Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: polonus on October 29, 2012, 11:19:56 AM
-
Read here: https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads
Acceptable ads can be blocked by removing the tick, but next time you start the browser they are allowed "by default". Is this a concession Google demanded to keep Adblock Plus on? Additional lists also can be added, but the next time the browser is started, they have disappeared.For instance I like to use this subscription https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/malwaredomains_full.txt and it will last just one browser setting, very annoying.
It says in the settings that adding too much to block will stop Google Chrome browser from functioning.
A bit like when using chrome with Tor it treats you as a bot and serves you captcha"s.
Here we see Google Chrome's policy takes another turn than that of the firefox browser: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20082305
Privacy gonna be the 2013 issue. I think ABP already capitulated to the adservers/trackers/web beacon servers.,
polonus
-
There is a simple solution, stop using Chrome.
I'm not as concerned as you on this subject so an occasional ad, isn't a deterrent for me.
-
Hi Polonus,
Upon installation of version 1.3, I unticked 'allow some non-intrusive advertising'. All settings remain after restarting Chrome so I don't know what is going on with your installation. I will keep you updated if these settings change.
-
For me I don't know of any 'non-intrusive advertising.' I really would like to see what their deception of 'non-intrusive advertising' is and what the 'allow some' means. Some as in selective few or effectively all of the damn things that they categorise as 'non-intrusive advertising.'
Thankfully there are no such options in the Firefox version of ABP.
-
Hi David,
Please see the attached list. This appears to be the list they are using for 'non-intrusive' ads. It's the list I see when I click on view list. See image in my previous post (reply #2).
And to be fair, allow non-intrusive advertising is in AdBlock Plus for Firefox too.
-
Thanks, hadn't noticed that I have a bit of a long list of filters ;D
Whilst it is in firefox ABP, but it is unchecked on mine, don't know if that is a default setting or I unchecked it. Reading further it appears to be on by default, so I disabled it.
The list doesn't seem too extensive right now, but I guess that will grow over time (expiry date and checksum make it look like it is updated every 10 days), mainly the big hitters in advertising revenue, google, amazon.
[Adblock Plus 2.0]
! Checksum: 1zOcmsxUfmAy82POs2o1cw
! Expires: 10 days
! Text-based search ads on suche.netzwelt.de
@@||google.com/uds/*$script,subdocument,document,domain=suche.netzwelt.de
@@||suche.netzwelt.de^$elemhide
@@||google.com/aclk^$domain=suche.netzwelt.de,subdocument
@@||googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk^$domain=suche.netzwelt.de,subdocument
||images.netzwelt.de/partner/*
! Static image ads on t3n.de
@@||guruads.de/api/view/*$script,domain=t3n.de
@@||guruads.de/u/b/*$image,domain=t3n.de
I'm still finding it hard getting my head around what an acceptable non-intrusive advert might be, my idea is you can't see it is non-intrusive, but that kind of makes it pointless. Seeing some of the stuff in the links in the code sample above like subdocument and elemhide.
So some further reading, https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads (https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads) reveals what the definition of acceptable-ads (non-intrusive) means.
-
I'm one of those who went with the default in Firefox: it's only really the stupidly intrusive ads I object to- ones that play sounds, jiggle about, or put a distracting animation or video next to a piece of text. The ads that get through don't bother me. It's not as if I cut the ads out of a newspaper or magazine before I read it. I have no problem with web sites being ad funded. The AdBlock approach seems good to me (even if it is enforced by commercial interests): if the ads are too annoying, consumers will install AdBlock; if they're not too annoying with AdBlock, consumers will tolerate some ads. Sensible advertisers are rewarded, the idiots are punished (or get viewed by an audience of idiots) and anybody who really objects to ads can block them all. All good.
I can't comment on Chrome because I don't use it.
-
I'm one of those who went with the default in Firefox: it's only really the stupidly intrusive ads I object to- ones that play sounds, jiggle about, or put a distracting animation or video next to a piece of text. The ads that get through don't bother me. It's not as if I cut the ads out of a newspaper or magazine before I read it. I have no problem with web sites being ad funded. The AdBlock approach seems good to me (even if it is enforced by commercial interests): if the ads are too annoying, consumers will install AdBlock; if they're not too annoying with AdBlock, consumers will tolerate some ads. Sensible advertisers are rewarded, the idiots are punished (or get viewed by an audience of idiots) and anybody who really objects to ads can block them all. All good.
I can't comment on Chrome because I don't use it.
+1 I'm the same as FreewheelinFrank
-
If nothing else this has promoted some healthy debate on ads, yes they may have a place, but they mustn't be in your face obtrusive and it isn't just websites that need to learn this lesson.
-
Well it is not only ABP in Google Chrome, there is the same "default setting" to untick in firefox.
Not a lot of users will untick as they will have to click "filter preferences" to get inside the various ABP options.
So it is buried a bit further inside the extension settings in firefox than in Google Chrome's version.
So I think on second thoughts that Google Chrome is even more open and frank about this change in ABP than firefox.
Well what adverts I can live with? Adverts that are coming from and are being shown on the main site that I visit.
Because that is why I visited that page in the first place and there is what I possibly interested in - ads are topic related.
I am not interested in third party ads and banners and crap, so I like to have an extension to block these.
Also I like to avoid malvertisers as they could be also mean malcode to hijack clicks.
I like they would give the browser back in the hands of the user (as firefox developers have mentioned repeatedly, but isn't this a hollow philosophy?)
and not the browser in the hands of the developer/advertiser.
Now I have establsihed that firefox is also doing concessions to the big advertisers and their stakeholders....
The opposite should also be true, a user that wants to click all ads should be allowed to do so (as long as they are legit and benign).
A browser should be at least an impartial tool...I think it is not, at least to quite some extent it is not...
polonus
-
Ad Block Plus does not recommend using more then one of the same subscriptions. Using EasyList along with FanBoys list is not recommended. Using EasyList and EasyPrivacy is ok.
Which filter subscription should you choose? Adblock Plus offers you a few selected filter subscriptions on first start. The full list is much longer. However, you should not add all subscriptions you can get — each filter subscription contains filters that will in some cases block something that is not an advertisement, this is unavoidable. Usually, this will never be an issue for you, but you will be far more likely to hit this problem if you add too many filter subscriptions. As a rule of thumb, you should not use filter subscriptions with overlapping competencies. For example, using EasyList (mainly targeted at English-language sites) with an EasyList supplement for your region (like RuAdList for Russian sites) is fine. However, Fanboy's List (another list with main focus on English-language sites) shouldn't be used in combination with EasyList.
You can always change the filter subscriptions that you use by opening Adblock Plus preferences (press Ctrl+Shift+E). You can remove any filter subscriptions you have in that list, and you can add a new subscription by going to menu Filters / Add filter subscription. Once you are done with your changes click OK.
http://adblockplus.org/en/getting_started#subscription
-
@ polonus
I think that has been established in firefox is that ABP has had to make concessions as it is ABP that the advertisers would be coming for.
For Chrome it is a different kettle of fish entirely as it is google that stands to lose a huge chunk of ad revenue. For that matter doesn't google still support firefox (?) so there may well be pressure by google for the firefox ABP to make concessions.
-
Hi DavidR,
Agree with you, but think we can find some additional info on ad filtering here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus
see there the sub section : Advert filtering controversy and "acceptable" ads
and more in particular the general info on this subject here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_filtering
Now both in firefox and google chrome there are additional extensions that can come to help the user to check on tracking as Do Not Track Plus and the collision extension to see who tracks what from where. NoScript and Request Policy also give further control over the browser.
It is a pity that it is still early days for TLS1.2 and this transport layer security is not yet being supported by all OS/servers/applications and user-agents/browsers.....
polonus