I was thinking about this further, and while it comes off as fairly irrelevant to start with, it's actually an extremely bad thing.<p>In essence, this has set up two tiers of advertising: those we have paid for white list privileges, and those who haven't. This is heavily in Google's interests as they are the only advertiser powerful enough to get by with only text adverts - nobody else has a platform like Google search where text only adverts are enough to overcome costs and provide viability.<p>By using Adblock Plus as a weapon against non-Google adverts, Google is removing the ability for other players to compete on level footing. It's very similar to the idea of paying AT&T for prioritization for Google traffic, and it destroys a lot of the foundations that the web is built on. It definitely crosses into 'evil' territory for me, in the same way as paying AT&T to slow down access to Bing would be.<p>While it's just an add on, it's a bad precedent to set.
Quick ref to get rid of Google Ads (and some others too) on Adblock Plus:<p>FOR CHROME:<p>Go to "Settings"<p>Find Extensions in the list on the left<p>Find AdBlock, select "Options"<p>Click the tab "Filter Lists"<p>Uncheck: "Allow some non-intrusive advertising"<p>FOR FIREFOX:<p>Go to the Firefox menu in the upper left corner<p>Select "Add-ons"<p>Select "Extensions"<p>Find Adblock Plus, select Options.<p>Find the "Filter Preferences" Button<p>Select the tab "Filter Subscriptions"<p>Uncheck: "Allow some non-intrusive advertising"
I think it was immoral and dishonest to sneak in a whitelist feature into AdBlock, which is in direct opposition to the core product value. Imagine a firewall that whitelists certain networks. And background updates add more networks that bought their way into your machine. Not a product I'd be willing to use.
Since it seems to be a common misconception, I'd just like to point out that "Adblock" and "Adblock Plus" are two different extensions made by different people.
As long as they're only whitelisting text ads, I don't think I mind. Even image ads that aren't animated are okay with me if they aren't offensive. The only reason I have AdBlock plus installed in the first place is the really vile shit - noisy SWFs, scantily clad women, drive-by PDF 0 day exploits, etc...
This whitelist was highly publicized, I even listened to a segment on NPR that interviewed an Ad Block Plus employee about it(Link below). For all you outraged individuals this was a very openly communicated addition and comes by default, but it can be easily turned off. Oh the outrage...<p><a href="http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/may/10/adblock-plus-internets-ad-gatekeeper/" rel="nofollow">http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/may/10/adblock-plus-internets...</a>
Just uncheck the Allow non-intrusive option and this becomes a non-issue.<p>With recent onslaught of attack on Ghostery and Ad-block, I wonder if these two tools are doing exactly what they're supposed to do: help people.
Although the ethics of paying as the method for being whitelisted can be subject to debate, IIRC Adblock states that whitelisted ads could be those that aren't animated, block access to content or distract the normal flow of browsing.<p>Adwords are just blocks of text. Ugly blocks of text, but they don't distract too much. And promoted search results are a fair tradeoff imo.<p>Anyway, disabling the display of whitelisted ads is not a complex task.
As others noted, AdBlock and Adblock Plus are two different companies.<p>I donated to AdBlock a couple years ago. Should have earlier. And should do again. Not claiming to be a saint. But I gave them some actual money. I'd like to think that enough people doing this, makes it possible for AdBlock to avoid doing what AdBlock Plus did.<p>I think this is a variation on the theme, "If you're not the customer, you're the product." Usually we talk about this WRT free web services. In this case it applies to what, back in the day, some of us would refer to as "shareware".
It's not just advertising that Google stands to benefit from.<p>The Google Ads also help them keep a <i>track</i> of where the person has been around the web and also acts as a proxy site stats data for Google (irrespective of whether you use Google Analytics or not).
I was always curious as to how they made money. He used to ask for donations. Asking for money in exchange for <i>not</i> taking actions that will harm another person's business (i.e. blocking their ads) seeing seems awfully close to extortion. Yelp was sued for extortion, and their conduct was far less egregious than this. Google probably couldn't handle the PR hit after the NSA stuff, but I'll bet their first inclination was to sue rather than write a check.
I suspected something like that when I realized Google Ads were now showing up on my screen a few weeks ago. I went to the Adblock Plus forum and all it said was that those ads had been added to the list, no reason why. I personally find it appealing and hope everyone switches away to an Adblock fork, if only by principle. Sure it's the extension' maintainer's right to take bribes, but the consequence should be that no one trusts the extension again.
The other day I was thinking about how Google keeps printing "download button" traps [1], despite it being in clear conflict with their TOS [2], for obvious reasons (abnormal high revenue from clicks).<p>Now, they "bribe" the author of AdBlock to keep a flawed model alive.<p>Advertising is a shitty industry, but boy, is Google taking it to the next level. And the nerds are too distracted with their shinny things and job offers to notice.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.ghacks.net/2012/06/17/how-deceiving-ads-trick-you-on-download-sites/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ghacks.net/2012/06/17/how-deceiving-ads-trick-you...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/topic/1308149" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/topic/1308149</a>
Here is the "non-intrusive" filter <a href="https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt" rel="nofollow">https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...</a><p>It does seem to have a lot of google.
Is this a bad thing? AdBlock has made no promises to me, and it continues to be useful. The day it doesn't, I uninstall it and find an alternative.
I defined an exception for AdWords when I first installed an ad blocker. I just want to block the annoying ads, but I understand that many sites have to advertise to stay online. I can live with text ads, but not auto-start videos with sound, animated banner ads, pop-ups, etc.
I did notice this recently and have been having to uncheck the box on all the new PCs I install it on. While the ads are "unintrusive" I have a media PC where I've turned the font up to huge to be able to read from the couch. Some search terms will cause maybe up to 4 different text ads to show up and that will effectively block out the actual search results when your font is large.<p>I'm glad I found out about this though. I always felt vaguely guilty unchecking it, because I thought it was maybe AdBlock trying to support the "Good Guys" of online advertising, but if Google themselves are paying for it, I no longer care.
I understand the apprehension in this community about ads in general but when it comes to search engine ads, it does add value (and relevance improvement) to many "commerce" oriented queries.<p>Google also already knows categories that generally don't get high ad engagement and doesn't show them for those. An example would be "chuck norris biography" - the intent is clear that you're looking for information primarily and even though I'm sure Amazon or others buy tons of ads against "chuck norris movies", etc. Google is smart enough to know not show you those irrelevant ads.
Although I can understand the need to whitelist non-intrusive or "acceptable" ads, it seems shady to base the list on who pays the most. If adblock plus is a community plugin, the list of acceptable ads should be voted on. I have switched to Ghostery (after reports of adblock plus injecting referral tags), so can someone clarify if whitelisting is enabled by default?<p>Despite ads being the main source of revenue for Google, it is really cool of them to allow ad-blockers on the Chrome extension store (although Andriod is another story). However, paying to be whitelisted puts the rest of the advertisers at a disadvantage. It is a very well known fact that there isn't a good alternative to Adsense and things like this will only puts a dent into the remaining competition.
I can understand google trying to protect their revenue source, but actions like this undermine the openness of the platforms that they are trying to promote.<p>Open and free platforms need to allow people to say no.
Adblocking it self is evil. The current ecosystem where users get contents for publishers for "free", advertisers pays publisher for producing content and viewing it to users and last users pay advertisers (buying there product). If users dont see advertising, advertising has no interest in paying publishers and then publishers gets no money. Not many people understand the ecosystem and I have seen developers living of advertising and still blocks ads online. That is crasy if you think about it.
Many people love AdBlock being free (incl. myself) and many people would admit Google's Ads are comparatively less intrusive and comparatively more relevant.<p>I assumed this was the case when I installed it, similar to the situation with Firefox using Google search by default while being compensated to the tune of $1B[1]. Why is this surprising or upsetting?<p>[1] <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398046,00.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398046,00.asp</a>
Solution: Use AdBlock instead of AdBlock Plus. You can add your own whitelists if you want but it doesn't have any itself.<p>Chrome: <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom" rel="nofollow">https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiob...</a><p>Source: <a href="https://code.google.com/p/adblockforchrome/" rel="nofollow">https://code.google.com/p/adblockforchrome/</a>
Funny that people would focus on google in this case. It seems to me adblock plus is the culprit here. First it gained a much significant footprint, then added the whole "acceptable ads" concept, then got paid by advertisers to be whitelisted.<p>Seems like adblock plus is abusing its position of power to extort money and doesn't care about the user.
So what is the alternative, in the comments two of them have stood out: <a href="http://www.ghostery.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ghostery.com/</a> & AdBlock. Any prefrences or any other good ones, I'm going to get rid of AdBlock Plus right now so looking for a solution.
I personally use a commercial ad blocker - AdMuncher. Blocks more ads than ABP and I know I'm the customer, not Google. Only supports Windows unfortunately, but on Linux I run an XP VM and proxy through it.
All it takes is one click on a checkbox.<p>Anyone is free to fork AdBlock Plus' codebase and prepare a version that doesn't require that checkbox.<p>I, for one, am happy that AdBlock Plus is being funded (and will continue to provide a great, reliable product) at the expense of users too stupid or ignorant to click on a single checkbox.