Re: [projectvrm] Paying Adblock to not block

[Devon M T Loffreto < >]

Same old same old... lipstick and pigs.

This is why privacy/consent legislation as a one-off mechanism will always work the same way... put a flag on top of the mountain and watch as people incrementally tumble down from lack of integrity at the management layer.

Saw this today: https://twitter.com/dominiccampbell/status/562657738212528128

"No man is good enough to manage another man without the other's consent"

This is the inherent design flaw of modern National identity systems... they are industrial control layers, as no baby can give consent to having an administrative identifier that defines legal participation in Society defined upon them... civil Society is a choice, or it is not civil... identity is the layer where civil participation is defined.

Markets form upon this layer.

The one leads to the other... until we get what we have. Money will pervert that which is able to be perverted.

While technology is making exponential gains, people are seeking incremental improvements.

Personal Sovereign choice yields consent of the governed... and markets of integrity... there is no two ways about it.

~ John Hancock says to history.. and Kings. (and yet we miss it..continually)

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Aurelie Pols < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

So basically AdBlock Plus is defining what's acceptable, judge and arbiter at the same time?

Why does this remind me of the issue about RTBF where it's in Google's hands to curate content and decide what gets forgotten and what not?

Leaving financial considerations and territorial limitations aside on these 2 topic matters and while I have to confess a current "penchant" for self-regulation as opposed to pure legislation, this does feel kind of out of whack.

I do like the last paragraph of https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads though, got to hand it to them "the results of our survey say something different", cute

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Don Marti < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

begin Dan Miller quotation of Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 10:49:37AM -0800:
>
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/2/7963577/google-ads-get-through-adblock
>
> Forgive me if someone already posted this article. It's precious.

Unfortunately, "acceptable ads" is an out-of-date
concept for many current web designs.

  For pages featuring a reading text ads should not be
  placed in the middle, where they interrupt the
  reading flow. However, they can be placed above the
  text content, below it or on the sides.

  https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads

So a nice-looking design like Quartz does not have
"acceptable" ads because ads can appear when scrolling
a long article, but a crap-ass legacy WCMS that splits
a shorter article into 9 pages is A-OK.

As far as I can tell, targeted third-party ads can
buy into the "acceptable" program too, which does
nothing for improving the value of the medium.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong here.)

At this point it's probably better for users to
skip Adblock Plus and go straight to Disconnect or
Privacy Badger.

  https://www.eff.org/privacybadger#how_is_it_different


--
Don Marti
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
" target="_blank">

--

--
Aurélie Pols

Skype: aurelie.pols
Mobile: + 34 630 687 112