German blogger calls Adblock Plus 'a mafia-like advertising network'

It's called "hyperbole", "demonizing your opponent", and who knows what all.

Why sure, I'll believe anything the wonderful, honest advertisers say, it's not like they're out to make a buck or something.

 

And while you're cherry-picking quotes, how about this one:

It's still interesting; AdBlock makes concessions to advertisers, and are attacked all the more.

So's who is the Mafia? AdBlock, or the advertisers who are unwilling to compromise and use all kinds of lies and deceptions to attempt to get their way and try to force themselves on you?

 

Cherry-picking quotes makes sense, particularly if you want to avoid quoting PR people. The real news is that your source has not been able to deliver the necessary positive spin for Adblock Plus; they just hired tech PR firm Rocket Science to reframe their community mantra.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...unity-Publicly-Debate-Fate-Native-Advertising

 

Yeah, cherry-picking quotes (and articles) makes sense if all you are interested in is propaganda.

And your guy who delivered your cherry picked quote is just an unbiased guy who does what he does as a hobby and is no way compensated for what he does, just like you?

 

BTW, this isn't my source, you picked all the articles referenced. Why not try a little honesty, what is your vested interest in forcing intrusive ads on everyone? What got you into PR?

 

If you re-read what I've posted on this thread (and others) you'll see that transparency is precisely what I'm after. There is no 'vested interest' here. I share your criticism of the advertising industry, which is lacking accountability and transparency, particularly where the latest technology is involved. The people at Eyeo GmbH are a prime example, their agenda is ambiguous to say the least. This is an exciting field, important enough to keep a close eye on - and to post our findings here.

 

You're clearly after attacking AdBlock. You accuse them of lack of transparency, yet what evidence do you have that they're not telling the truth? Your arguments are very one sided. Some tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, of AdBlock users don't seem to share your views. Maybe when AdBlock stops doing what they want it to do, they'll change their minds.

 

No 'vested interest'? Aren't you the one pushing for....Adblock Edge? Bluhell Firewall? Basically say screw to advertising as a whole? Reporting findings is one thing. Spreading what seems like an aparent attack against EyeO is another. I understand your enthusiasm and interest in the subject but let's stop all this "mafia" drama...

 

There's no drama involved, just facts and opinions. This is a discussion forum

 

As I said, at least hyperbole. Exaggeration and untruths aren't "facts." Opinions, maybe. Mainly opinions of people and owners of website that wish to profit from obtrusive ads. (Do the articles you reference by any chance come from websites the use ads?)

I just took another look at AdBlock. I can see what filter rules are active, and inactivate any rule I want. If I check to allow "non-intrusive ads" I can see a list of exactly what ads are allowed.

What lack of transparency are you talking about?

You've already made it clear you have a problem with choice. You don't believe the user should have the choice to allow or block non-intrusive ads, and advertisers shouldn't have the choice whether to have their ads submitted on the list. That has nothing to do with transparency.

 

First, you attack me for supposedly being pro-advertising. Then you attack me for being anti-advertising, introducing catchphrases along the lines of 'hyperbole' and 'demonizing your opponent' [sic]. None of this makes sense.

Distorting arguments in an attempt to discredit the messenger is one thing. Personal attacks are another; claiming to know what another person thinks or believes borders on the ridiculous. Why don't you do your homework first? Or is this your homework?

 

Okay Pinga, can you make any kind of a legitimate argument at all, or show any kind of consistency?

I pointed out in an earlier post that you had no problem with AdBlock Plus as long as they didn't provide a choice, and you agreed (post 167).

You have done nothing but demonize AdBlock, constantly referring to them as mafia, or at the very least promoting articles that use hyperbole. Are you actually going to deny that?

Then you do exactly the things you accuse me of; "discredit the messenger", "personal attacks", etc.

You have no credibility.

 

Is this the quote that got you all het up, Pinga?

When you keep siding with advertising interests against ABP, what am I supposed to think?

I think it would clear things up a lot if you were transparent, instead of just pretending to demand transparency in others. But you're the one who is really making no sense.

 

Eight pages so far on this ridiculous thread.

Bottom line: I choose to use AdBlock Plus, and I'll choose which ads I'll block, and I'll choose which ads I won't, and I'll choose which websites I'll support by choosing to exempt their sites from ad-blocking.

Anyone have a problem with that? (Besides Pinga)

And before you attack some more, go back and answer the questions and objections I've already brought up. Such as post 185: "What lack of transparency are you talking about?" when ABP shows exactly what they block.

 

Criticism essentially focuses on three issues: Adblock Plus whitelisting practices, their posing as an open source community while being a bottom line focused commercial enterprise, and their fake communities - in short, their ethics. All of this has been reported on extensively. A recap:

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netz...g-google-zahlte-an-adblock-plus-a-909659.html

http://newsticker.sueddeutsche.de/list/id/1468568

http://www.telekom-presse.at/Adblock...n.id.26246.htm

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...s-1897152.html

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/adblock-plus-accused-of-shaking-down-websites/

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/05/adblock_plus_lets_some_advertisers_pay_to_play/

http://translate.google.com/transla...e-ist-geldgeber-von-adblock-plus.html&act=url

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netz...g-google-zahlte-an-adblock-plus-a-909659.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/goog...by-paying-adblock-plus-to-show-its-ads-2013-8

http://www.pcwelt.de/news/Hat_Ihnen_Adblock_Plus_ein_Angebot_gemacht_-Aufruf-8007435.html

http://www.horizont.at/home/detail/blogger-beharrt-auf-anschuldigungen.html

http://www.pcwelt.de/news/Geheime_Strukturen_hinter_Adblock_Plus_aufgedeckt-Report-7989169.html

http://www.mobilegeeks.de/adblock-plus-adblockgate-werbenetzwerk/

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/member.php?u=136569

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/...lock-plus-mit-werbung-geld-verdient-1.1715051

http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/06/go...edly-pay-adblock-plus-to-show-you-ads-anyway/

 

Thanks.

-How are these companies that are complaining any worse off now than they were when ABP blocked all ads by default?

-Just because a company uses open source software doesn't mean that a company isn't allowed to make a profit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software

-How much does it cost them to maintain the filters?

Some quotes you leave out:

You're trying to hold them accountable, good. But it's also good to look at both sides of the story before making a judgement, especially when one side comes from those with a stake in the matter (advertisers, and posted on websites that are supported by ads.)

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/adblock-plus-accused-of-shaking-down-websites/

The charges of fake reviews and porn are more troubling, but is there any evidence for these charges, or are the charges themselves fake? I didn't see any evidence in a quick look through the links you posted, but I don't read German either. I just see things like this:

with no corroborating evidence. But I take it this guy also runs a business that profits from ads?

 

I believe that the evidence is compelling enough as it is. People can make their own judgements; your attempt at discrediting the critics is not going to have much effect.

Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Adblock Plus exception rules read like Who's Who of the advertising industry.

https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt

 

They allow Doubleclick and Google Ads? Smooth. Count me out.

 

So long as the ads follow ABP's whitelist guidelines, why shouldn't they be allowed? Also you can always disable the whitelist if you don't want 'em.

 

It's understandable that the user wants to browse in a ad-free internet. And no one would like to have a internet where one needs to pay to access websites with interesting, non-commercial content; or being doomed, with some exceptions, to only browse for free in commercial websites. That's why advertising is important.

I think that the website owner isn't obliged to allow access to his website for people using ABP, neither the advertising company is forced to approve websites that doesn't comply in the use code that blocks ABP (like the one provided by antiblock.org, for instance). Exploring that path would be, for sure, much cheaper and, imo, smarter, than simply paying the 30% ransom to ABP.

Personally i use ABP without the "Allow" checkbox, but i whitelist every website i use frequently and that doesn't make an excessive use of ads. More that that, i actually click in the ads every time i visit some sites (Linux Mint website and forum, dedoimedo.com, etc.) But, of coarse, people that do the same are an insignificant minority.

 

I ceased caring about advertising and lost revenue quite some time ago. My sole reason for that is trust. It wasn't enough to show an ad here and there, and users click on ads that looked interesting. No, advertisers just weren't happy with that. They decided they were going to force our hand with full-screen Flash-based ads. They decided they were going to use every sneaky method in the book to follow us across every website. They decided if we fought back or toned them down, they were going to keep trying increasingly difficult to block methods of following us. Then of course malware authors got in on the act and started serving up their creations through these ads.

I am sorry, but I simply no longer give a darn what they want or how they feel. Nor do I particularly care about the health of websites who go with the worst of the worst like Doubleclick, let Facebook track even non-Facebook users and the list just keeps going on. In regards to ABP, I use it because it is free and the most effective solution. But I do not trust their so called white list nor them in particular. Their initial thought on white listing "trustworthy" advertisers was well meaning. But they have shown that they make it too easy to buy your way on to their safe list.

There is no easy solution. No one will pay for access to all websites, though if the Net Neutrality situation keeps heading in the direction it is, they most certainly will find themselves making that choice. But no one wants the infestation of ads either. Advertisers are not surrendering or even making compromises, so users are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place. Support your favorite websites and be tracked everywhere you go, or block ads and watch small websites go extinct? Choices, choices.

 

"[My] attempt at discrediting the critics."

All I'm doing is questioning those who may or may not have a stake in the matter. Am I supposed to blindly accept what they say the way you do? Why the double standard? You attempt to discredit ABP (which does not seem to be having much effect) and then accuse me of discrediting others. That's one reason I said you have a problem with consistency. You accuse me of attacking you, then you continue to attack me just because you can't reasonably counter my arguments.

As far as I can see ABP isn't forcing anyone to do anything, despite the hyperbolic charges of being a "mafia" and who knows what all. They aren't, nor can they, force advertisers to accept their deal, nor can they force anyone to use ABP.

You have a problem with ABP. Don't use it then.

 

The good people at Adblock Plus have discredited themselves. So this is your never-give-up media pitching style, posing as an overheated troll?

 

It doesn't look to be the most effective solution to me. Ghostery and Disconnect seem to do a better job: https://github.com/gorhill/httpswit...-,-Ghostery-or-Disconnect-concerning-privacy?

 

You've more than discredited yourself. Keep up the blatant hypocrisy and keep on spamming.