It is unfortunate that many people commenting here didn't bother to RTFA. In particular, from the FAQ:<p><i>Are you stupid? Nobody wants this!</i><p><i>The results of our user survey say something different. Only 25% of the Adblock Plus users seem to be strictly against any advertising. They will disable this feature and that's fine. The other users replied that they would accept some kinds of advertising to help websites. Some users are even asking for a way to enable Adblock Plus on some websites only.</i><p><a href="https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads" rel="nofollow">https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads</a><p>That page is the real article, linked from the first paragraph of the submitted article, which is more like a changelog.<p>Please also note that Wladimir has been talking about this for <i>years</i> and didn't suddenly get this into his head. From a 2009 post:<p><i>As I stated many times before, my goal with Adblock Plus isn’t to destroy the advertising industry. ... So the idea is to give control back to the users by allowing them to block annoying ads. Since the non-intrusive ads would be blocked less often it would encourage webmasters to use such ads, balance restored.</i><p><a href="http://adblockplus.org/blog/an-approach-to-fair-ad-blocking" rel="nofollow">http://adblockplus.org/blog/an-approach-to-fair-ad-blocking</a>
Beginning of the end. It's nice that the developers are giving users a choice, even if it's opt-out not opt-in. But AdBlock Plus is a tool to remove ads- that's it. And they're extremely good at it. The moment they become politicized and try to be "a tool to support small websites" or whatever nonsense, marks the beginning of the end.
One of the "non-intrusive" ads on the whitelist are ads on sedo domain-squatter pages. That really says about all I need to know about how thoroughly he's vetted the "non-intrusiveness" of these ads.
One of the authors, Ares2, gave some details on how it works technically. <a href="https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8872&sid=81eef5456f34c3c0e9364021924fe2e7#p52785" rel="nofollow">https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8872&#...</a><p>There is a whitelist, mentioned in the FAQ, which lists a few companies which made it there: <a href="https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt" rel="nofollow">https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...</a><p>Additionally (but the FAQ omits to mention it), a business partner of ABP can obtain a key - adding <html data-adblockkey="XXXXXKEYXXXXX_XXXXXSIGNATUREXXXXX"> to his page, which will whitelist the content.<p>The main author Wladimir Palant then replies to the transparency concerns raised on the thread about this solution:<p>"Adding each domain name to the list individually simply wouldn't have been possible. The implementation is pretty complicated to make sure that this feature doesn't get abused - only one company can use this filter (because they have the corresponding private key) and we have a contractual agreement with them concerning how they can use it."<p>"We hope that the demand will be high :)"
I asked the author to know if this would be a source of revenues for Adblock, and why they did make this a default choice rather than a yes/no question:<p>1) Does AdBlock developers get, directly or indirectly, any benefits from a third party because of this change? (Including, but not exclusively, money/donation/jobs/whatever by an entity supported by ads like Google, continued inclusion in the Chrome store, etc.)? Or any negative consequences if the change wasn’t implemented?<p>Wladimir Palant: I don't think that we get anything yet but we indeed hope to get some income this way to make the project sustainable. This doesn't mean that paying us is the requirement to be added to the exceptions list - the requirements a formulated here and they will probably become more precise as we gain experience (suggestions are welcome). As to Google: no, they have nothing to do with it. We didn't talk to Google, we didn't take money from them, there is no conspiracy here. We did look at Google Ads as a typical example (unblocking them is the most common request we get yet most people lack the knowledge for that) but they don't meet our requirements at the moment. Google's search ads are a different thing and they can meet our requirements depending on how the website configures them - and we did add an exception for them on one particular website.<p>2) If the goal is to allow people who would like to see ads to see them, why not have asked if people wanted to see them (ie, neutral “yes/no” question), rather than pushing a default setting which shows those “non intrusive” ads?<p>Wladimir Palant: We made some bad experience when asking people to make a decision, quite frequently people would ignore the question on the first-run page for one reason or another and then wonder why Adblock Plus "isn't working". In fact, that's the reason why the first-run page was reworked - rather than asking, we now subscribe people to a filter list automatically and allow them to revert the decision easily (simplifying Filter Preferences dialog was an important requirement for that). It's the same with "acceptable ads" - asking people to make a decision when it might be a wrong time, when they don't know what we are asking about (I tried to keep the explanation page short but it certainly isn't) etc. isn't going to work well. Instead we focused on making opt-out as simple as possible at any time.<p><a href="https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8872&start=30#p53166" rel="nofollow">https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8872&#...</a>
I use AdBlock on Chrome (which is fine, coincidentally). When it's installed, you get one question: do you want Google's text-only ads. This is less broad than what AdBlock Plus is suggesting, but it's of similar intent.<p>It works. I have no complaints at all. If I ever want to block those ads, I can just check a checkbox.<p>If AdBlock Plus also offered a choice when installed (I don't know if it does now), it would not be an issue at all. If they instead hide the option away, a lot of nontechnical--and probably some technical--people will be confused about why the behavior changed.<p>I think that the ultimate quality of the change depends on exactly how they handle the UX behind.<p>As for the intent and general idea, I support it entirely. As others have said, I do not hate all ads, just annoying, distracting, loud, obnoxious and sometimes vulgar ads which some websites employ.
From their FAQ on the subject:<p><i>>Starting with Adblock Plus 2.0 you can allow some of the advertising that is considered not annoying. By doing this you support websites that rely on advertising but choose to do it in a non-intrusive way. And you give these websites an advantage over their competition which encourages other websites to use non-intrusive advertising as well. In the long term the web will become a better place for everybody, not only Adblock Plus users. Without this feature we run the danger that increasing Adblock Plus usage will make small websites unsustainable.</i><p>Part of me is extremely disappointed ABP made this change, but part of me knows there's got to be some compromise between absolutely no ads and annoying, intrusive ads. Not every website can offer a pay service. I'm happy they're making this change with small website owners in mind, and I'm also happy they're allowing users to turn off all ads by going in to settings.
On one hand, I applaud this. Ads aren't evil, and rewarding ads that play nice would benefit everyone involved. And, it's just an option that can be disabled.<p>All that being said, I see this ending badly for ABP. It won't be long until someone creates a version that blocks all ads again by default.
How are those 'non-intrusive ads' selected? Is there a global white list, which is maintained by the author?<p>Just recently I had this idea that there should be a independent organization or work group which maintains this kind of white list, and websites would gain a badge if their ads are non-intrusive and polite. There would also be an agreed standard which all ads should comply to gain the badge.<p>This way it would be easy to implement in ad blockers, and it would be clear to website visitors what kind of ads they would see. Being an independent organization, the motivation should be just to make web a better place, not to benefit a few specific companies.
As a publisher, I say bring it all on. The reducing effectiveness of display advertising online has forced publishers to find different, and more profitable, models. Some have gone the 'payola' route (tailoring content to advertisers' whims - whether discree or not), and others, like me, have started to produce products that can be directly promoted within our content.<p>Happily, these techniques are far more profitable, better tolerated by users, and not affected by ad blockers at all :-) So block ads all you like - the agile publishers will adjust and the ones relying on garish display ads will go under.. which means more opportunities for the agile ones.
I'm sort of torn on this.<p>On one hand I do want to support sites that I like and I know that for many this occurs through advertising.<p>On the other hand, I am honestly confused by what the web looks like with ads. Its been so long since the very first thing I did on any new computer, vm, or even non-technically inclined friend's machine wasn't to install ad block.<p>In many cases this wasn't really to not see the ads, but rather to make things appear where I'm used to seeing them. While I probably wouldn't find the "non-intrusive" ads themselves annoying. What I would find annoying is that the removal of the ads in many cases changes the layout of the page. All of a sudden what used to be the top right "module" maybe with recent posts or something is now the middle right module with an ad above it. Or even worse, some div that i'm used to seeing 'above the fold' now requires scrolling to see. All of a sudden my intuition and learned behavior for the interface has changed.
It should've been neither an opt-out nor an opt-in. Since it's a one-time notification, it should've explained the rationale behind this feature and asked for a decision. <i>That</i> would mean treating users as intelligent adults. Pre-selecting a good-deed option for them is annoying and insulting. I know that I don't like a good Samaritan behavior stuffed down my throat, so I would've gone and disabled this feature just as a matter of principle (even though I agree it is reasonable).
I think this is great! I've got no problem with reasonable and discrete ads, particular if it helps support sites I use and like. I'd prefer not to have to run an ad blocker at all, but frankly I've been forced into by the number of obnoxious ads out there. My personal pet peeve are ads that play music, sound or video. Damn it, I don't need the tab I loaded in the background to suddenly start blaring some obnoxious ad pitch at me! :-(
No reason for me to enable ads, as long as they have a huge impact on my privacy. I don't intend to send a list of every single site I view to Google.<p>Make a sane ad system, where ads are proxied through the same webserver as the remainder of the page, and I would have no problems with activating them.
I suspect most people who install adblock plus, aren't the kind of people who click on ads. So I suspect, even if (theoretically speaking) blocking ads was made impossible, the net impact would be much smaller than imagined.<p>This will just impact those people who had it installed for them, and who happen to update. I doubt that will be the saviour of many small sites - if adblock plus was killing them in the first place that is.
So what is a good alternative to AdBlockPlus ? (that blocks everything and doesn't play these "non intrusive ads" games EDIT:adding ' by default.' ).<p>EDIT 2:<p>I did read the article and I know it is an option but making viewing ads of any kind opt <i>in</i> vs opt <i>out</i> is (imho) dubious. When the user installs an extension called ad-BLOCK plus, explicitly to block adds, just block them by default dammit and let any users who want to, opt <i>out</i> selectively.<p>I also don't want a situation where a user has to opt out with every upgrade and so on. Nutshell, I don't trust the devs anymore,who seem to be selling out the users.<p>I don't know much about ad networks or javascript so on <i>Hacker</i> News I am asking for alternatives, from those who <i>are</i> experts. Why the downvotes? wtf?
The problem I have with this is not the display of some ads; it is the tracking that advertising networks perform. I would love to support some smaller sites, but not at the expense of my privacy.
I cannot tell from the announcement whether ABP is now getting paid to allow some ads, but if it is, that looks like a textbook conflict of interest. Wikipedia has a list of ways to mitigate such conflicts: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest#Ways_to_mitigate_conflicts_of_interests" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest#Ways_to_mi...</a> , maybe adopting some suggestions from there would help?<p>Also I'm a little confused by the talk of "making small websites unsustainable". Do ads really make small websites sustainable, or is the mention of "small websites" just an applause light?
Personally, I've always used AdBlock not because I hated ads, but because I hated distracting ads. In fact, I remember when I first installed AdBlock being sad that text ads might get blocked as well. I especially want to support those website owners who wish to have ads but are respectful to their readers by not making them distracting ads.<p>Regardless of if money is changing hands as a result of any agreement, I think this is a great move that will be able to positively affect the web advertising landscape.
Is there any risk of a bidding or lobbying war between advertising firms trying to coerce the list maintainers into marking their ads as "non-intrusive?"
Sounds like a great idea. I'd love to allow ads like The Deck and Fusion ads, but my Ad Muncher (on Windows) practices a scorched earth policy where everything is hidden. If I had my own site, I would probably not even be able to see them.<p>This sounds perfect, and it's more in line with a cogent policy of rewarding good ads and punishing bad ones.
All I can think is... whatever happened to the good 'ole days of top quality advertising? There was a time, I'll admit - before I was born, that the population was excited for the next Coca-Cola ad. It was artistic and unique. It was something to look forward to. What happened to those days, and how can we get them back?
Good work & excellent timing. I've been relying on Flashblock to disable the most intrusive ads, but Apple's success in killing off Flash has meant that non-Flash ads are getting more intrusive. I will be installing ASAP.
The current non-intrusive ad list so far: <a href="https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt" rel="nofollow">https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...</a><p>I wonder how to get on that list.
Wow, lots of doom and gloom on here. As someone who doesn't use AdBlock Plus (not particularly to support websites, but that does factor in) I think this is move should be applauded. They continue to serve their customers with the same product they always have (an adblock list manager) and might be able to pull in some money from it as well.<p>The obtrusiveness of the ads they let through will directly affect the number of users they have, so their interests are still aligned with their users. But they are simply more aligned with the 75% who don't blanket oppose all ads.
Honestly, I'm not sure what the big deal is. Ads that do not distract from the content I would not mind being displayed.<p>Notice, however, "display" does not equate to "I'm actually looking at it, reading it, and then clicking on it", my mind's own ad blocker will happily ignore it.<p>I am not someone who believes in website ads as no one seems to have gotten rich advertising their product with website ads; I am not opposed to putting them on my own website, of course, advertisers are welcome to pay me, I just don't see the point in becoming one.
The list of exception filters in question -<p><a href="https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt" rel="nofollow">https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...</a>
Someone got a call from Google :)<p>On a serious note, this is a great move. I will finally install the plugin because I do believe advertising, if done right, keeps the internet free (as in beer).
I mostly block ads due to speed, usability, and privacy concerns, and if this results in advertisers delivering nicer ads that aren't privacy risks, then I am perfectly OK with that. I think a lot of people agree, and mostly block <i>all</i> ads because it's not yet technically feasible to block only the worst. This should change that.
Unfortunately it's still not available on Chrome (at least the beta install for it didn't have it?).<p>I think this is a good step in the right direction though I'm not sure entirely if its a great idea to have the developers decide, maybe a wiki-style process?
I already exempt some small sites that I want to support, mostly webcomics. Looking at their current list of exemptions, this change won't make me see any more ads than I already do. I have no real problem with it.
This is unfortunate. It is not the obtrusive ads I find most annoying, those I can filter out mentally with no difficulty. It is the non-obtrusive ads that masquerade as content that I dislike.
This sounds like a good change to me.<p>As someone who never run Adblock for the past two years, I can't see how is this a big deal. IMHO, if what you want is a distraction-free reading, Readability/Reader is the answer. Maybe it's because the kind of sites I often visits, but situation on ads has improved a lot in the past few years.<p>I've clicked a lot of ads in the past year, some even led me to actually purchase something. Recent ones I can recalled from memory are Parallels Desktop $20 off deal (bought second license for my notebook), GraphicRiver's bundle pack (which led me to know the site and bought a ton more stuff from GR) and few books via Amazon affiliate links.<p>Apart from privacy concern, I can't see why someone always think ads are evil.
anyone who is using AdBlock, will be changing that option right away...and since this is obviously a money grab, you can bet that option gets turned on every time they release a new update
I like this. I've been toying with the idea of turning it off so that my favorite websites can get a bit of revenue from it, but I like this option even better.
Just another data point that's quite happy with this. I only installed an ad blocker after years of happily accepting the advertising because a few sites I didn't want to stop using started running ads that were actively annoying and / or offensive. Most sites aren't a problem though and I'd happily enough see their ads, and a refinement to permit this more easily would be good for me.
So much crying and boo-hooing over having to change a config setting? Can we imagine for a minute what the Internet would be like if <i>everyone</i> used an ad-blocker?
Hah, looks like they got bribed by google to start running ads. Never mind that ABP breaks google's business model David and Goliath style. FF should add ABP or similar as default and destroy 20% of google's ad-revenue, that would be the day. (just in case you forgot the 2038 cookie thing & all of googles other privacy abuses.)
Somewhere somebody is updating a product/marketing guide to add an example of how something can be mind-bogglingly counter-intuitively named. A poster boy for how to do it wrong.
While the title is as usual, crap and misleading:
- i think adblock makes the hard, but right decision
- ill switch it off<p>And finally, I do think ads are evil because done wrongly - spammed. (Even thus the decision is right, because I also accept that our society works like that and DNT needs to be respected.)<p>I do not recall ANY ads that brought true value on the Net to my purchasing needs.<p>They're bad.<p>Examplification:
I browse review for the latest phone. It looks cool. If ads aren't blocked, I get hundred of "buy this phone here and there" "get cables for the phone" yada yada and some random totally unrelated ads.<p>I don't care for any of those. Why? Because If I wanna buy the phone, accessories, or related stuff I'm not just going to click on the first link and click buy. That's dumb.<p>I'm going to go to a price checker online, and decide which one has the best price/shipping/quality/rating/etc ratio!<p>So instead, if the ads would link me to that, and refer the review site if I do buy, I'd be much happier.<p>Of course I realize this cannot be because, the comparison site would be corrupted eventually, as we're talking big amount of moneys here.<p>My 2cts as usual. ;-)