Do you think this is a controversial action?

[polonus]

Re: https://getadblock.com/amnesty2016why/
Adblock to show ads against Internet Censorship.
I use an adblocker like uBlock to block ads, not an adblocker to launch political colored ads.
I think an adblocker and a script blocker and also an anti-malware solution should be strictly neutral in such a debate.
Anyone?

polonus

[MikeBCda]

I'd consider this a classic "who watches the watchers?" scenario.  I might have totally missed it, but I couldn't find a darned thing on that page which clarifies the criteria they (and only they) are using to decide what does or doesn't qualify for this temporary whitelisting.  It's tempting to simply disable the utility till tomorrow and use your own judgment.

[DavidR]

Well the interesting bit for me and it took some reading to get to it, the last sentence.

But regardless of how Web content gets paid for, no one except you has the right to control what shows up on your screen, or who has access to the contents of your hard drive. Not the websites, not the advertisers, not the ad blockers. And not your government, either.

So what gives them the right to control what you see on your screen and that includes not seeing bloody amnesty international adverts. Bleeding heart liberals with their own agenda.

[mchain]

An adblocker has to be neutral in all cases, otherwise it can be bought off for a price.  Not seeing that absolute stance being adhered to here. 

Selective neutrality never has worked in the past and will not in the foreseeable future.  You don't get to pick and choose.

[bob3160]

An adblocker has to be neutral in all cases, otherwise it can be bought off for a price.  Not seeing that absolute stance being adhered to here. 

Selective neutrality never has worked in the past and will not in the foreseeable future.  You don't get to pick and choose.

Unfortunately everything in life costs money. Depending on who the financial backers are, usually determines how "independent"
the service will be.