Re: [projectvrm] Paying Adblock to not block

[Don Marti < >]

begin Aurelie Pols quotation of Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:27:15PM +0100:

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

Users can always choose an alternate list.
The default list reflects one company's opinions,
but you can always tweak it.

But most users pick

 * whatever gives you free stuff

 * if the amount of free stuff is the same, pick the
   default

...so picking sensible defaults matters.  Apple has
done a good job with third-party tracking in the
Safari browser so far, and Firefox is on the right
track (or absence of track) too:
  
http://monica-at-mozilla.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/tracking-protection-in-firefox.html

With decent tracking protection in place --
and with high-reputation sites promoting it in
order to minimize data leakage -- user demand for
broad-spectrum ad blockers is likely to go down.

(Yes, for high-value sites, data leakage is a bigger
problem than ad blocking.  This is where the Mozilla
advertising and tracking protection project align.)

> 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 
> <
 >
>  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 Unfortunately, "acceptable ads" is an out-of-date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/
> > 
 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Aurélie Pols
> 
> Skype: aurelie.pols
> Mobile: + 34 630 687 112

-- 
Don Marti                    
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/