back to article AdBlock Plus, websites draft peace deal so ads can bypass blockade

The developer of AdBlock Plus is in talks with website owners to seal a deal that would allow more adverts to bypass the ad-blocker and appear in people's browsers. Eyeo, makers of the open-source utility, is drafting a pact with a group of publishers to settle the ongoing battle between ad-blockers and websites that rely on …


  1. TechnoTechno

    What ad companies consider acceptable and what nornal people who havent spent the last 5 years with their head up their arses consider acceptable I have a feeling are poles apart.

    1. Oh Homer Silver badge

      "acceptable ads"

      That would be ... none.

      The marketeer monkeys haven't really thought this one through properly, have they? Either that or their advertising cult mentality is so deeply ingrained that they essentially live in an alternate reality, where people who go to the bother of downloading a plugin, specifically for the purpose of blocking spam, don't really want to block it.

      I use an ad-blocker (one that actually works and hasn't prostituted itself to the marketeers, unlike AdBlock). I also run ads on my site. I would no more expect to be able to force people to look at one of those ads, than force them to read one of my articles in the first place.

      Business is an opportunity, not a right.

    2. bazza Silver badge

      This is a really bad idea on the part of the advertising industry.

      We all now know that they'll cave in to this kind of thing.

      There's a ton of alternative ad blockers, all of whom now know that the better their blockers the sooner the ad industry will flourish the cash.

      On top of that the network operators now know that blocking adverts at the network level will be popular and renumerative. They've been thinking of doing this anyway to reduce their operating costs, and now it makes double sense.

      The fundamental problem with ad funded services is that everyone who lies between the service and the user can cream off the top. And whilst a website might have links to ads, there's no way to actually force the web browser to open them. Unless you write the web browser too.

      It's only a matter of time before Chrome stops supporting ad blockers I think. But that would guarantee that people would stop using it.

      Online advertising was always going to be a cash cow that could be milked only so much.

      1. DropBear Silver badge

        I dumped Chrome for good the millisecond it decided it was in charge of arbitrating what add-ons I may or may not run with it, without any override (yes, that's a thing that already happened). Currently using Chromium instead whenever I feel like watching videos without flash (thanks a lot for nothing Firefox).

  2. pewpie

    I decide what ads are acceptable. No fucker else.

    So - time to switch to a branch of ad block that hasn't forgotten the true meaning of 'fuck you'.

    1. Tom Chiverton 1
      Thumb Up

      uBlock origin. Smaller, faster than AdBlock, doesn't take money to disable itself.

      1. psyvenrix

        updooted for ublock. i quite like it so far.

      2. TallPaul

        ... and uBlock Origin is available for Firefox on Android so that's ad blocking on my phone sorted out without rooting. Result.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        it'll be interesting to see if "they" try to just buy out all the adblockers. If they do try that... I expect they'll just bury themselves much, much deeper, as it's going to make the news and more people will be asking themselves the question, whether they want to block more ads, or fewer ads. I bet they'll say what the admen say to "more money, or less money". Yeah baby, gimme more... AD BLOCKING! :)

      4. The Dude

        U block origin: Installed

        adblock plus: removed.

    2. eesiginfo

      "I decide what ads are acceptable. No fucker else."

      ......... Admirable sentiment, but it implies that 'to decide' one must first view the ads.

      My perspective is: that you really needn't bother looking... because the advert offerings are ridiculous.

      I switched adblocker off (try it)!

      I was repeatedly presented with an advert for packing cartons!!!!

      Just bear in mind that the (my) research related to extremely specific sizes, that ultimately matched std. production of just one company.... and I found that company after ploughing through the sizes on offer..

      An advert for frigging industrial cartons.... FFS!

      Perhaps this was just me..... but try switching off adblocker for a day, and just see how amateurish are the ad companies.

      If you experience anything like I experienced, then I don't think we even need to waste our time deciding on any adverts.

      When adverts can beat me on research for products at 'highest quality, with highest efficiency, and dimensional accuracy'.... then I think they will be worthy of a decision.

      Anyway..... try it (say for a morning or afternoon, or the entire day even)..

      For the test, it won't impact too much on bandwith (if visiting decent sites).

      The question is:

      Will you be presented with any adverts that impact upon you?

      I honestly saw no displayed adverts that were even worthy of a second glance, never mind a decision.

      In my opinion, adblock is ideal for people that keep abreast of what is available, and do their own research.

      But.... I'd probably go along with a very limited bandwith ad... only to help a site that might be contributing information (and needs the revenue to survive - eg. El Reg).

      In effect, by opting in, I'd be (like) committing fraud: oh yes I really want to look at the crap you present - and maybe I'll buy it. LOL

      However; what's more important is, that ones favouriite websites will gain more revenue, while the ads will be less intrusive.

      Hmmmmm! it just might work for us, and our content providers.

      If done correctly, it will cost us nothing, and our favourite sites might gain.

      Anyway.... I'll try it..... and if it's a fail, I'll simply switch to the new adblocker.


      1. pewpie

        Jesus Christ, you have a big but.. No ad farms are gonna have access to my gear. End of line.

  3. RachelG

    Adblock plus was already letting through too many ads provoking me to switch to uBlock Origin a while back. Oh god that was a bit of a hipster thing to say. Sorry. True though

    1. pewpie

      Never apologise for being right.

    2. BasicChimpTheory


      I hear this pretty often but don't experience it myself at all even though I use the default(/recommended?) filter. Still have never seen a banner ad, let alone even a Youtube ad.

      I wonder if NoScript helps me here? Or if avoiding completely Facebook/other big players contributes?

  4. Diodelogic

    Is someone under the impression...

    ... that Adblock Plus is the only ad-blocker available?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Gene Cash Silver badge

        Re: Is someone under the impression...

        > Simply turning off images in the browser

        When is Mozilla going to remove that ability? They're already disabling cookie control, so I won't be upgrading:

        Seriously though, turning off images is a non-starter. I use AdBlock Plus because of Element Helper, which lets me block things like those dropdown navigation things that block a lot of the story and mess up page-down. With EH I can just make that disappear.

        1. King Jack

          Re: Is someone under the impression...

          @ Gene Cash uBlock Origin has an element blocker too, Just right click on the item you want to block, and chose block element. No need to use the sieve that is Adblock.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Those sneaky bastards!

          "They're already disabling cookie control, so I won't be upgrading:"

          I wondered why I was getting Google (and other) cookies without any prompts in FF44. Pricks.

          1. Mint Sauce

            Re: Those sneaky bastards!

            I thought I hadn't seen one of those trusty 'what do you want to do with cookies from this site then, eh?' dialogs for a while. Buggers, guess I'm downgrading from 44 and staying there then as this is the main reason I use firefox for all normal web broswing.. grrr.

            And I can now see that I still have a block list, but plenty of sites have now set their cookies.. double grrrr. Trust undermined.

            1. illiad

              Re: Those sneaky bastards!


        3. John Tserkezis

          Re: Is someone under the impression...

          "I use AdBlock Plus because of Element Helper"

          Another thumbs up for EL, it gets used quite heavily here.

        4. The Travelling Dangleberries

          Re: Is someone under the impression...

          Re Element Hiding Helper

          This functionality is built into uBlock Origin as standard and works just fine.

        5. Updraft102 Silver badge

          Re: Is someone under the impression...

          I used to use that "ask me" cookie option a long time ago (in Mozilla Suite), but it got far too tedious. It's far easier to let the sites have their cookies, then have an addon delete them at your convenience. I use Self-Destructing Cookies to automatically delete them when the tab is closed (whitelisting is available), and Remove Cookies Button to kill them all manually (like after using Google anything).

          The road Firefox has been following lately is frustrating. "Google did it" is the main motivator for anything they do, it seems. I'm having to use more and more addons just to fix what they broke in Firefox.

          Also: uBlock Origin also has an element blocker (built in). It's the eyedropper icon on the main dialog. It's essential; I agree, to be able to block elements. There's so much visual debris to get rid of...

      2. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: Is someone under the impression...

        Turning off images only stops the image. It won't stop the tracking cookies or any malware from coming in. However, it I'm wrong.... tell me as I've had a few friends/relatives tell me that turning off images somehow "protects" them.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Steven Roper

            @1980s Coder

            Given the extremity which you seem to consider as good security practice, I'm surprised you even use the internet at all!

            After all is said and done, the only real defence against internet scum - assuming you are going to use the internet at all - is smarts. Ad blockers, NoScript, sandboxed browsers, AV software - none of it will protect you against your own ignorance and stupidity.

            To resort to the well-used car analogy: one of the things I was told at an early age was, when driving, never do anything - accelerate, brake, steer, indicate, whatever - without knowing exactly why you're doing it. Or in other words, don't use the Force, Luke, use your head. Similarly, when using the internet, think about everything you do and why you're doing it. Why am I clicking this link? What am I after here? What am I going to this site for? Why is it so important I enable Javascript for this site? What will the site take from me in return for my use of it?

            When you adopt this approach, then things like ad blockers, NoScript and sandboxes become tools you can use to decide what you are going to allow on your computer. They are merely a means to an end. But that end starts with you, and why you're using the net in the first place.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. DougS Silver badge

        Re: Is someone under the impression...

        Turning off images? WTF...why not just browse with Lynx if you think images are unnecessary to browsing.

        I guess some people pride themselves on being Luddites.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Crazy Operations Guy

            Re: "my sites are all perfectly usable in lynx."

            As are mine. I typically check my web servers by copying over the content tarballs, restarting the web server daemon, then opening up lynx and pointing it to localhost to test the deployment. My sites are very basic looking, but are easy to use. No JavaScript, no html5 crap, just pure HTML 4-strict and a little css. Anything graphical is just PNGs and JPEGs with descriptive alt-text. Graphs and charts are presented as both an image and a table with the data used to generate it.

            For searching my sites, I have one big page of links to everything else on the site with instructions to people to just hit "ctrl-F" to find what they need or to use "site:<mydomain>" with the search engine of their choice. Just under each link is a list of the unique words for the inked page (Well, there is some curating of those terms, but not too much). Much like a table of contents and an index merged into one page. Sure its 5 MB, but its pure marked-up text, so with HTTP compression, it only ends up being around 1 MB of data going across the wire.

            For my web-servers, I only have to dump my files into the /www/ directory, point chroot'ed nginx over to it and then just let it run. Nice to see a directory tree that contains only 5 files types: .html, .css, .jpeg, .png, and .htaccess. The systems only have 2 cores, 512 MB of RAM, and a 15 GB hard disk partitioned with a 10 GB /www/ directory. VPS and cloud servers with that kind of hardware end up being ridiculously cheap but still supports a decent number of simultaneous connections.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

              1. sabroni Silver badge

                Re: Have a look at

                Arghhh! My Eyes!!!!!!

                1. This post has been deleted by its author

              2. Patrician

                Re: "Have a look at"

                What a horrible looking site.

                1. This post has been deleted by its author

                  1. caffeine addict Silver badge

                    Re: "Have a look at"

                    Can you stop signing your comments? We can see your name at the top where your name is.

                    1. This post has been deleted by its author

                  2. Pig Dog Bay

                    Re: "Have a look at"

                    >One line comments are useless.


                    1. This post has been deleted by its author

                  3. King Jack

                    Re: "Have a look at"

                    "One line comments are useless. 99% of pages I visit are far worse." So because there are worse sites out there, that suddenly makes your site beautiful? Good argument. You can justify anything with that kind of thinking.

                    PS. I think your site is fit for purpose, but horrible use of colours.

                    1. This post has been deleted by its author

                      1. DougS Silver badge

                        Re: "Have a look at"

                        I'm surprised that you are surprised by the reaction to that site. You think browsing with images off is desirable but that monstrosity you linked is an example of good taste.

                        Wow. Just wow. Horses for courses, indeed...

                        1. This post has been deleted by its author

                          1. DougS Silver badge

                            Re: "Have a look at"

                            There's a difference between "not following the crowd" and simply having bad taste.

              3. Crazy Operations Guy

                Re: "my sites are all perfectly usable in lynx."

                "What's wrong with HTML 5? "

                Plenty, for one, it tries to replace HTML4, JavaScript, and Flash and fails at everything.

                Second, its becoming a full-on programming language, not a simple document mark-up language. I am an assembly/C programmer, I don't want to have to learn yet another full language to produce useful documentation.

                Third, I hate the idea of mandatory codecs. A chunk of binary code that can run on my machine without my consent, hell no. I don't want my systems getting compromised because of a video tag pointing to a malformed video file.

                Oh, and that site you pointed to, the only things that actually use HTML5 are the god-aweful glow effects on the text. It reminds me of a bad acid-trip while trapped in a warehouse full of old 80's pop-art...

                1. This post has been deleted by its author

                  1. illiad

                    Re: "my sites are all perfectly usable in lynx."

                    youtube and many others WILL use HTML5 - you have to patch a bit, to make sure it will do so, You do not need to remove flash in case odd sites (like BBC on PC! ) need it :)

              4. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge

                Re: "my sites are all perfectly usable in lynx."

                "Have a look at"

                The 1990s called and would like their Web design back.


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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019