"Ad blocking 'under attack' after DMCA notice used to unfilter website domain 'We had no option but to remove the filter,' said one EasyList administrator on GitHub... The online ad blocking community has been left in turmoil after a DMCA copyright takedown request was successfully used to unblock a website domain, a move that one expert believes could set a 'very dangerous precedent' that should concern 'every ad blocker user'..." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ad-blockin...a-notice-used-unfilter-website-domain-1634709
I don't believe anything the pro-takedown people are saying, as shown by liberal use of euphemisms and phrases like "transparency." Supporting EFF again. Whatever it takes, I don't care.
This different from the regular ad type situation, due to the copyright aspect. So i don't blame ad blockers for not wanting legal action taken against them !
"Google warns 700 publishers digital ads will be blocked by Chrome update... The Coalition for Better Ads, an umbrella organization that formed just over a year ago, has been trying to form standards that will enable the industry to self-regulate. Google has been very public saying it does not want to do anything outside the Coalition... The reason advertisers, marketers and publishers would band together to police their own ads is to discourage consumers from getting so annoyed with intrusive ads that they turn on ad blockers that stop all advertising. Since the overwhelming majority of sites on the Web today are ad supported with no paywall, it will be a huge financial problem to publishers if ads are blocked from reaching consumers..." http://nypost.com/2017/08/10/google...digital-ads-will-be-blocked-by-chrome-update/
So maybe we need a collaborative block list that's hosted anonymously with anonymous contributions. Then nobody to get DMCA notice, get sued, and so on. Or one could use EasyList as the main source, and add back whatever jerks got removed.
