undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCaveTech8y ago0 comments

A lot of people have issue with the fact they allow certain ads through if the publisher pays them enough. They claim that these ads are not aggressive or distracting, but the optics are pretty bad. A for profit ad-blocking company that makes money from ads.

0 comments

16 comments · 5 top-level

leephillips8y ago· 7 in thread

I think this is the main reason basically everyone has switched to uBlock Origin. Which, by the way, works quite well.

dexterdog8y ago

And ghostery

eps8y ago

Doesn't Ghostery too make money from selling their hoarded user data to the very same advertisers and marketers?

EDIT: Yep, it does - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Business_model

miles8y ago

"Millions of people use the tool Ghostery to block online tracking technology—some may not realize that it feeds data to the ad industry."

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/516156/a-popular-ad-block...

andimm8y ago

Which also has an interesting opt-in Business Model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Business_model

majewsky8y ago

Ghostery also has some tracking built-in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Criticism

karrotwaltz8y ago

I tried to switch to the open source Disconnect when I heard Ghostery was acquired by an ad company, but it wasn't on Ghostery's level.

The redirect / social button blocker with the "allow once" option is really pleasant.

TorKlingberg8y ago

Ghostery keeps trying to steal my attention with annoying popups.

growt8y ago· 3 in thread

They are a company so they have to make money (Most of HN readers should relate to that).

Some of this money is also used to fight law-suits, keeping ad blocking legal (at least in germany [1]), something a free solution like ublock origin can not do.

[1] https://www.golem.de/news/adblock-plus-olg-muenchen-erklaert... (german)

gorhill8y ago

> something a free solution like ublock origin can not do.

The core of the lawsuit was about Eyeo's business model specifically, charging for being listed in a whitelist. This of course does not apply to uBO.

growt8y ago

I think the lawsuits started before Eyeo introduced the whitelist?

But imagine if uBO was used by 90% of all Users, so the big publishers would notice and lobby to get ad-blocking banned, there would be no one to defend it then.

Or if google took over ad-blocking by making it build-in in chrome (and of course whitelisting it's own ads).

edit: just realized you're the ublock author! I didn't mean what I said as an insult to you (like you wouldn't care to defend adblocking). I just think it might be beneficial to have a commercial player in ad-blocking (that isn't google) from time to time.

1 more reply

freeone30008y ago

If you're not a company, legality is less important.

PurpleRamen8y ago· 1 in thread

Last time I read about it, it was still the users choice whether they wanna see those non-aggresive ads. Did it change?

Personally I see it as a good choice. I don't have a problem with ads themself, but with aggresive or harmful ads. So educating the companys to use better ads is good for the users.

jnink8y ago

You are entirely correct PurpleRamen, nothing has changed.

jnink8y ago

Well that is actually not correct. 1. Only those publishers, which comply with the Acceptable Ads Criteria (www.acceptableads.com) will be passed through and only to those users who haven't decided to block all ads. 2. Only those publishers pay money, which get more than 10 Millionen additional ad impressions via the Accéptable Ads program. 3. Acceptable Ads Criteria are already handed over to the Acceptable Ads Committee (AAC): https://acceptableads.com/en/committee/. The AAC is an independent committee, made up of eleven stakeholders who represent three distinct coalitions: User Advocates Coalition (digital rights organization, ad-block user), For Profit Coalition (advertiser, advertising agency, ad-tech company, publisher / content creator) and the Expert Coalition (user agent, creative agent, researcher / academia).

bonqis8y ago

There is no way of just paying eyeo to get your ads through the system. If you confirm to the acceptable ads standard your ads can be classified as that and visible to the people that has not chosen to block those too.

For the huge sites, a cut of the ad revenue is taken, more or less as for any other ad network/service really. The full info is here https://acceptableads.com

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

16 comments · 5 top-level

leephillips8y ago· 7 in thread

I think this is the main reason basically everyone has switched to uBlock Origin. Which, by the way, works quite well.

dexterdog8y ago

And ghostery

eps8y ago

Doesn't Ghostery too make money from selling their hoarded user data to the very same advertisers and marketers?

EDIT: Yep, it does - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Business_model

miles8y ago

"Millions of people use the tool Ghostery to block online tracking technology—some may not realize that it feeds data to the ad industry."

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/516156/a-popular-ad-block...

andimm8y ago

Which also has an interesting opt-in Business Model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Business_model

majewsky8y ago

Ghostery also has some tracking built-in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Criticism

karrotwaltz8y ago

I tried to switch to the open source Disconnect when I heard Ghostery was acquired by an ad company, but it wasn't on Ghostery's level.

The redirect / social button blocker with the "allow once" option is really pleasant.

TorKlingberg8y ago

Ghostery keeps trying to steal my attention with annoying popups.

growt8y ago· 3 in thread

They are a company so they have to make money (Most of HN readers should relate to that).

Some of this money is also used to fight law-suits, keeping ad blocking legal (at least in germany [1]), something a free solution like ublock origin can not do.

[1] https://www.golem.de/news/adblock-plus-olg-muenchen-erklaert... (german)

gorhill8y ago

> something a free solution like ublock origin can not do.

The core of the lawsuit was about Eyeo's business model specifically, charging for being listed in a whitelist. This of course does not apply to uBO.

growt8y ago

I think the lawsuits started before Eyeo introduced the whitelist?

But imagine if uBO was used by 90% of all Users, so the big publishers would notice and lobby to get ad-blocking banned, there would be no one to defend it then.

Or if google took over ad-blocking by making it build-in in chrome (and of course whitelisting it's own ads).

1 more reply

freeone30008y ago

If you're not a company, legality is less important.

PurpleRamen8y ago· 1 in thread

Last time I read about it, it was still the users choice whether they wanna see those non-aggresive ads. Did it change?

Personally I see it as a good choice. I don't have a problem with ads themself, but with aggresive or harmful ads. So educating the companys to use better ads is good for the users.

jnink8y ago

You are entirely correct PurpleRamen, nothing has changed.

jnink8y ago

bonqis8y ago

For the huge sites, a cut of the ad revenue is taken, more or less as for any other ad network/service really. The full info is here https://acceptableads.com

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse