

So what is the alternative, in the comments two of them have stood out: http://www.ghostery.com/ http://www.ghostery.com/ & AdBlock. Any prefrences or any other good ones, I'm going to get rid of AdBlock Plus right now so looking for a solution.

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago

The other day I was thinking about how Google keeps printing "download button" traps [1], despite it being in clear conflict with their TOS [2], for obvious reasons (abnormal high revenue from clicks). Now, they "bribe" the author of AdBlock to keep a flawed model alive. Advertising is a shitty industry, but boy, is Google taking it to the next level. And the nerds are too distracted with their shinny things and job offers to notice. [1] http://www.ghacks.net/2012/06/17/how-deceiving-ads-trick-you-on-download-sites/ http://www.ghacks.net/2012/06/17/how-deceiving-ads-trick-you... [2] https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/topic/1308149 https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/topic/1308149

cbr 13y ago
Looking at your [1] link I don't see any "download traps" there being served by Google. (No "ad choices" triangle in the upper right.)

pjbrunet 13y ago

Paying was easier than obfuscating the js.

lifeguard 13y ago

The Evil just keeps on coming from the googleplex lately, doesn't it?

jojolebobo 13y ago

Funny that people would focus on google in this case. It seems to me adblock plus is the culprit here. First it gained a much significant footprint, then added the whole "acceptable ads" concept, then got paid by advertisers to be whitelisted. Seems like adblock plus is abusing its position of power to extort money and doesn't care about the user.

GoldfishCRM 13y ago

Adblocking it self is evil. The current ecosystem where users get contents for publishers for "free", advertisers pays publisher for producing content and viewing it to users and last users pay advertisers (buying there product). If users dont see advertising, advertising has no interest in paying publishers and then publishers gets no money. Not many people understand the ecosystem and I have seen developers living of advertising and still blocks ads online. That is crasy if you think about it.

alokyadav15 13y ago

if they are doing so , well we have to lookup for another adblock option

pvdm 13y ago

The question to ask is does google allow you to make informed and rational decisions.

straight_talk 13y ago

I personally use a commercial ad blocker - AdMuncher. Blocks more ads than ABP and I know I'm the customer, not Google. Only supports Windows unfortunately, but on Linux I run an XP VM and proxy through it.

1giangpnda 13y ago

Replace google with any other major company.. let the real unbiased discussion begin.

tinybird 13y ago

wwjd?

transitionality 13y ago

All it takes is one click on a checkbox. Anyone is free to fork AdBlock Plus' codebase and prepare a version that doesn't require that checkbox. I, for one, am happy that AdBlock Plus is being funded (and will continue to provide a great, reliable product) at the expense of users too stupid or ignorant to click on a single checkbox.