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

http://www.telekom-presse.at/Adblock_Plus_-_wer_verarscht_hier_eigentlich_wen.id.26246.htm

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meld...-gegen-Werbeblocker-AdBlock-Plus-1897152.html

 

ABP is going to end up being like Ghostery, where few trust it due to an optional feature that goes against the very nature of what the addon was created for, mark my words. However, this particular issue has been touched on so many times now by so many people that there's not much left to do but let consumers decide. I mean, I've literally seen this article in several different nations by several different people now. It is what it is, either opt out of the feature or don't use ABP.

The real problem will come when companies start paying, say, EasyList to be whitelisted, if that isn't already happening. Then you're going to run into big trust issues.

 

I remember the storm it created when Wladimir Palant decided to allow certain ads to be allowed. At least the box to allow these ads can be unticked. Tried to read the German links but understood not too much of it even though I was taught 4 years of German in high school in the fifties.

 

Mafia? Police? Talk about sensationalism.

1. Web users just want ads blocked. Some can't even be bothered to think of the possible implications.
2. Web owners just want ads to be present. Some goes further by pushing aggressive ads. Doesn't matter what's the experience is like for the users.
3. Ad-blocker developer stuck in between 2 sides. Listen to 1 and users are happy but get backlash by web owners. Listen to 2 and get backlash from users. Try to find a compromise and (god forbid) self-finance your project with links to the "evil" advertising industry and you get allegations by both sides.

Politics. Idealism. Morals.

Fact is each side has its own self-interest at heart. Whether there's conflict of interest is subjective. If everyone is keen only on pointing fingers at one another, the problem isn't solved...it just gets progressively worse.

http://adblockplus.org/blog/random-thought-on-communities
http://adblockplus.org/blog/introducing-eyeo-gmbh-the-company-behind-adblock-plus
http://adblockplus.org/blog/the-monetization-dilemma

 

And then there's that^ Not a bad point, Safeguy.

 

This is the real issue here. Nobody seems to have anything against Ghostery which sends data about you to an advertising company, but Ghostery is doing it since day one. Adblock on the other side, wanted to be seen as the champion against ads, but switched sides at a later time. In doing this, they lost the trust of a part of their users, and that lead to discontent from them.
Note that both tools have an opt-out mechanism, so user choice doesn't seem to be a problem here.

Concepts I strongly believe in, nothing wrong with them.

PS: I am an Adblock Plus user, with "accepted ads" set to "disabled".

 

I don't see a problem here. They have an opt out option that I click each time. I honestly don't mind the creator of ABP making some money out of this. He deserves it.

 

+1

 

From an usability point of view, I don't see a problem either (as I said, I'm already using Adblock Plus). But I was trying to explain how easy it is to lose the user's trust if you side with what is perceived as "the enemy".

 

True. Trust is the most important component in security software. However the guy is not selling our data. He is just enabling some ads to pass his protection. There is also an option to disable all of the above. To me this is sort of like CCleaner offering Google Chrome installation during the set up. Yes, it's annoying but not a breach of the trust or our privacy.
And i honestly feel like this is an okay way for the developer to make money and make the extension even better.

 

From here:
http://www.h-online.com/newsticker/news/item/Serious-accusations-against-AdBlock-Plus-1897360.html

So let me get this straight: the guy calls Adblock Plus 'a mafia-like advertising network' just because they didn't let him on the white list?

 

Does ABP clearly highlight which adverts it is letting through specifically because they are paid to allow them through ?

Search engines are required by law to separate and clearly label sponsored results from organic results and ABP could face legal action if they do not follow a similar practice (FTC calls them deceptive practices which are unlawful by definition).

Having run an advertising supported website before, I understand the need for adverts, but there is a big differences between sensible and annoying adverts. I don't block adverts, I just don't visit sites that annoy me more than once.

And this is quite old news I thought I remembered it from back in Feb:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/adblock-plus-accused-of-shaking-down-websites/

Cheers, Nick

 

I suspect that was meant to refer to Eyeo GmbH/AdblockPlus wanting some kind of financial "contribution" for being whitelisted. As in a mafia-like "we'll cause problems for you, we'll make those problems go away if you pay us" protection racket. I find it difficult to interpret the translated German articles, but if you check out that link NGRhodes posted you'll find this claim:

and also a quote from Till Faida which seems to confirm the idea that a financial "contribution" is expected at least in the case of "larger" sites:

Requiring companies to do more than advertise respectfully... requiring or pressuring, even just some, that they advertise respectfully *and* make some kind of financial "contribution" is crossing an important line.

Not that the Eyeo GmbH/AdblockPlus "acceptable ads" requirements should be considered the benchmark for respectful advertising mind you.

 

How about Adblock Edge?

 

Last time i checked Obama appointed AT&T lawyers into FTC. I have no respect to whatever those guys are saying. If people don't like using ABP they are not forced to use it. There are plenty of alternatives out there (The cow filter... forget the name, ABE, Ad-Fender... etc...).

 

As of today, a user base of nearly 250.000:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/

 

ABP works fine for me. I can opt out of that option. I'm gonna continue using it.

 

http://news.techeye.net/business/adblock-denies-ad-fixing-allegations

 

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

 

I would agree that Google is playing both sides, but I'm not at all surprised they would, seeing as how they are an advertising company and have been for years now. Had Palant been smart, he would have forced them to lift the ban on ABP in the Play store before allowing them to pay up to let their ads slide. He still should, after all, with their ads unhindered, he's now abiding by their TOS. ABP has made the switch over to corporate entity, so no one should be shocked that Palant and company see things much differently than when ABP was young.

 

The domain is down:
http://isup.me/adblockplus.org

https://twitter.com/AdblockPlus/status/352083746834489344

Those with Twitter accounts may reach the Team: https://twitter.com/AdblockPlus

 

Well, in defense of both parties, Google ads do generally qualify under what Acceptable Ads lays out in its description.

 

I would disagree with that statement of what I know of the software.
This will shake out over the next few day or so. If you've got a quote from somewhere that Google ads are acceptable, let's read it.

 

Most Google ads are text-based though, so I don't understand the complaint?

 

What I said (all due) was not a complaint but a request for you to provide where you obtained your information regarding the allowed ads in ABP.
See Google AdSense Google AdWords HTTP Cookie Cookie behaviour in IE