back to article Sacre block! French publishers to sue Adblock maker – report

French publishers are reportedly planning to sue Eyeo, the makers of AdBlock Plus, over the upstart's practice of charging money to allow online adverts to pass through its filter software. According to L'Echos, the lawsuit is being considered by the French Internet Advertising Bureau and GESTE, a French publishers and content …

  1. Scoular

    How much value to users put on web sites

    If web sites had to charge for use they, and we, would find out how much consumers really value what they publish. Many of those annoying add pushing sites would surely fail.

    Rupert is a bit less than forthcoming about how much his various news sites actually get in subscriptions and news is pretty popular. Others may well fare worse.

    1. solo

      Re: How much value to users put on web sites

      If all the sites which are supported by ads, go down, you'll come to know their value as a collective.

      Concerning the article, it's just the snooping habits of the tech behind these ads that people are scared of. And if ad blockers are adapting "Pay for Play", they are breaching our trust and open source ethics. Let your algorithm decide the fittest for a reasonable playing field for the publishers.

      1. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

        Re: How much value to users put on web sites

        @ solo. No, it's not "just the snooping habits" that I object to. A large chunk of my ire is directed at the balal ads, the intrusive and downright rude animated ads (no better than little johnny leaping up and down, yelling, to get noticed and, sadly even served up on El Reg, for shame. ). Its the mindless crap from Amazon (you bought a widget. Here's a targetted ad for another one). Its the lying gits saying things like "you have a new message". Its the special offers that are anything but. Its the popup/over/under ads. Its the relentless celebrity drivel inspired ads.

        Attention French Ad pushers (and anyone else embarking on an ad campaign). You don't like people's reaction to the crass, the dumb, the stupid and the rude? Stop doing it. It seems to escape some people's realisation that, if you serve up shit, you get treated like you serve shit. Grow up and start acting like you care instead of going for the lowest common demominator. Simples.

        All that is aside from the obvious security weakness of a compromised ad server as has, I understand, been recently slightly in the news.

        I do, however, agree with your point that "if ad blockers are adapting "Pay for Play", they are breaching our trust and open source ethics". Quite. With control of what AdBlock allows passing out of our hands, it is in danger of becoming itself just as guilty.

        1. Terry 6 Silver badge

          Re: How much value to users put on web sites

          @inventor of....

          Yes Yes Yes, I have no problem with static ads. I even click on some of them from time to time, to pay my "dues".

          But I don't get advertising that turns a web page into a swamp of flashing lights, sliding banners, unfeasable offers and so forth. It just makes the sites unusable. So Adblock Edge it is.

          I assume there must be a tribe of idiots that spend money based on this sh*t. But even they can't really think they're the 10,000th person to look at that banner every time they see it. Can they?

          And how often do they really feel tempted to see their friends naked? ( especially since I doubt very much that they will).

          I just don't understand how the bastards that spawn this stuff make their money. Or who from.

          1. Ted Treen
            Stop

            @Terry 6

            "...And how often do they really feel tempted to see their friends naked?.."

            As a 65-yr old whose circle of friends is generally aged roughly the same, just the thought was enough to put me off my cocoa & chocolate hob-nob.

            Earlier warning of such suggestions would be in order...

            1. Ivan Headache

              @ Terry

              "...& chocolate hob-nob."

              Singular?

              There's no such thing as a singular hob-nob.

              It's a packet of Hob-nobs or no hob-nobs at all!

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @ Terry

                If four or five individual chocolate hob-nobs have melted together I always count that as one so don't judge the chap too harshly until you know the full circumstances.

            2. Terry 6 Silver badge

              Re: @Terry 6

              @Ted

              Sorry and in the late 50s myself there aren't many I'd want to see flashing up on the screen.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: How much value to users put on web sites

          > I do, however, agree with your point that "if ad blockers are adapting "Pay for Play", they are breaching our trust and open source ethics".

          I noticed ages ago that there was an option in ABP to deny/allow "certain unintrusive ads"

          Being a cantakerous bastard I immediately set it to deny. Others may not have, but the option is still there.

          ABP and others need to get revenue from somewhere if only to keep the lights on and software users are notorious for not wanting to toss a few pesos in the developer's direction.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: How much value to users put on web sites

            "Being a cantakerous bastard I immediately set it to deny. Others may not have, but the option is still there."

            FWIW, I left that option ticked to "allow some unintrusive advertising" and I can't say I've noticed any flashing, bouncing, things happening. Whether that means they allow some paid ads through or have some way of allowing plain and simple ads through I can't say, but it does seem to be a reasonable balance between blocking all ads and allowing all ads. Of course, I also have flashblock running too.

            Unfortunately for El Reg, I don't recall seeing any ads other than a couple of weeks ago when I visited with a new install without protection and got my eyes and ears blasted with pop-up, full-on live video stream ads and all sorts of other crap which, on a Linux install of Firefox managed to hide the article in a way that it was actually impossible to read the article.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: How much value to users put on web sites

              hahaha, same here. Just installed Adblock Edge after accidentally opening an ad on this article.

              I suppose I should send some dough to El Reg and some honest blocker/filterlist maintainers - but not ABP. Fuck them. Fire away, French lawyers!

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How much value to users put on web sites

          >mindless crap from Amazon (you bought a widget. Here's a targetted ad for another one)

          I recently bought a long handled pop riveter and indeed when logged in get told people who bought such and such a pop riveter also bought these different ones. What a load of baloney, if not downright lies. How many pop riveters does a man need? Hey, it's not as if they're pliers.

          1. earl grey
            Trollface

            Re: How much value to users put on web sites

            You can't ever have too many tools.

            Long-handled riveter.

            Regular riveter.

            Plastic riveter.

            Nut riveter.

            I'm sure there are others I don't have (yet)....

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How much value to users put on web sites

      If web sites had to charge for use they, and we, would find out how much consumers really value what they publish. Many of those annoying add pushing sites would surely fail.

      One of the biggest frustrations about the internet these days for me is I'll find a few links to articles that sound interesting and right up my street I'll load them and it'll be a webpage plastered with adverts and the name of the article then click next to see the next bit of the article and it is just one big slideshow with annoying adverts on every page.

      I don't mind adverts I understand websites need them to survive, but when 75% of the content on a page is trying to track my movements and plaster adverts in my face and only 25% is content and I have to go through a gauntlet to read all the content I clicked on the article for it is really annoying. Sadly though more and more websites seem to be following this formula. Ironic that our computers and internet connections are fast enough to have a lot of rich content all on one page, so what do they do? carve it up and put flash adverts everywhere.. Now where did I put that hosts file.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: How much value to users put on web sites

        Adverts are distracting, they take up bandwidth (which I'm paying for), there's a chance they can be hacked and used to infect a computer with a virus.

        They can all sod off.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How much value to users put on web sites

      No need to use Ad Block since IE9. Just use TPLs:

      http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/

      1. Bloakey1

        Re: How much value to users put on web sites

        "No need to use Ad Block since IE9"

        <snip>

        At which point you alienated most of the readership.

        1. Tom 7

          Re: How much value to users put on web sites

          "No need to use Ad Block since IE9"

          I thought he meant it crashed before the ads could be displayed.

      2. N2

        Re: How much value to users put on web sites

        https://ie.microsoft.com is untrusted so I clicked 'get me out of here'

        The certificate is only valid for the following names: *.azurewebsites.net, *.scm.azurewebsites.net, *.azure-mobile.net, *.scm.azure-mobile.net

        For the company they proclaim to be or at least once were, its a joke they cant even do that properly.

        1. phuzz Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: How much value to users put on web sites

          The URL you're looking for is https://www.microsoft.com/ie

          1. Andus McCoatover
            Windows

            https://www.microsoft.com/ie ??

            Lost on me.

            All I got was:

            Looking for Internet Explorer?

            You’re in the right place, but Internet Explorer requires a Windows PC.

    4. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: How much value to users put on web sites

      How does it work exactly anyway?

      Ads on websites annoy me. I associate the service/product they are selling with annoyance and dislike and I am unlikely to ever want to buy it.

      Some websites have ads that force you to watch them by imposing them over the top of the web page content. I don't use those sites anymore.

      Like watching a TV Program and the adverts are not left until commercial breaks, instead they are played over the top of the programme while its on air!

    5. Andus McCoatover
      Windows

      Re: How much value to users put on web sites

      Ye Gods, even been caught out a couple of times from SOURCEFORGE! Got a toolbar when I wanted a nifty bit of s/w. Who'd a thunk it...(I think we've all been there at least once...)

      HEY! Cunning Plan! A competition by El-Reg.

      1) take a 'sacrificial' computer. Use that thus:

      2) everytime you're offered another free toolbar, ACCEPT it.

      Winner is the first commentard who can display a screenshot of a browser so full of toolbars, it's impossible to see *any* content on a page....

      (I'd have spruced up this post a bit, but <marquee> isn't in the allowed HTML....

  2. Gray
    Facepalm

    Golden rule: gold rules

    It's the familiar tale of the golden rule. In this case, gold = key.

    (At least most all of those pesky ads get blocked. Or many of them ... well, at least some of them ... ?)

    Perhaps a golden idea for the Adblock maker would be a "Gold Edition" of AdBlock Plus ... which is a subscription version that does block all those pesky ads, regardless.

    Bidding war, anyone? They'll counter the Gold Edition subscription fee base, and pay a premium so their ad content punches through ... oh, drat! AdBlock PLATINUM appears in the offing!

    1. T. F. M. Reader

      Re: Golden rule: gold rules

      @Gray: version that does block all those pesky ads, regardless.

      There is a checkbox in AdBlock Plus that is labelled "Allow some unobtrusive ads" or some such. I presume it is related to those paying advertisers. IIRC, it is checked by default. I always uncheck it. Between AB+ and Ghostery (and a long /etc/hosts) I never see 3rd party ads on the internet.

  3. Neoc

    "Les cochons vouloir de l'argent!"

    Pardon my rusty French, but shouldn't that be "Les cochons veulent de l'argent!"?

    1. Bloakey1

      Re: "Les cochons vouloir de l'argent!"

      That sound like a badly written BBC call to the resistance c. 1943.

      Pour ceux qui parle Francais:

      http://www.lesechos.fr/tech-medias/medias/0203983694287-les-editeurs-francais-prets-a-poursuivre-en-justice-les-bloqueurs-de-publicite-1070602.php

      Apparently moves are afoot in Germany to do the same thing so the French appear to be following up:

      My regimental motto in France was;

      "Cry ribbet and let slip the frogs of war" a quote from the well known French writer Guillaume Tremblerlance .

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: "Les cochons vouloir de l'argent!"

      Fetchez la vache!

      In other news, the paper is called "Les Échos". "L'Écho" is another one and "L'Echos" not very correct.

    3. Steve the Cynic

      Re: "Les cochons vouloir de l'argent!"

      @Neoc: Yes, indeed, it should. But the general standard of French in the sub-headlines on this august site is, um, not as high as it could be (see yesterday's howler: "Vous etes ayant un rire, n'est-ce pas?", a word-for-word-ism of "you're having a laugh" plus the standard French tag-question finisher "n'est-ce pas", but complete gibberish in French. It should, of course be something like "Vous déconnez, n'est-ce pas?" or maybe "Vous plaisantez, n'est-ce pas?" if you want to be less casual.)

      (Spending nearly six years in France tends to make English-to-French literalisms extremely hard to read...)

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Pint

    Homebase

    Eyeo may have a problem since they are based in Cologne. This one will be interesting. Need popcorn!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Homebase

      You do know that Cologne (Köln) is in Germany?

  5. Ketlan
    Unhappy

    Money speaks, as usual

    'French publishers are reportedly planning to sue Eyeo, the makers of AdBlock Plus, over the upstart's practice of charging money to allow online adverts to pass through its filter software.'

    I didn't know ABP did this and I have to say it surprises and saddens me that what I thought was a useful and clever utility is taking the money route. I want an ad-blocker to block ads, especially from multinational advertisers who can afford to throw money around with abandon (Google, for instance). An ad-blocker that doesn't block all ads is something else entirely.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Money speaks, as usual

      I agree, this is the first I've heard of this practice as well. Anyone know of a competing Ad Blocker? Probably time for a change. Just how at first everyone viewed Google as way to escape from the evil Microsoft, now more and more of us are pushing Google further and further away because of their evil.

      I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, the makers of Ad Block Plus want to get paid and the idea was probably too tempting to resist, but it is disappointing nonetheless. I'd rather they hit everyone up for a buck or two - I have no problem paying for something I find value in, but I insist on a transparent transaction. Enough with the "free" stuff that isn't free except to people who don't value their privacy.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: Money speaks, as usual

        Just untick the "allow unobtrusive ads" box when you install adblock.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Money speaks, as usual

          Or by default, maybe it should be unticked? Opt in rather than opt out.

          1. euclid

            Re: Money speaks, as usual

            I had opted out, but now I know it helps support ABP, I have opted in.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Money speaks, as usual

        Just install Adblock Edge which was created precisely because of this opt-out default of Adblock Plus.

        1. auburnman

          Re: Money speaks, as usual

          Good Lord - maybe this is Google's long term strategy; fragment AdBlock until you wind up with AdBlock plus, AdBlock Edge, AdBlock Pure, AdBlock Super ad infinitum and no one knows which one is best to install and the coding talent is diluted between dozens of competing efforts.

      3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Money speaks, as usual

        I use Ghostery. It too deals with the ad brokers by selling them anonymised data of where ads are being blocked. Anyone developing software like this is going to need to pay some full-time developers. Let's see how things develop.

      4. Kubla Cant

        Re: Money speaks, as usual

        Anyone know of a competing Ad Blocker?

        Try Privoxy. An ad-blocking proxy server is a bit more fiddly to install than ABP, but it blocks ads everywhere, including Chrome, IE, email etc. You can also set up a single proxy server for your entire network, so ads don't even get across the threshold.

    2. Adrian 4

      Re: Money speaks, as usual

      My initial reaction too, but having investigated I'm happy to keep using it.

      https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads

      This seems a reasonable policy : I stay in control, but the default is to block the distracting and annoying stuff.

      The only thing that article doesn't cover is charging - in fact, it states "no one can buy their way onto the whitelist". Perhaps there's an 'admin charge'.

      1. Ralph B

        Re: Money speaks, as usual

        > The only thing that article doesn't cover is charging

        They seem to be on a morally/legally dangerous path. First they develop a tool that promises to block ads; then they try to collect money from advertisers to nevertheless let the ads through; next they will try to collect money from users for really blocking the ads they initially promised to; then they'll try to collect yet more money from advertisers to really let through the ads they've already paid to be let through ... and so on.

        Eventually, I expect, the lawyers will do rather well out of it, but everyone else with lose out.

    3. PassiveSmoking

      Re: Money speaks, as usual

      Also, I don't just use an ad blocker because I find ads annoying (which I surely do), I also use one because I know that ads aren't typically served by the site that's displaying them and are, at best a privacy intrusion and at worst a potential security risk if the ad server is compromised.

      If my ad blocker doesn't block ads because its makers saw fit to accept money to allow ads through then it's time to start looking for a new ad blocker.

    4. teebie

      Re: Money speaks, as usual

      "I didn't know ABP did this"

      Assuming you use ABP, this reflects well on whatever vetting rules it uses to only allow non-annoying ads through.

  6. Richard 12 Silver badge

    Time for another ad-blocker

    Firefox or Chrome.

    It must be easy to disable and re-enable on a per-site basis.

    Any recommendations?

    1. Bloakey1

      Re: Time for another ad-blocker

      Nahhhh. Keep that one and just untick the allow option, download noscript.

      It is interesting to note that Adblock Plus has 5 million active users in France and some of the people behind advertising in Germany have lodged formal complaints over adblockers. I assume the advertising industry who polute our eyesight night and day, are going to use this as a test case for elsewhere due to the high percentage of adoption by French users.

      Personally I believe that I have the right to see what I want and I do not want a pile of rubbish stealing electricity and processing power on my watch.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Florida1920

          Re: Time for another ad-blocker

          Do you have those huge LED billboards yet? Have you seen what they've done to Times Square? Of course, Google has to have the "world's largest billboard." A hacking crew that took out the power grid might be doing us all a favor.

          Google Glass with AdBlocker. Now that's a gadget I'd consider.

  7. Mark Eaton-Park

    AB+ ? nah I used noscript the pinacle of paranoia

    I tried AB+ when it first came out but never trusted it, right now I can't remember what my cause for concern was however noscript has served me well since its appearance and doesnt just pretend to block ads.

  8. Charlie Clark Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Security

    It's not just Flash that's insecure: the whole practice of allowing third party scripting to be injected into a website is insecure. Not least because it exposes users to third-party trackers without their explicit consent.

  9. Tromos

    Leaky ad-blocker?

    About as useful as a leaky condom.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    advertising are getting increasingly peeved

    Good. This indicates the ad-blocking population is up. Hopefully this will, in the long run, stimulate other ways for website owners to earn their cash.

    ...

    ok, I'm over-optimistic, who's gonna give up a revenue stream, if they can have TWO? :(

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      There are other ways

      I am a big fan of MVPS

      http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

      It updates your %SYSTEMROOT%\system32\drivers\etc\HOSTS. file (and keeps a copy of the old one) so that bad ad-slinging URL traffic gets immediately routed into the void known as 127.0.0.1, like so much junk mail getting thrown into the bin unopened (*smiles nostalgically)

      MVPS is not perfect and run by volunteers but I find it much less fiddly and less likely to crash browsers than products such as Ghostery and Ad-Block.

      Regarding the overall debate, I can't see this suit really getting anywhere. People are still free to install what they want on their computers and this is the way it should be. This remains true despite all the attempts of various suited weasels in government and business to change it. May their suit(s) crash and burn,

      Unfortunately, this is not very good publicity for Ad-block.

      Which reminds me..... I really must update my MVPS host file.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: There are other ways

        "like so much junk mail getting thrown into the bin unopened"

        Why do that? Just post it back to the bar stewards. It's their junk, they can dispose of it.

        1. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

          Re: There are other ways

          Yes. post it back. And, as a small token of the esteem in which you hold the sender, enclose some little keepsake. Like a rusty cylinder head. Or the veg peelings.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: There are other ways

            Yes. post it back. And, as a small token of the esteem in which you hold the sender, enclose some little keepsake. Like a rusty cylinder head. Or the veg peelings.

            Nah, don't add postage (so paid by recipient) and add a brick.

        2. Elmer Phud

          Re: There are other ways

          "Just post it back to the bar stewards. It's their junk, they can dispose of it."

          But be creative -- mix up the envelopes first.

          Never send it back to where it came from.

          But anything to 'The Householder' goes straight in the recycling unopened as it's Virgin spam.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: There are other ways

            "But be creative -- mix up the envelopes first.

            Never send it back to where it came from."

            What I'd like Hotmail to do is add a button "Forward Spam". It would forward copies of each of the emails in the junk folder to the return addresses of all the others.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There are other ways

        Have they fixed the bug in FireFox that caused it to exhaust system memory and grind to a messy halt when the hosts.txt file became large?

    2. ElsmarMarc

      Re: advertising are getting increasingly peeved

      >>Good. This indicates the ad-blocking population is up. Hopefully this will, in the long run, stimulate other ways for website owners to earn their cash.<<

      Of course the problem is most people want "free" on the internet. What would be interesting is if all browsers came with a built in ad blocker which blocked *all* ads of all types, including AdSense ads. Within a year the internet would be quite barren. I'm not sure whether that would be better or worse, but I suspect it would kill off millions of sites with good content, not to mention Facebook (a big plus in my opinion) and similar websites, including, probably, "El Reg".

      The internet is no different than radio and television. You can get both without ads, but you pay for that option.

      1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Re: advertising are getting increasingly peeved

        If you like what you read here, we politely ask that you whitelist us from your ad-blocker. We're mostly supported by ads - if people don't see the ads, that's a hit we're taking.

        By all means turn the adblockers up to max on all the other tech news sites, though.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: advertising are getting increasingly peeved

          @gazthejourno

          How does this work then? Do you get credit for click through or just showing the ad? I can ignore ads to the point where I don't notice them and have never intentionally clicked on one. My biggest complaint about them is bandwidth and flash but I disable that unless I need it anyway. So, if it's the former then you're not losing however if it's the latter I'll add it, tout de suite.

          1. gazthejourno

            Re: advertising are getting increasingly peeved

            Showing the ad, as far as I know, rather than clickthroughs - but then again I'm not on the commercial side of the house (ignorance is strength!) so I could be completely wrong there.

            Quite a lot of our ads aren't Flash-dependent. Now I'm not saying disabling Flash doesn't mean we at Vulture Central eat fewer beans in the evenings, but...

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: advertising are getting increasingly peeved

          "If you like what you read here, we politely ask that you whitelist us from your ad-blocker. We're mostly supported by ads - if people don't see the ads, that's a hit we're taking."

          As I've posted elsewhere in this comments and on another article recently, I accidently visited here with a fresh Linux/firefox install with no blocking installed at all. The first article I tried to read was unreadable with a pop-over streaming video ad which even when it finished was obscuring the text of the article and had no close button. I have got the adblock plus tick box enable to allow unobtrusive advertising through but El Reg doesn't appear to carry any ads which are allowed through. If I follow your advice I won't be able to read the articles so that would defeat the object of even visiting El Reg and we both lose out.

          Thr last time I did this,some years ago, there were multiple animated ads, all the same, in different sizes with an intercity train moving rapidly across the ad space making it too distracting to concentrate on the article.

          Maybe it's time you had a word with your advertisers about this considering your target audience are the sort of people on the 'net most likely to have the know how to block all that instrusive crap.

          1. Terry 6 Silver badge

            Re: advertising are getting increasingly peeved

            There's an App on my Lumia phone (Jack of Tools) that has banner ads on the bottom. Which would have been fine except that the ads themselves were horrible.

            So I contacted the app's owner. He didn't know what the ads were like, and asked for a screenshot or two.Then he found a new adserver. And these are much more acceptable ads. No flashing,no casinos, no fake competitions.

            So it can be done.

            Sometimes I click on an ad.

            I don't know if he gets paid per ad or per click.

            It doesn't matter. Either way, If I click they'll pay.

          2. gazthejourno

            Re: @John Brown advertising are getting increasingly peeved

            It's worth feeding that back via Reg Forums. It's no guarantee we'll stop running those sorts of ads (hey, money's money and without it I'd have to get a proper job) but we take all feedback into account.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think adblock should concentrate less on how it can fail to do what they seem to suggest they do, and more on working out why, on my mobile at least, its use prevents some apps from working. Surely it is possible to fool an app into "thinking" it's had its ad ?

    1. Vociferous

      > Surely it is possible to fool an app into "thinking" it's had its ad ?

      Yes, but then it starts getting legally iffy. Free apps are free because, well, you pay for them by watching the ads.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "...well, you pay for them by watching the ads."

        No you don't, you pay by having them served. Watching or not is still entirely a choice, and where adblock isn't an option like a phone, well honed banner blindness just about suffices for now. For video ads, there's the kettle.

        1. Vociferous

          > you pay by having them served

          That's a pretty useless distinction when the issue is tricking software into thinking it's downloaded and displayed an ad, when it hasn't.

    2. Michael Habel

      I think adblock should concentrate less on how it can fail to do what they seem to suggest they do, and more on working out why, on my mobile at least, its use prevents some apps from working. Surely it is possible to fool an app into "thinking" it's had its ad ?

      Unfortunatly you faild to mention what for a Mobe you had used....

      So let me offer you a small piece of advice if your on Android...

      PROTIP: Forget about ABP, and rather install AdAway. I've been useing it for yonks now, thoght the rate of Updates has declined from neghr nightlys to ~ca. every other day. It does its job very well! Works just fine in both the AOSP Borwser, as well as in Chrome. And in App Advertising WILL be a thing of the past!

      As to where to find ('cause you'll have to sideload) it (Durr)... Go ask Uncle Google... Oddly enough (On my Machine at least!), it really was the first "Hit" it returned.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Thanks for the tip, I'll keep an eye out for it.

        Biggest pain is the radio station one that gives enough ads as it broadcasts, then adds another at the bottom of the screen, but worst of all starts off with a full page one which seems to stop the station coming in if blocked. That one seems to need user input. I can't see how anyone can claim the extra ads are necessary revenue when they are on top of the ones those using a normal radio in the right geographical area get.

  12. Vociferous

    Couldn't the EU just wall off France?

    Then we could have Google and Adblock and perhaps even some sort of privacy and free speech on the net (well, I can dream).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Couldn't the EU just wall off France?

      There's a story I heard years ago that when Napoleon was on campaign in Egypt, he paused briefly at the great pyramid, sending his generals to climb the structure while he relaxed at the foot and calculated its structure to contain sufficient material to build a wall round France (IIRC) twenty feet high and a foot thick.

      Thinking well ahead of his time, evidently.

    2. Bloakey1

      Re: Couldn't the EU just wall off France?

      Let us wall off thee feelthy roast beefs, with their bowler hats, aristocracy and zere tea and muffins with warm beer and crickets on the village lawn every dimanche.

      I for one would like to see your feelthy cuntry stuck from the roster of the conseil d'Europe you can take your Nacional elth service and shove it up your cul de sac !!!

      As we say in the Langue D'Oc:

      " V fnl byq puncf va gur xabj, V nz fbeel V tbg wbyyl ongrl jvgu guvf ehz pbir. "

      1. Mike Flugennock
        Coffee/keyboard

        Re: Couldn't the EU just wall off France?

        "...Let us wall off thee feelthy roast beefs, with their bowler hats, aristocracy and zere tea and muffins with warm beer and crickets on the village lawn every dimanche..."

        "I fart in your general direction!" --John Cleese

        1. Bloakey1

          Re: Couldn't the EU just wall off France?

          ""I fart in your general direction!" --John Cleese"

          Surely that should be 'je pete dans votre direction generale' and John Cheese <sic> would be Jean Fromage .

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If they don't want people 'interfering with their business model', perhaps they should find one that doesn't involve polluting our browsers.

    They seem to miss the point that ad blockers wouldn't exist but for the fact a huge number of people really, really don't like their product, and even if they win, that dislike won't go away - the ad networks made blockers a necessity, no one else.

    1. Bloakey1

      "If they don't want people 'interfering with their business model', perhaps they should find one that doesn't involve polluting our browsers."

      <snip>

      I read that as polluting our trousers! Yep, advertising is unmitigated shite.

      1. earl grey
        Joke

        Have an upvote for your trousers

        And for your trouser-snake? You'll have to get help elsewhere.

        1. Michael Habel

          Re: Have an upvote for your trousers

          And for your trouser-snake? You'll have to get help elsewhere.

          Thankfully... That's what the Internet was made for...

  14. John 110

    IMHO

    I don't actually mind ads per se, I consume internet content that has to be paid for some way, and ads seem as good a way as any (better than taking money directly from my bank account).

    BUT I hate flashing or moving ads, I am told by her indoors that I have Attention Deficit Disorder and flashing ads are just too damn eyecatching, I get distracted easily. Leave the ads as static, (and probably breastless - what can I say - millions of years of evolution) and I'll leave them displayed.

    Oh, and I'm not too worried about the tracking thing as I believe that THEY are tracking me anyway, and if I make it too hard for them, then they'll just bag me up...

    Oh pretty...

  15. Crisp

    Adblock is an essential application

    Mostly due to dodgy flash adverts that can cripple a low-end machine.

  16. WylieCoyoteUK
    Devil

    Does intrusive advertising even work?

    Yes, I know that advertising is a necessary evil, but I only want to see it when I am looking to buy something.

    Intrusive advertising strikes me as self defeating.

    Pop-ups that won't go away or have a tiny close button which is almost impossible to hit on a touchscreen, pages that take several minutes to load because of the advertising, etc, etc.

    My instinctive response is click away and not return.

    Particularly obnoxious ads make me determined to avoid the proffered product at all costs.

    Mind you, I maybe particularly ad-averse. I even deliberately record TV so that I can skip over the commercial breaks

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Does intrusive advertising even work?

      Yes, I know that advertising is a necessary evil...

      I disagree completely; its just evil, or at least thoroughly odious. The ad pimps would dearly like us to chant that little mantra, because its a nice stepping stone to wearily accepting their wares. Not me thanks guv'nor.

      Ads may be viewed as necessary by site owners, but only because no one seems to be making any effort to think of sustainable alternatives and they want to make money. So a lazy acceptance has kicked in that I personally think is corrosive because it also seems to imply that the mere act of having a site entitles you to some recompense.

      In reality some of the most useful / interesting sites I visit by far carry no ads at all; a few ask for donations, which I'll give if like them and visit regularly, some sell their own merchandise as a fundraiser. Excluding most of the 'top end' of really busy sites, I wonder how much of the web could vanish overnight before it would make a qualitative difference, or indeed anyone would notice? I'd hazard a guess that it would be a good 50%, most of which would be little more than click bait in the first place.

      I'm quite sure web advertising in its current form is a rather large bubble, not far off implosion in any case, and we'll get another, larger version of the dot com crash to do some pruning for us. The merit I see in adblockers - beyond immediately keeping my screen clear of drivel - is to hasten the point where an alternative has to be found for those worthwhile sites that do require revenue, and where getting it is a result of the merit of their content, not deception, pollution and tracking your arse off quietly in the background.

      The paywall, at least as it stands isn't the answer either. On any given day, there's no more than 2 or 3 sites on which I view more than two pages, so for the others to suggest a quid a page or tenner a month for a subscription for something whose quality I don't know and which I'm unlikely to visit again, is nothing more than barking mad bollocks. I might pay the equivalent of the pages current ad revenue (but would still want some evidence it was worthwhile), but that is certainly nothing like the amount Murdochs paywall etc want. Who am I to say what content is worth? Along with everyone else, I'm the one who won't pay you silly money for recycled PR puff pieces, though as it stands, we're generally happy to view 'ad supported' pages because they cost us nothing. Which simply allows the proliferation of the junk sites that litter the web because we don't really assign value to content in a way that paying actually money would.

      Government's just go along with all of this because they just see businesses > money > economy without any actual discrimination; other businesses trot along behind because it helps them sell their crap, and no one apart from users really gives a flying fuck about the experience itself. The growing use of adblockers that is so rattling the industry suggests users don't agree with 'necessary' at all, even if they do parrot the ad pimps mantra.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The big however of ads..

    I'm summarising my main ad objections here. Not that I particularly want to encourage ad people, but the reality is that some sites depend on it to survive so it's in our interest to see if we can improve things.

    My list is in the context of the fact that I travel a lot, and bandwidth is thus expensive (in other words, I don't want my business expenses to fund the transmission of this crap). Also, low bandwidth means you really need those last bytes for your own use - I have had pages hang because the ads didn't come through. Thus:

    - no Flash ads, nor ads that auto-reload. Takes too much bandwidth.

    - no tracking. I rather see something new than see the same f*cking ad because I happen to mis-click somewhere (I'm looking at you, Zappos), and you have no business stalking me, online or otherwise.

    - keep it relevant. If I am on a car site, I may be interested in car related things. Unless you consider girls accessories, of course, which is a debate I will stay well away from.

    - it took us several decades to lose the <blink> tag that first made its appearance on green screen VT102s, and that was already annoying then. So what on earth makes you think heavily animated ads will be *attractive*? That's probably one of the key drivers to ad blocking in the first place.

    - any ads with active content are a risk (another one against Flash), certainly those served from a 3rd party site. I realise that nukes the model of aggregators, but I am not using the Net to benefit you, nor should you have a way to make it so.

    - if I *do* click an ad, please don't insult me by burying me under all sorts of other crap because you think I'm an easy mark. The only "easy" you get with me is "easy to piss off".

    - stop "hay tomorrow" advertising. "Click here to find out the secret of .." means showing me "the secret of ..", not lead me on a merry road.

    - last but not least, one for sites themselves: please do ..

    .. not chop up the ..

    .. articles into a ..

    .. million small pieces so that ..

    .. you can place more ads ..

    .. around it. Quite simply, if you do that without a "single page" or "print" link you will have lost me as a visitor. Forever. I won't even come back when you change your approach because my absence means I won't see it. El Reg has in this context a reasonably decent page size, although images immediately bollocks this up (technical term).

    So there. Did I miss anything?

    1. earl grey
      Trollface

      Re: The big however of ads..

      "have a way to make it so"

      Is that you, Picard?

  18. Julz
    Stop

    Don't Buy Stuff

    If advertising didn't bring in the punters then it would stop. Vote with your closed wallet...

  19. Kubla Cant

    Viewing ads is the price you pay

    So here are a few techniques to pay your way:

    1. Install an ad-blocker that saves all the ads, instead of displaying them, so you can view them later when you have lots of free time. The trouble with this is that it may fill your disk before you get round to viewing.

    2. Set up a service where people with lots of free time and not much money get paid for looking at other people's ads. The ad-blocker can re-route all your ads to this service. Not very PC, and it costs.

    3. Adopt the same solution as for other mindless repetitive tasks: get a computer to do it for you. This is my favourite. If the advertisers complain that I'm not viewing their ads, I can honestly assure them that my computer has examined every byte in far more detail than I would be able to manage.

  20. Palpy

    Useless is as useless does

    The "we need ads to survive" line makes me think of a stubble-chinned gink with matchstick wrists crouched on the pavement with a sign: "Must show ads fer miracle weight-loss fruits or will die!! Plz Hepp Me!!" What nonsense.

  21. splodge

    Any site that forces me to watch ads no matter how much I want to read it, gets a click on the big X in the sky from me, If the French decide I have to partake in the creatives' drivel, I guess that'll be about the time my internet connection follows my telly into the bin.

  22. earl grey
    Mushroom

    My paid-for bandwidth

    And little enough of it as it is... I sure don't want my gutters cluttered with leaves of advertising.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Uninstalled

    Didnt know they were paid to let ads through, have now uninstalled. Disgrace.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Uninstalled

      You can just opt to not allow through unobtrusive ads

  24. cs94njw

    But where does it stop?

    What if you write popular software which happens to block the ads that an adblocker has allowed.

    You blackmail^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ask the original advertiser for more money to unblock them?

    What if you write adblocker-blocker software? That adblocker is missing out on revenue....

  25. Wild Bill

    I called this

    (the functionality, not the suing)

    http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2011/02/16/funds_or_fun/#c_986739

  26. Old Handle
    WTF?

    Is this true?

    If AdBlock Plus is really charging money to get on their whitelist that seems like a conflict of interest and unethical. I don't know about illegal, but it wouldn't surprise me. Does anyone have more details about this claim?

  27. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Ad Neaseam

    I just saw a mention of this in Another Place (as they say in the HoC):

    http://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/

    It seems to fit the bill nicely. The user doesn't get bombarded with ads, web-sites get paid and, contrary to what one might think, the advertisers who pay to not get their ads seen also gain. Because the user doesn't actually suffer the ads they don't build up a negative response to the advertiser.

    It might need a bit of tuning, however. "Clicking" every website might be excessive, it would need a maximum bandwidth setting.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ad Neaseam

      Thanks for the link. A nice approach to ads; don't just ignore them but pollute the data too, although the idea of clicking on ads at all makes me a little queasy. If it caught on, at least the ad mongers wouldn't be able to go into denial over the loathing for their output.

  28. Oldfogey

    "Paid" Content

    What makes people think that if they paid for access to content they would stop getting ads?

  29. Jeff Lewis

    Les couchons veulent votre argent.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Adblock plus

    I run adblock plus in chrome and I had no idea it was ran by some french company as every time I log into a new chrome device it always installs and puts up a lovely picture of a couple at the end asking to donate using paypal as it's the guys full time job and relies on the income from it....

    Anyway I noticed that when I used to use firefox adblock did just that it blocked ads, but in chrome I noticed the odd occasion where they load and then are blocked, so I guess it just hides them instead of actually blocking them at the source?

  31. louhaven

    Look at this another way

    Look at this another way:

    I have to pay for every byte of data both into and out of my place of work or home. I'll be beggered if I'm going to pay for some site's advertising to both be downloaded to (to be displayed) on my systems, and said advertising and code related to thereof, to send information on whether I looked at or ignored said advertising (by uploading said information) without my proper permissions to do such, and leave traces of said download and upload taking space on said systems as cookies et al.

    Since I am paying, I, and I alone, will decide what, if anything, I will view, when and how I will view it, and what measures I will use to block it.

    Advertisers et al, bombard both my home and work with tones of printed advertising every year. Whilst I am not paying for it, per se, We all pay for it one way or the other, (time to deal with it, to get it into a rubbish bin, someone to empty that bin, etc) when we didn't ask for or agree with the companies deliverers to deliver it in the first place.

    I see the internet in much the same way. Perhaps my view is misguided, I do not know. Does anyone?

    Louis

  32. cortland

    Add BLOCK

    http://pixabay.com/en/power-on-off-button-glossy-red-150638/

    Click!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like