Adblock Plus Parent Company Eyeo GmbH Founded

Maybe of interest to AdBlock Plus users
http://www.ghacks.net/2011/10/17/adblock-plus-parent-company-eyeo-gmbh-founded/

 

That's a very interesting article. Ever since I got a trojan through an infected ad I've been a bit paranoid about adverts & tend to block as many as I can. The blocking of only annoying ads could be a bit subjective though. Food for thought.

 

The article mentions that users will still have the ultimate choice of blocking all or only annoying (what AdBlock Plus folks call "bad") ads.

But, yes, like you I don't differentiate between ads. If they're first party ads, then they're allowed, because I'm not using adblock plus or other. But, if it's a third-party ad, then it's blocked. It wouldn't be the first time third-party ads become compromised. So, this begs for a question - What is a "bad" ad? AdBlock Plus calls it an "annoying" ad. Annoyance aside, if it serves malware, then it's a bad ad, IMO. Which begs for another question - Who will assure the safety of the "good" ads?

 

Yes, as I said, a bit subjective, you said this so much better than me though.

 

While I'm happy this is turning into a company-backed project, I too will have to think the "good vs bad" ad idea over. It's going to end up in the hands of the website owner and the advertising agency that pays him/her, what kind of ads we end up with. It always has been that way, and, if the owner gets paid highest by an advertiser who prefers to use those *expletive* Flash, half movie ads, they'll find themselves with the same old blocking problem.

 

I think this is great. Google recently patented a definition for "annoying" ads or something like that. I really think that if all advertisements were light and noninvasive I wouldn't bother blocking them.

 

How the hell do you patent a "definition"? Only in America, lol, and only corporate lawyers would think this stuff up.

Edit: I'd allow ads if it were the 1990s over again and they laid off the scrolling ads a little bit. It wasn't too bad back then, no movies playing in several corners of the website, no social media buttons plastered all over the top and bottom of pages. Ahh, simple times *rocks himself on the front porch with his cane laid over his lap*

 

Maybe that's why Google now forces* users of Google Chrome to allow google analytics.

* By not allowing to upgrade Google Chrome within itself, and by not installing extensions.

Maybe they patented the definition that Google Analytics is non-invasive.

 

Pretty cute eh? The king of online advertising commenting on annoying ads

 

Google's ads are hardly annoying. They're almost always plaintext.

And you can opt out of google analytics.
http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout

 

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/06/29/1716257/google-patents-censorship-of-annoying-content

Not the definition, an engine for blocking by definition.

 

What you just linked is a big neon sign saying "Google wants more control". You do realize that that engine, if it's exactly as stated, will do a hell of a lot for the government and for Google. Perhaps in this early stage I'm thinking too far ahead (but that's generally a good quality to have), but it looks akin to a watered down "Golden Shield". That's also exactly the way a government would present a new control. Make people focus on one aspect (ad blocking) and hope they don't think about the rest.

 

What it may or may not become is really just speculation. If they patent an engine that finds ads on a page based on annoying content ie: Sound, flash, mini-videos, etc. it will be blocked. That's all they're saying right now. It will likely be opt-in if it ever even reaches fruition.

 

Speculation, yes. However, the fact that the other uses were even mentioned tells me they're thinking ahead as well.

 

You're making allusion to Google Analytics Opt-Out extension by Google, correct? It doesn't block it, it simply communicates with the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js) to indicate that information about the website visit should not be sent to Google Analytics., but it doesn't block communication to GA.

The issue here is that unless I use this extension, which I do not want to, and probably matter other people don't either, I can't block communication to GA.

I got the right not to install any extension, and I also got the right to choose what to allow or deny. Google is not giving me a choice. (Let's forget I have my own workarounds.)

I don't mind switching hosts file when I want to install an extension, but I also got relatives using a hosts file to block ads and trackers, including GA, and they aren't up to have the hassle to switch between hosts file when they have to upgrade Chrome.

They don't like extensions either, nor are obligated to use them. Shouldn't we have the right to block GA without Google forcing us to allow it?

The fact is that Google is forcing GA.

 

I can't imagine why you think you have these rights.

It's like saying I have the right to go get lunch and then not pay for it. Except in this case there's an opt-out for paying that I have to show them and I get my school lunch free.

You haven't really given a reason why not to use the extension except that it doesn't outright block the connection, it just communicates to GA that tracking should not continue. I can't see how that's an issue. Do you mind communication witht he update server? Do you just hate when your browser touches the internet? I just don't really get it lol

 

So, I don't have the right to allow or deny what I want? Am I forced to "use" whatever others want me to use?

I'm glad not everyone thinks like you, otherwise we wouldn't have folks doing a fine job providing hosts file, extensions to block ads and trackers, and those fine folks maintaining lists for such extensions.

For example, regarding ads. I should have the right to choose whether or not I want to allow ABC ads or if I want to block XYZ ads. And, I do have that right. I allow first-party ads and I block third-party ads.

Unrelated stuff. Not really sure why you brought it up? Anyway... there's no such thing as a free lunch. Tax payers end up paying for everything.

Doesn't it suffice to say that I got the right not to use an extension?

You're not really seeing what the isssue is. The issue is not the extension itself. Yes, I don't like extensions. But, that's beside the point. The point is that Google is forcing Google Analytics... Unless I use an extension.

Question: Are you saying I'm obligated to use Google's extension, if I want to block Google Analytics and still be able to update Google Chrome? Are you saying I don't have the freedom not to use an extension? Are you saying I don't have the freedom to block Google Analytics, if I want to keep Google Chrome up-to-date?

That's insane.

And, why are you thinking about Google? GA is used by many webmasters. Why should I allow them to track me, if I don't use Google's extension?

Just because I want to keep my car in top conditions (browser up-to-date), it doesn't mean I'll allow/that I'm obligated to allow other services, unrelated to the car shop, to track me down. Or, does it mean that?

 

-edit-

You obviously also think you got the same right, otherwise you wouldn't use an extension to block ads and trackers...

You say one thing, but do the opposite. I don't get you. I truly don't. If you got no such right, then why are you doing it?

-edit-

You also use/used to use a hosts file to block ads and trackers (MVPS hosts file).

 

Pretty much. If you don't like something you use a host file to block it... but an extension is somehow not ok. Chrome is a product, which is provided for you for free. Google search is a product, which is provided to you on the implication that you view their ads. You can block these ads. You can even stop these ads from tracking you. But because you can't do it through a host file you feel like you're being forced to be tracked.

That is literally what I'm saying. Don't like Google's tracking? Opt out of it using their own method.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. You can opt out of it but at the end of the day Chrome, Google search, etc are all Google's products. The fact that they even allow you to stop tracking is surprising.

Chrome doesn't track you. Google adsense does.

If the payment for that car was information on your driving habits and they had an opt out button and instead you decide to tear out the reciever... and then you complain when something is broken... you can see how there's a big difference.

I honestly just don't understand your point of view. Host file: OK, extension: not ok.

 

You have the right to block ads. I'm not saying you don't. But you don't have the right to block ads with a host file when there's another perfectly viable way and then when the host file breaks something complain that there's no other way to do it and you're being forced to view ads.

 

This thing you got about hosts file versus extension would be like arguing one shouldn't use a HIPS and instead use something else, etc...

You can't be serious...

Are you trying to get hired by Google? lol

etc... etc

I don't have the right to block ads with a hosts file? That's got to be the joke of the year.

I only have the right to block ads with an extension? I suppose that's reliable way of blocking them, right That's the second joke of the year.

Are you going to say next that I won't have the right to block ads with an application such as AdMuncher? lol

You fail to understand that Google started to force Google Analytics quite recently... for whatever reason. They didn't use to. They used to give users the freedom to choose. They no longer do.

And by the way...

No one's talking about Google Chrome tracking anyone... I'm talking about Google Analytics, which is not tied to Google Chrome. But, Google Chrome now "needs" GA... GA allows tracking... Do the math.

Anyway research about Google Analytics.

By the way... why do you use a hosts file if you don't have the right to block ads with a host file when there's another perfectly viable way?

Again, you say one thing, for whatever reason, yet you do something entirely different.

lol

 

You have the right to block ads however you want. But if there's an alternative method that's even provided by the company and your method breaks the service you don't have the right to complain that they're forcing you to use their service. You could easily switch to the extension.

1) It's really not important what I do. My hypocrisy has no bearing on the argument.

2) No I don't. I don't even use their opt out. Definitely don't use a host file. I block ads, which I have no problem with. I would be a hypocrite if adblock broke google search and I said "Google is forcing me not to be able to use this extension" when I could easily do the same thing with a host file and not break the service.

You still have the freedom to choose. 5,000 people a week install the Opt Out. You can do it through your Google Dashboard. It's really easy.

 

Here's the situation:

Google has an Opt Out for tracking.
You use a host file to block the tracking.
The host file breaks the update service.
You think that google is forcing their tracking on you because the extension is somehow not good enough.

Get it?

 

No, I don't. Freedom to choose means I got more than way of doing something. Guess what? That's what I've been saying all along - We only got one way, and that way is called Google Analytics Opt-Out extension.

So, what freedom are you talking about? What you're saying is not freedom, but dictatorship.

Hey, you still have freedom of speech, you just need to talk what the dictator wants to hear[/i].

 

You can choose to use it or you can choose not to use it. You can choose to use Google's product or you can choose not to use Google's product.

You can use a host file to block the tracking. It will break the updates.
You can use an extension to block the tracking. It won't break anything.

There are your choices. For some reason you want to use a host file and not an extension because the extension doesn't outright block the connection even though it still works to the same end ie: you aren't being tracked.

The freedom you DONT have is to use their service, opt out using your own method so that the service they provide is entirely free, and then complain that your method won't work when the alternative works just fine.