AdBlock Plus wins in court

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32903235

by helly • 11 years ago

91 112 11 years ago

Fastidious• 11 years ago

Interestingly enough, AdBlock (different from the one the article refers to) blocks 7 ads on that page.

jsingleton• 11 years ago

The BBC is weird. In the UK (bbc.co.uk) there are no ads as it's paid for by the license fee but abroad (bbc.com) there are ads as it's a different (commercial) entity.

Robadob• 11 years ago

It's also worth noting that, you can't view BBC worldwide content from within the UK either due to regional restrictions. I've heard this is due to the BBC policy forbidding them showing adverts to UK users, yet it's content regularly not freely accessible (without adverts) to UK users either, as its a separate entity.

There's been several occasions that BBC worldwide has had articles that I've been unable to read, or find on the standard BBC news website.

baldfat4• 11 years ago

Personally I don't use Ad Blockers just due to the fact my own personal ethics feels I am stealing when I do use it.

When I am teaching I have ad blocker installed because I don't want to get in trouble for what advertisement will be shown, especially YouTube.

AdBlock Plus and their paid white list is the worst and I don't know why people use them.

mp3geek• 11 years ago

If you want to disable "Acceptable Ads" in Adblock Plus, its still there. Nothing stopping you.

easytiger• 11 years ago

Personally I don't use Ad Blockers just due to the fact my own personal ethics feels I am stealing when I do use it.

Sadly, I'm going to have to assert that's indicative of a dull mind. Controversial I'm sure but

sparaker• 11 years ago

I don't use AdBlock Plus but i do use AdBlock. I think its my decision to choose which ads i watch and which i don't. It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not.

Kiro• 11 years ago

It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not.

So what's your view on sites blocking people with AdBlock?

k-mcgrady2• 11 years ago

> It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not.

In other words it's not stealing unless you get caught?

Edit: Relax people. Let's not get into another debate on copying vs. theft. I was merely pointing out that the parents analogy (which was the one that referenced stealing) was bad.

eli12• 11 years ago

It's actually not easy to detect adblock use. Popular ad blockers actively try to evade detection. If the intent is to let publishers decide whether to allow adblock users or not, it should send an easily detectable flag.

webjprgm• 11 years ago

Do you also consider TIVO to be stealing?

chengiz• 11 years ago

I had no idea ABP accepted money from advertisers to be put on their whitelist. I know they have to make money somehow but this just seems suspiciously like extortion to me.

summerdown2• 11 years ago

How do you feel about disabling javascript by default, and making things click-to-play? I ask because I think the line between "advert used for site finance," and "drive-by malware" can sometimes be blurry.

For example:

http://www.cnet.com/news/malware-delivered-by-yahoo-fox-goog...

I think that when I click on a link I agree to see the content they provide. I'm not sure I really want to agree to third-party stuff without knowing what it is - and I'm very sure I don't want to start loading third party scripts automatically.

baldfat4• 11 years ago

I used no javascript extensions for a while BUT it was not worth the hassle to me.

eli12• 11 years ago

Fair enough, but if your browser is susceptible to drive-by malware, you're going to have a bad time on the internet whether you block ads or not. I think hacked sites are a far more common malware vector than ads.

Grue3• 11 years ago

AdBlock Plus and their paid white list is the worst and I don't know why people use them.

Because they actually fight to protect our freedoms in courts. A "paid white list" is a small price to pay (considering you can turn it off entirely).

blfr• 11 years ago

You can disable that white list of "unobtrusive advertising" by unchecking a single tick box.

I use it because it works and has worked for a long time. I tried µBlock but it was leading to weird short lockups of my Firefox after a longer session.

a3n4• 11 years ago

It's not that simple. Except for the simplest ones that might just be an image, ads are not just ads like in magazines and on TV.

Ads use your resources to download more content. They use your resources for animation and sound.

They also track you.

Content providers are free to not serve you content if they detect ad blockers. If they have trouble detecting ad blockers, they are free to not be in business.

They are free to move to a subscription model.

They are operating willingly on the current open web. It's not your problem.

kazinator6• 11 years ago

Am I stealing if I pick out the nice apples from the bin at the grocery store, and leave behind the ones with rotten spots?

cfinke2• 11 years ago

Ad-blocking is more akin to eating the good parts of an apple and then not paying the grocery store because you didn't want the rotten spots.

kazinator6• 11 years ago

Does your personal ethics allow you to go to the washroom during a commercial break?

erikb• 11 years ago

TIL: Firefox has configurable tracking protection! https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-fir...

mahouse• 11 years ago

I enabled it and I still see social buttons. :(

discreditable2• 11 years ago

It's fairly spartan compared to other anti-tracking services. I haven't been able to find a policy regarding what is included in the list.

d_theorist7• 11 years ago

Good. Although I prefer Ghostery.

The main thing for me isn't even blocking ads as such. The main thing is blocking the absurd amount of crappy javascript that clogs up my browser, in which I have no interest.

I find the unfiltered web insufferable these days.

uxp• 11 years ago

I used to love Ghostery, until I learned that their business model is to resell your browsing habits and profile back to advertisers.

If you want a suggestion for an alternative, I really don't have one. I'm currently using µBlock, which isn't bad, but requires a bit more setup than Ghostery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock

aroch• 11 years ago

until I learned that their business model is to resell your browsing habits and profile back to advertisers.

...If you voluntarily opt into that program (Ghostrank), after reading the straight-forward description.

I don't understand why people find their business model so abhorrent when its entirely opt-in and they don't weasel around what ghostrank does. Surely you must find every service on the internet that you use for free, particularly Google, to be horrible as well?

Kenji• 11 years ago

I also use µBlock. It made me realize what a huge crapload of JavaScript the websites include. On most sites, you can have like 70% of the external-domain content blocked and the site keeps working as intended. Hackernews is beautiful in that regard, literally just stuff from ycombinator.com and news.ycombinator.com. I love this simplicity.

andreasvc• 11 years ago

disconnect.me is an alternative. That in combination with a hosts file works very well for me; especially because it uses much less memory compared to adblock.

andypants• 11 years ago

their business model is to resell your browsing habits.

This is what the ghostery options screen says about the data they (optionally) track:

This data is about tracking elements and the webpages on which they are found, not you or your browsing habits.

profinger2• 11 years ago

It's like TV without a DVR. It's like "People actually SIT THROUGH THIS SHIT?"

honest_joe3• 11 years ago

This is sad day for content creators. If the site is full of ads you are not comfortable to view do NOT VISIT such sites again. It's stealing, it's manipulating the statistics.

We can't get good content because corporations taught people to not pay for content and now we will not get good content because people will slice the income of those who use ads.

JoeAltmaier3• 11 years ago

What? Really? How about "If you want to support ad-driven sites then just don't use AdBlock Plus"

honest_joe3• 11 years ago

Normal people would do that. Hell there are even sites that have whitelists of sites that you should support.

struppi• 11 years ago

Do you switch channels on your TV when the commercials start and switch back when the show resumes? Blocking online ads is basically the same. i.e. perfectly legitimate.

Only you hurt the creator more online, since the advertisers can now measure the views+clicks. Which is also perfectly fair - They should not have to pay for ads nobody sees. This would also be fair on TV - But there it's impossible to measure.

honest_joe3• 11 years ago

First of all I do not watch TV. I assume that's why netflix is so popular. Please pardon me i am not sure if it has an ads in it or not but i assumed since it's a content on demand it does not.

Also simply blocking something because you can but you should not is cheating.

eli12• 11 years ago

This would also be fair on TV - But there it's impossible to measure.

Offtopic, but Neilsen actually does measure whether people are changing channels during commercials.

rawTruthHurts• 11 years ago

Definitely. Content blocked by Adblock is always top notch stuff nobody in his right mind would be able to live without. I know for sure; I create a lot of those amazing wonders during my workday.

bad_user• 11 years ago

While I would agree with this line of thought, ad networks have been used for the spread of malware and various scams. Ad networks have also tracked the browsing habits of users, with little regard for our privacy.

It's easy to say that if the site is full of ads, I should not visit it again, however I also do not want to load pieces of Javascript doing the above by mistakenly visiting a website that I do not want to visit. This isn't just an issue of annoyance, but one of online safety as well. I now recommend to every friend I have to use ad blockers.

Therefore I cannot sympathize much with networks complaining or with creators complaining about ad blockers. They've brought this on themselves and unless they change their ways, ad blockers will get more and more popular.

JoeAltmaier3• 11 years ago

Its not just that they bungled it. Its a question of who owns my computer. I do, so I get to say what is displayed and what code is run. So clipping out the ads is entirely my own business, done in my own home on my own devices.

No, I can't possibly agree with the line of thought of the parent comment. Its self-serving nonsense.

NickNameNick• 11 years ago

On a fundamental level, your server is free to do whatever it wants with the requests I send it, and my browser is free to do whatever I want with the responses it receives. Because your server is yours, and my computer is mine.

johnward5• 11 years ago

Is it easy to detect people who are using adblock and serve them nothing? Not that that is the best way to handle it but the OP does have a point. At least it would stop leaches. If you put content out for "free" because you make a few cents from advertising if they block the ads it's not much different than stealing.

tracker14• 11 years ago

How about, if you really want to deliver ads, then sell first party ads delivered from your own servers with the content... nobody is stopping that, and unless you use css classes like "ad" or JavaScript to deliver said ads, then it likely won't get blocked.

I worked on an SPA website a few years ago that used a time-based billing model for advertising, The three adslots for the given user session were for the same advertiser, this required locally delivered ads, and a JS/http ping to establish between min and max display time recording... It worked fine, and even got through the ad blockers.

There's no reason a publisher cannot do the same. Just like there's no reason a random website I visit should force me to download questionable content from third parties unknown to even the publisher.

infamouscow2• 11 years ago

Yes, but you might discover that your content is not valuable.

People are willing to pay for content that is valuable. LWN [1] and the No Agenda Show [2] prove that you don't need ads to produce content that is leagues beyond any ad-supported content.

The underlying reason most newspapers are dying is because they aren't doing anything but regergitating the Associated Press and Reuters. There's no difference between a thoughtful, well investigated new article, and one that's a rehash of the Associated Press or Reuters. Why go through all the work of confirming with credible sources, looking through documents, and interviewing experts when you can get the same number of page views from a syndicated article.

1: https://lwn.net/

2: http://www.noagendashow.com/

JoeAltmaier3• 11 years ago

I got lost. Your content is not valueable, ok plausible. Then, newspapers are dying because they only show (valuable) articles?

I think rather, its not the value of the information that's at issue. Its the monopoly on the source that's valuable. Once the monopoly is gone, once you can get the same stuff for free somewhere else, then nobody pays.

And all information on the web is free somewhere.

eli12• 11 years ago

I don't read German, but I believe the main complaint in the case was AdBlock Plus charging money as part of its ad "whitelisting" service. ABP said it was to cover the cost of verifying the ads are safe and responsible. Publishers called it extortion (e.g. pay us this money if you want your ad impressions back).

profinger2• 11 years ago

IMO, if I downloaded something that is supposed to block the ads, I don't want the damn ads. I've not used ABP in a while but I'd be pretty pissed if it started loading ads again just because the people had paid for it. They had to figure out some way to make money, though, I guess.

sarciszewski• 11 years ago

Use uBlock. Unlike ABP, it doesn't have a whitelist of "acceptable ads" a.k.a. companies that paid them.

copsarebastards• 11 years ago

I think you are asked upon installation whether you want to allow whitelisted ads (this was how it worked the last time I used Adblock, anyway; I use uBlock now). Some users want this because they see viewing ads as a way to support the "free" websites they use.

You can find more information here: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads

Copying from that page, the rules for ads to not be blocked include:

1. Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar)

2. Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images Ad placement:

a. Ads should never obscure page content (e.g. require users to click a button to close the ad before viewing the page).

b. 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. The same applies to search results pages: paid search results cannot be mixed with organic results.

c. When ads are placed above the content of a main page, they should not require the user to scroll down. The available vertical space is likely to be at least 700 pixels. Advertising should not occupy more than one-third of that height. Paid search results on search pages are allowed to occupy more space, but they should never outnumber organic results.

d. When placed on the side ads should leave enough space for the main content. The available horizontal space can be expected to be at least 1000 pixels, and advertising should not occupy more than a third of that width.

3. Advertising should be clearly marked as such with the word "advertising" or its equivalent, and it should be distinguishable from page content, for instance via a border and/or different a background color.

4. Marking and placement requirements do not apply for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs embedded in the content of the page. Additional criteria for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs:

a. Redirects originating from the hyperlink should not present any other webpage than the destination page.

b. In texts, not more than 2 percent of the words can be hyperlinked for monetization purposes.

c. Hyperlinks should not be formatted or behave differently than other links.

d. Hyperlinks should not be misleading, in either content or placement.

Personally, I never want to see ads, and I've always blocked all ads. But I can empathize with the people who are fine with seeing this kind of ad.

irl_zebra2• 11 years ago

You can uncheck the "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" line on AdBlock. I don't mind some ads as I know people need to make money and I'll click if it's compelling. Just hate the large gif ads.

leejoramo5• 11 years ago

To the pro-advertisers reading this, I feel your pain. I have long standing clients who depend on ad revenue, such as print publications that early on successfully transition to the web, who are now really struggling.

However, I aggressively use ad blockers. Here is why:

* the majority of the ads I see on the Internet are of the sort that I use to find in the back of magazines. Crap I would never read is now force feed to me front and center

* nearly every single web page is OVERLOADED with ads. Take a look at a print copy of the New Yorker, Sports Illustrated, etc. Feature articles often have few or even NO ads. In fact, feature articles often start with two pages of JUST content.

* the way the ads work often kills my battery life. NOT COOL. You have no right to kill my battery life.

* You track us with no way to really opt out with out using ad blockers.

* You use the tracking info to target people. Including targeting children and at-risk (mentally impaired) adults. It is very different to have a scam artist with a small ad in the back of a magazine, compared to a phishing web ad that is trying to take advantage of an elderly grandma whose bank account is a click away.

* you burn my bandwidth. this is bad on WiFi, evil on cell data. You have no right to rack up cellular charges on my behalf.

* I don't trust the Kirby vacuum sales person in my home, I don't trust your javascript laden ads on my computer.

While I blanket block ads on the Internet, I do allow ads on sites that only use simple graphics and text for ads. And who demonstrate that they respect me as a reader and potential client.

edit: clarified I was referring to the "print" editions of the New Yorker & SI

irl_zebra2• 11 years ago

The worst for me is when I open something on my phone and start reading and a huge ad appears and takes up my whole screen telling me to put in my email to subscribe to the website. Then I have to scroll around to find the little X to close it. It's maddening.

Only slightly less worse is the same thing happening on my laptop after I have had a few seconds to start reading the first paragraph, then the whole page dims and a full-page ad appears.

Adblock gets rid of this stuff and it's why I use it and will continue to do so in the future, but I do leave the whitelist on for unobtrusive advertising.

I just wish AdBlocker could get rid of that awful Forbes "Thought of the Day" page that always opens. Unfortunately the best it can do it get rid of the ad on that page, but still annoying.

snsr• 11 years ago

Any page that pops a modal or interstitial on landing is an instant-close for me.

leejoramo5• 11 years ago

I forgot to add, I have had healthcare providers, attorneys and other professionals with legal obligations to maintain client privacy ask how they can do this on the web.

I have to advise them to use ad blockers as part of their privacy tools.

johnward5• 11 years ago

I've never used an ad blocker and I feel like you are over-exaggerating each of these points. I'm guessing I'll be in the minority on HN though. What kind of sites do you visit that have all these terrible ads? I don't even think porn sites, which have notoriously bad ads, are even that bad.

leejoramo5• 11 years ago

I do not feel that I am over exaggerating.

* Battery life, privacy invasion are real issues.

* the over the top clutter of ads on many sites is a really problem. I try to avoid such sites, but it is not always possible.

* I have been on the Internet since 1991. I am expecting to be on it for another 30 or more years. I am weighing a life time of risk, not a single page visit.

This last point is key. One bad actor, using one Zero Day exploit could cause a huge amount of personal pain for me. As a web developer for 20 years, I learned long ago to do everything in my power to prepare and to the extent possible prevent being hit by a Zero Day.

You may feel differently, but I personally see huge risk over the course of a lifetime.

jpmattia• 11 years ago

Maybe OT, but does anyone have decent estimates for what percentage of users are blocking ads? Would also be interesting to know percentage vs browser.

aikah• 11 years ago

Adblockers are not that popular yet, but each time I show adblock and co to someone, that persons just doesn't go back and recommends adblock and co to his family,friends and coworkers. The rise of adblocking solutions WILL be exponential, the heck now some businesses make all their browsers block ads.. It's today that advertisers or sites relying on ad revenue need to find solutions.

One could bare people using adblockers from seeing content("free" pornsites are starting doing that). but then it will just be an escalation in technology. Adblockers will become smarter and ultimately defeat detection techniques.

One can appeal to user's "conscience" by displaying a message stating one relies on ad revenue. I think it's a good compromise if one promises that his ads are discrete like simple pictures or text.

Frankly, years of ad abuse, loud auto-play video ads and flash ads that take over the whole window have made users weary of online advertising.

discreditable2• 11 years ago

heck now some businesses make all their browsers block ads

As one such business (a school) which blocks ads on company computers, I can say it has drastically reduced our malware-related incidents from teachers/staff. My gut feeling is that search result ads and false download buttons were the source of many of our infections. Users do not think before they click, and it seems like most of them that expect to be able to find useful software behind an advertisement often pay a price.

deepnet• 11 years ago

I read a lot on a screen.

This is tiring.

Adverts make it impossible to read the web - they are designed to catch the eye - even when still they are eye catching.

To concentrate on text near an advert takes extra mental resources and I tire very much quicker.

Not to mention loading hangs as pages wait for badly overloaded ad-servers before they show the page.

So I am getting exhausted so websites can get $0.003 - this model is a lame duck.

My attention is worth a lot more than $0.003 so figure out a better way because I cannot afford look at that dross.

Text Ads in a similar font - that attract my interest because they are relevant - no problem - your site is unblocked.

Subtly Sponsor content I want then I will look favorably on your brand.

AdBlock Plus wins in court

Related Stories