The main problem with AdBlock Plus is it’s a giant resource hog. The most efficient way to block ads is with a “hosts file.” I resisted this suggestion myself for years, but it is really simple.
There is an ad-blocking hosts file containing its own human-readable instructions at
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts
The hosts file I am using myself is from
so not suprising - read this one https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ad-blockers-ahead-shay-refaely?trk=hp-feed-article-title-publish and the full post linked from there
I had never heard of AdBlock Plus and the symbol was different. I’m glad to see I was correct to smell something fishy there.
I wouldn’t say that that’s the fishy part. Adblock Plus is pretty well known and used – it’s got about 60% of the downloads as the original AdBlock on Chrome, but on Firefox it’s far and away the biggest blocker.
Adblock Plus is actually the original. It was created back in 2006, and made open source. AdBlock came around three years later, and was based on it. ABP, after being released for Firefox, didn’t create an extension for Chrome until 2010, and AdBlock took the opportunity to fill that space.
Also, AdBlock supports EyeO’s Acceptable Ads as well: http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/10/02/trust-us-we-block-ads/
I invite you to call my mom and help her with this. Then you can say it is really simple.
It had warned me a while back and I turned the option off. I hand select turning my filters off to websites already, so I guess I didn’t notice.
And by something fishy I meant “something fishy with the post” not “something fishy with ABP” specifically. Thanks for a bit of background though.
IDK, I find uBlock a pain to use - and I haven’t managed to figure out good ways to generalize from one native ad to all of them. And it can’t handle the “nag-to-join” stuff that e.g. tumblr has. So I still keep ABP around for these things, along with uBlock. If it starts to misbehave noticeably, I will get rid of it…
There is one feature i miss. The ability to right-click and block individual images easily.
Was awesome for spider pictures O.o
You can get the same result in ublock, but it’s far, far more fiddly…
I use NoScript which is a little like what you’re describing, maybe not as hardcore; but it does require a little configuration.
Most websites only require two or three types of scripts to be whitelisted:
If a website requires any more than that for basic function, I find it’s generally not worth my time and leave. The security of my computer probably outweighs the value of whatever content is on the site.
Older news orgs are the worst for this. It seems like every news site tries to load scripts from about 50 or 60 different domains. Their videos won’t work unless you have at least 40 scripts enabled. If I really want to see the content, I can just hit “allow all this page” (sometimes several times), but doing so feels kindof icky.
Which part of this policy:
do you find irritating?
None of it.
That’s awesome. I’ve often wished I had enough money to buy a day’s worth of ad time on my local public radio station and fill it with nothing but silence. Beautiful, golden, silence.
So let’s see if I understand this. You’re OK with AdBlock’s acceptable ad policy as a reasonable compromise but GODDAMN AdBlock for letting through acceptable ads.
No, I don’t understand that at all.
If you’re that rigorously opposed to advertising, you can start at home by stamping out all the fake blog posts for drones, siphons, banana-shaped dinguses, and all the other crappy whatnot you guys peddle. Or is it only other people’s ads that are annoying?
The one thing I can’t abide is hypocrisy.
There’s a difference between identifying and allowing “acceptable ads” to bypass their filters, and replacing site-served ads with ones they deem acceptable, the revenue from which AdBlock Plus takes a substantial cut. This conversation is about the latter.
That’s not what I objected to. No-one’s fooled. Better luck next time!
And what difference is that exactly? I see it this way
Big fat hairy deal.
You’re right. No one is fooled. I’ll quote my reply to Alahmat (since I can’t figure out how to reply to two things at once):
- Blocking all ads is not fair to the web site as they have bills to pay.
- Don’t block any ads is not fair to the user as advertisers will do whatever they think will attract attention.
- Developing an acceptable ad policy is a reasonable compromise between 1 & 2. Bills get paid and users don’t get annoyed. Any reasonable person should be down with this.
- But wait! Implementing an acceptable ad policy is not free for the developer. They can either charge you money, or they can replace unacceptable ads with acceptable ones. Since they follow the acceptable ad policy, your annoyance is not increased, and the ability to block unacceptable ads is funded.
Big fat hairy deal.
So there are only two reasons I can figure out for your objection. 1.) You have a Pollyanna belief that everything on the web should be free, a belief belied by your own shilling for your own store and your Amazon links. 2.) You are afraid that at some point one of YOUR ads will be blocked, and YOU will lose revenue, and you want to prevent that from happening. But it can only happen if you post an unacceptable ad, so that really means you want to preserve the right to annoy your users for future use.
Forgive me if I don’t have any sympathy for that position. You need ads to fund your site. AdBlock needs ads to fund their software. You’re free to say “I don’t want adware” and look for other solutions. You’re not free to say it is evil when you do the same thing.
lol, you have absolutely no idea what this post is about.
Yes I do. This is your objection:
Acceptable ads can only be less value if they are less intrusive. That’s part of the compromise and it offends you. You want to pretend it is about AdBlock being some sort of “gatekeeper” but a gatekeeper can only exist if everyone has to go through the gate. People who were intelligent enough to install AdBlock Plus are intelligent enough to change it if it seems that it is no longer performing the function they desired. So there is no gate and no gatekeeper, selfcreated or otherwise.
So then we’re left with the question: what is it that Beshitza is really upset about? That is, of course, assuming that you’re not just garden variety stupid. You’re not, are you? I have to ask because that’s what I associate “lol” with.
