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.
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 …
Tuesday 9th February 2016 00:28 GMT Oh Homer
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.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 06:29 GMT bazza
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.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 11:25 GMT DropBear
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).
Monday 8th February 2016 20:49 GMT pewpie
Monday 8th February 2016 21:05 GMT Tom Chiverton 1
Tuesday 9th February 2016 01:05 GMT 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! :)
Tuesday 9th February 2016 01:12 GMT 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.
Monday 8th February 2016 20:49 GMT RachelG
Tuesday 9th February 2016 13:55 GMT 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?
Monday 8th February 2016 21:00 GMT Diodelogic
Monday 8th February 2016 21:17 GMT Gene Cash
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.
Monday 8th February 2016 22:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Tuesday 9th February 2016 09:12 GMT 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.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 18:57 GMT Updraft102
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...
Monday 8th February 2016 21:27 GMT Mark 85
Tuesday 9th February 2016 00:30 GMT Steven Roper
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.
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.
Monday 8th February 2016 23:04 GMT DougS
Tuesday 9th February 2016 01:04 GMT Crazy Operations Guy
Re: "my sites are all perfectly usable in lynx."
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.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 09:57 GMT sabroni
Tuesday 9th February 2016 10:54 GMT Patrician
Tuesday 9th February 2016 13:25 GMT caffeine addict
Tuesday 9th February 2016 13:52 GMT Pig Dog Bay
Tuesday 9th February 2016 15:30 GMT King Jack
Re: "Have a look at www.gotati.com"
"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.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 17:52 GMT Crazy Operations Guy
Re: "my sites are all perfectly usable in lynx."
"What's wrong with HTML 5? "
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...
Tuesday 9th February 2016 15:48 GMT Alan Brown
Tuesday 9th February 2016 11:46 GMT DropBear
Re: Is someone under the impression...
Tuesday 9th February 2016 09:05 GMT Adam 52
Tuesday 9th February 2016 09:35 GMT Warm Braw
re: so you'll be leaving The Register then?
That's very pertinent.
I certainly wouldn't read The Register if I had to suffer the adverts full time. I turn them on occasionally to see if things have improved, but they're just too distracting.
Would I pay for it? Well, it's OK journalism for "free", but I'd want something a bit different if it was actually costing me money.
That's the other side of the problem - publishers tune their content for the freetard audience and there's constant competition to deliver essentially the same information to the same people with increasingly thin margins.
We're not going to get the content we would pay for under the "free" model, regardless of how much advertising we consume. On the other hand, we would willingly pay for only a tiny fraction of the content we consume. That's tough for both publishers and advertisers, but frankly that's their problem: there are plenty of things to do in life other than sit in front of a computer screen.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 14:07 GMT BasicChimpTheory
Re: re: so you'll be leaving The Register then?
"That's tough for both publishers and advertisers, but frankly that's their problem"
Unless it impacts the content produced (full disclosure: 0% domain allowed ad-blocker here).
"there are plenty of things to do in life other than sit in front of a computer screen"
Yes, there's at least two other types of screen via which we can consume critical information!!! (full disclosure: I extremely rarely use either). Paper is cool though, I guess.
Monday 8th February 2016 21:01 GMT PunkTiger
Monday 8th February 2016 21:04 GMT Mark Simon
Defeating the Purpose
An ad blocker that allows some ads through. The definition of what constitutes an acceptable ad is what caused the problem in the first place. If ads were less inappropriate, less intrusive and less of a strain on users’ resources, they wouldn’t have pissed everyone enough to develop and install ad blockers in the first place.
I’m also a convert to uBlock Origin, and I can see that the philosophical underpinnings AdBlock Plus are clearly up for grabs.
Sorry Register. I love your site, and I know you need the cash, and I’m even willing to pay for a subscription, but ad networks are a total pain in the delicate regions.
Monday 8th February 2016 21:04 GMT Pseu Donyme
Monday 8th February 2016 21:27 GMT Preston Munchensonton
Tuesday 9th February 2016 01:34 GMT ecofeco
Tuesday 9th February 2016 12:07 GMT DropBear
Exactly. And there seem to be some native, built-in feedback mechanisms that converge towards the large players managing to tacitly arrive at much the same customer-screwing conditions even without overt collusion: take it or leave it, except there's no-one else to go to - they all do the same shitty stuff. Also, anyone trying to counter that with "that's an opportunity for someone else to do it better and steal the establishment's business" needs to wake the f### up and realize that the first thing players in any mature industry do is close the door behind them, lock it and weld it shut - to make sure barriers to entry prevent anyone from doing just that.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 16:20 GMT KeithR
Monday 8th February 2016 21:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
OR Eyeo could maybe, say, make deals with its USERS, whereby, if the people who REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want us to see their grotty "content" AND waste precious bandwidth with ads, then they could beg us, grovel on their digital knees, to be allowed to sully OUR marvellous Unicorn powered Interwebz briefly with their common shekel-grubbing Marketeering. If we deign to be generous, then we shall. Piffle!
Tuesday 9th February 2016 05:17 GMT Charles 9
Re: Plus Fail?
Won't work. Our metadata is worth more to the ad agencies than the average Net user is willing to pay. Ad agencies thus outbid us every time. Bet pretty soon most of the Internet will be locked behind ad walls, and the decision will come whether or not to go "autistic" and abandon the Internet.
Monday 8th February 2016 21:10 GMT ZSn
Monday 8th February 2016 21:31 GMT Richard 12
That hasn't worked for a while
I recently found that ABP was even explicitly allowing some video adverts - with audio to boot. Scared the living daylights out of me.
So goodbye. You do not get to do that ABP, you are now dead.
I sent you the complaint so maybe you'll change that before everyone leaves, but goodbye.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 19:09 GMT Updraft102
Simple as unchecking a box, yes (unless they changed it since I stopped using it). They introduced that "acceptable ads" feature while I was still using Adblock Plus, and it didn't bother me-- I just disabled it, and it went back to being a full adblocker. I switched to uBlock Origin because it is smaller, faster, and lighter. ABP used to increase the memory consumption of FF compared to loading the same pages with no blocker; uBO reduced it. There have been changes to FF since then that were said to greatly reduce ABP's memory consumption, but I don't see any reason to go back and compare.
Monday 8th February 2016 21:11 GMT Fibbles
Here's an idea:
Whilst I'm ranting. I don't know what new click detection / user tracking script you've installed here at el Reg but it's seriously fucking up Chrome on Android. Random page freezes and only ever on this site. Started about a week ago.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 12:18 GMT DropBear
Re: Here's an idea:
Not gonna work. Just the other day I went to the effort of explicitly removing a specific DIV frame from a certain website's layout (which wasn't even blocked by Ad-block) simply because I don't go to read tech news (or whatever I do at that site, already forgot which one it was) just to be repeatedly presented with perfectly legit, non-animated and silent images of bare feet in excruciating waves of hot, colourful pain that could oh-so-easily be averted simply by using XYZ medicinal compound (oh hi there Lily the Pink).
Tuesday 9th February 2016 19:13 GMT Updraft102
Monday 8th February 2016 21:32 GMT Doctor Syntax
Tuesday 9th February 2016 11:20 GMT AegisPrime
Re: Suggested change of headline
Yep. Long-time user of ABP - previously had acceptable ads turned on (I'm not a *total* freetard) but ABP's idea of 'acceptable' and mine clearly differ and thanks to this article I'm now running uBlock Origin instead (plus hosts and Ghostery which I still send anonymized data with 'cause I do believe in supporting developers). Good job Eyeo - enjoy your short-term profits before the rats abandon the ship.
Monday 8th February 2016 21:41 GMT Rodrigo Valenzuela
Monday 8th February 2016 22:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Minimum acceptable advertising standards
(1) Absolutely no tracking in any way, no exception.
(2) Absolutely no autoplay videos of any kind except when I press play on a video or when I click on a link for a video (and not a link for a story).
(3) Absolutely no ads that cover part or all of a website.
(4) Absolutely no ads that try to use my location. No "Shocking secret [city name] man discovers!"
(6) Advertisers are soley responsible for vetting their ads. If an ad injects or attempts to inject malware, the entity placing the ad and the carrrier jointly and severally indemnify me from all costs in diagnosing and repairing, including but not limited to the restoration of any data that is lost. Browser helpers and toolbars are defined as malware.
(7) No ads for things I never buy.
(8) No ads for things I already own. (Amazon!! WTF?)
(9) No ads for things I will *never* own (take a guess, it will be 99.9999% of what you peddle).
(10) You want to run an ad? You pay for any metered data.
There. I think that about covers it
Tuesday 9th February 2016 00:47 GMT Steven Roper
Re: Hey Eyeo
I agree with most of what you say here, but there's one small logical problem: 1) and 7), 8), 9) are mutually exclusive. If the ad splaffers can't track you, how are they supposed to know what you'll never buy or already own?
I'd demand 1) as a base-level requirement myself, but that means that I can't complain if I start seeing ads for lipstick or baby food, neither of which I have any use for. In fact, seeing such ads would form some small assurance that I wasn't being tracked.
But aside from that, your 1) - 6) and 10) I'm right with you on.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 08:19 GMT Ken Hagan
Re: Hey Eyeo
1-5 look like they might be objectively enforceable. 6 is redundant if you've blocked all forms of active content under 5. 7-9 look subjective so whilst I sympathise with the sentiment I don't think you'll be able to write code that achieves it. 10 seems a bit "meh" if you have reduced ads to the level of small images by judicious enforcement of 1-5.
But 1-5? Definitely!
Monday 8th February 2016 22:56 GMT John Lilburne
Tuesday 9th February 2016 06:40 GMT Steve Davies 3
far too many sites require 'googleapis' to be allowed through to even get the home page to work.
I really have no idea what crap it spreads on my system.
Pretty soon, ALL my browsing will be done from within a VM that gets restored every day with a clean image. Then F---You advertisers. I will never ever buy anything from Adverts served to me over the TV, Radio or via my browser. Got it?
Yours, a decidely grumpy old man at 06:40 in the morning and only 1 mug of coffee consumed so far.
Monday 8th February 2016 22:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
what's the point of an add blocker that doesn't block adds?
Add Block Plus needs to give up trying to reform the ad industry.
The internet Add industry is fraudulent, corrupt and bent from top to to bottom almost no significant ad money trickles down to true content creators. Its all defrauded, aggregated or middlemened out. I hate to fall back on the Nazi analogy, but if add block plus waves a piece of paper and says "peace in our time" don't buy it.
I am seriously thinking of getting involved in the industry, never in the field of human endeavor has so much money been stolen at so little risk.
Monday 8th February 2016 22:57 GMT jasper pepper
Tuesday 9th February 2016 12:34 GMT DropBear
Of course it is. Considering the logical conclusion that the only way to avoid blocking of ads at _some_ level is to own and wall-off the entire computing chain from browser to computer to monitor, cue HDMI DRM focus shift from "not allowed to steal content" to "not allowed to not watch all these commercials" in 3... 2... 1...
Monday 8th February 2016 23:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Turn off Adblock updates
Disable updates and import custom blocklists. Done and done.
This is alot like a backdoor for encryption. If there's a way around my defenses, malware writers will find it and exploit it.
I'll probably join the rest of you and jump ship once it becomes too much of a hassle.
To quote Val Kilmer from Real Genius, "There are a lot of generic brands out there that are just as tasty as the real thing."
Monday 8th February 2016 23:09 GMT Bakana
It's My Computer.
How could it possibly be Illegal for me to deny an Advertiser the opportunity to use MY CPU and My processing cycles to force me to watch an Ad that I have no interest in watching?
If the Website has a problem with me blocking the ads, they have the option of denying me access to their site. I have no problem with that. If their content isn't truly "Free", that is Their choice. They have available to them the option of dumping the ads in favor of a Subscription Fee for Ad Free Content. If their Content is truly compelling, people will be willing to Pay. Unless their subscription is too expensive, then the Market will respond by Ignoring them.
I agree with the people who say the Advertising is Ruining the web.
I first installed an Ad Blocker because I experienced Major Slowdowns and saw my browser displaying messages that told me it was WAITING for web sites with names containing the word "AD" that took minutes to respond.
After I installed the Ad Blocker, I took the time to Block any site that spent enough time Waiting that I could read & remember the name of the site it was Waiting For and add it to the blocker's list.
My Browsing has been very much Improved by this.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 01:30 GMT Steven Roper
I don't like the idea of subscriptions. Subscriptions form a constant, ongoing drain on your finances that can easily go unheeded and accumulate to onerous amounts. Like those charity traps where your willingness to donate a few bob to a worthy cause gets roped into a monthly drain that is next to impossible to stop.
The problem is the evil "easy in, difficult out" tactic used by too many businesses and charities. You can sign up for a sub with two clicks and ten seconds of form fill-in, but cancelling it requires you to post by registered mail, notarised copies of your birth certificate, passport, drivers license, a CRB check, and a stat dec signed in the presence of three police officers and a magistrate to the effect that you want to cancel, to some address in Outer Mongolia which gets its mail by camel caravan once every six months. Meanwhile your sub continues to be deducted.
I've had this problem before, and my bad experiences with this vile shit make me very reluctant to make monthly payment commitments. In one case I ended up having to phone my bank and asking them to de-authorise and dishonour the payment from their end - which didn't do my credit rating any good, but there was no other way to stop the sub I'd foolishly authorised. This "easy in, difficult out" bullshit needs to be made illegal, right now.
What we need is an effective way to process once-off micropayments (say $5 or less) without loading them with transaction fees and surcharges, with a simple click-and-go authorisation process. That way, sites like El Reg could offer an option to have ads or click-to-pay 10c or something to read one article. Another way would be to have a rechargeable account, similar to a Metrocard (or Oyster as you call them in the UK) which can be debited 10c per article read or something. But it has to be manually recharged each time - I am not willing to authorise someone to repeatedly automatically take money from my bank account.
With this payment model, you only pay for what you use, and you don't end up being nickel-and-dimed into bankruptcy by a growing pile of "only a couple 'o quid a month, guv" subscriptions that are next to impossible to get rid of.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 02:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
"If the Website has a problem with me blocking the ads, they have the option of denying me access to their site. I have no problem with that. If their content isn't truly "Free", that is Their choice. "
The Telegraph online paper is apparently dipping its toe into that water.
Usually their front page is free to access. However in recent weeks it occasionally throws up an overlay complaining that you are using an Ad Blocker and telling you to buy a subscription. Deleting their cookies clears it.
Given the deteriorating quality of their articles it's a no-brainer - if they make it a full paywall then I'll just drop them off my list of news sites. My TV licence already pays for the BBC radio and TV news services.
PS thanks to everyone for the uBlock Origin recommendation.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 05:41 GMT Jan Hargreaves
Used to delete the cookies to read more than 10 stories a month. Now I can't get in at all. I disabled Ghostery as per their instructions and deleted the cookies and it still wouldn't let me in. So won't be going to their site anymore. I'm sure they are happy about that... I didn't generate any revenue for them (apart from when forwarding stories to people who don't have ad blockers).
One question I have though is this: It used to be that advertisers paid per impression but it changed to per-click. Why would you pay for your ad to be seen but not interacted with. Has it now gone back to impressions? I never, ever click an ad. I saw an ad the other day on another device and I then went to their domain name rather than click the ad (this is an extremely rare occurance). People I know say they also never click on ads. So by using an adblocker I wonder if I am denying them revenue. Paying by impressions would amaze me....
It is a problem for industries like newspapers. People will read online and not buy the paper anymore. They need to make income somehow. Not sure what the best way to go about it is. They offer access for 100 quid a year... not sure it's really worth that when I can read news elsewhere for nothing... I'm having trouble thinking about how much I would pay for an annual subscription......
Monday 8th February 2016 23:18 GMT ideapete
Firefox 44.0 upgrade kills adblocker and Google
I am with the I decide above , the latest piece of firefox crap update kills all google services and replaces them with Yahoo , then eliminates adblocker plus and all its memory as well as your other add ons then replaces them with add commercial infiltrated garbage even on sites you have PAID membership to avoid this junk
Monday 8th February 2016 23:41 GMT illiad
Tuesday 9th February 2016 01:17 GMT Cpt Blue Bear
Tuesday 9th February 2016 01:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Firefox 44.0 upgrade kills adblocker and Google
44 didn't break ABP for me, but it DID kill the option to prompt for cookies, and changed the default to "Accept". I just nuked 44 and went back to 38 ESR. Still get security updates and the cookie setting to "Ask me every time" is back. Unfortunately the 38 ESR branch comes to an end in April, and then I'm not sure what I'll do.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 02:35 GMT Palpy
Tuesday 9th February 2016 12:46 GMT DropBear
Re: Firefox 44.0 upgrade kills adblocker and Google
"I think you may have bigger issues than Firefox, mate."
Don't worry (or rather, DO) they're about to become your issues as well - see "Enforced Add-Ons Policy Deferred" and by the way, they say it's already in since 43, only it can still be disabled. For now. In 44. Until 46 lands (which by Firefox version update rate should be in... *whips out pocket watch* ...hold on... just a sec...).
Tuesday 9th February 2016 19:23 GMT Updraft102
Re: Firefox 44.0 upgrade kills adblocker and Google
I don't know what you're on about. I am using FF44 right now and it hasn't done anything like that. Firefox did change the "default" search provider from Google to Yahoo (which is Bing) several releases ago, but it's easy to change it back or to whatever you wish. I won't deny that Moz has been making a lot of really boneheaded decisions lately, but I don't know what you're referencing here.
Monday 8th February 2016 23:27 GMT psychonaut
the people who sling ads can make sure that they people who supply those ads arent doing horrible shit or trying to use flash to do horrible shit they can all just feck off.
ive been installing adblock plus on every machine i see. shame its integrity has been bought. twas ever thus.
so ublock is worth a look now. wonder how long it will take them to take the admans dollar....
Monday 8th February 2016 23:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
Used Hosts blocking for years but...
Its becoming insufficient. I've used plugin blockers before but they were very fiddly for friends / family to configure right! So I was wondering if someone had a succinct link that sums up the mind boggling range of Ad blocking choices available... In this thread alone the following have been mentioned. But I've little sense of the pros and cons. The circle I support use Firefox and Chrome primarily.... Cheers!
Tuesday 9th February 2016 05:57 GMT Grade%
Re: Used Hosts blocking for years but...
"But I've little sense of the pros and cons. The circle I support use Firefox and Chrome primarily.... Cheers!"
I've been using a combination of Ublock Origin, Privacy Badger (promoted by EFF), and HTTPS Everywhere.
Pretty simple and if a site breaks I can turn then off one by one. Works reasonably well.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 08:36 GMT Mystic Megabyte
Tuesday 9th February 2016 19:28 GMT Updraft102
Re: Used Hosts blocking for years but...
I use that too... though it hardly has anything to do, as I keep Flash blocked by default, and I am noticing far less websites that absolutely insist on it now. Very often I will get the "(site) wants to activate Adobe Flash. Allow?" message at the top, but everything works on the page without issue. It makes me wonder exactly what the Flash code was going to do (like setting the Flash LSOs, perhaps).
Tuesday 9th February 2016 05:05 GMT TechGeezer
Tuesday 9th February 2016 05:39 GMT Charles 9
Re: This is getting dumb now...
Until you hit an adwall where blocking the ad also blocks the continue button. And before you say, "You don't need it," obscure drivers (not found anywhere else) are often kept behind these kinds of sites, so it's either suffer or go without, and since hardware is involved that means money.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 08:20 GMT bombastic bob
Let's start by defining UNACCEPTABLE ads
Well, if the only thing that THIS ad blocker can do is block the UNACCEPTABLE ads, perhaps that's not so bad [ok I hate the idea but still].
So let's define what UNACCEPTABLE ads are. I have a short list of criteria (any one item qualifies the ad as 'unacceptable')
1. Anything that runs script as part of the ad. UNACCEPTABLE
2. Anything that tracks me via 3rd party 'whatever'. UNACCEPTABLE
3. Anything that might cause a bandwidth overage or slow load times.
4. FLASH, webm, HTML5 A/V content, *ALL* unacceptable
5. Animated GIFs while we're at it - UNACCEPTABLE
6. directly downloads ANYTHING when clicked on - UNACCEPTABLE
7. "requires this plugin" to view the ad - UNACCEPTABLE
8. "click through" to see web page content - UNACCEPTABLE
there's a good start. any other takers?
Tuesday 9th February 2016 10:43 GMT MJI
How come some sites can manage aderts properly?
A few sites I use, I see ads, I click on them, I buy from them.
Because they are from companies directly applicable to that site, a forum for x has adverts from companies involved in x. And they are small banners.
eg a model railway forum has adverts from model shops, manufacturers, magazines, auction houses.
OK not the last but "ooh a nice new wagon kit I need that" gets a sale and my click through helps pay for the site.
If every site was like that ad blockers would not be needed.
Oh and I could not boycot the advertisers without getting a different hobby!
Tuesday 9th February 2016 19:37 GMT Updraft102
Re: How come some sites can manage aderts properly?
Indeed! When I used to buy computer magazines in the 80s and early 90s, the ads were a big part of the appeal. I wanted to see what was out there, what the prices were like, all of that. They were relevant to the topic at hand, which is to say "targeted," but there was certainly no tracking to get to that point. Somehow a print magazine (well, all of them) managed to bring relevant and interesting ads better than any web advertisers have. One time when I had uBlock off for some reason and I went to Youtube, I saw an ad by Boeing or Airbus (I don't remember which one). I have no connection to the airline industry and I surely can't afford any airliners.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 22:14 GMT illiad
Re: How come some sites can manage aderts properly?
Hey, I would have NO PROBLEM AT ALL, **IF** computer magazines type of ads were used on web pages...
NO moving images
NO 80% of page hidden by ad, that you have to click to get past..
Whole page ads? I just tore them out... :)
I sure wish ad maniacs would do that...
Tuesday 9th February 2016 11:42 GMT Someone_Somewhere
Your browser will slow to crawl, even when you're browsing local files - so much so that you'll go out for the day while the next page renders.
You'll sit there screaming "WTF is it NOW!!!???!!!" as (for the 26th time) you have to try allowing some other element before you finally get to see what you first went to the site to look for in the first place.
You'll hate me with a vengeance and disable them all again.
If you stick with them though you'll learn which elements you need to allow on which sites and the problem will gradually diminish - just like when you're training your 'paranoid mode' HIPS on a Windows machine.
After a while, you get a feel for what's what when looking at unfamiliar elements linked to by websites - beginning to intuitively recognise undesirable sources for what they are even though you've never seen them before.
Nine times out of ten you just need to allow 'Request Policy' to let the images through and the page renders perfectly acceptably without any need for scripts or whatnot - without the scripts /most/ images pose no threat to your privacy or security.
Anyway, here's my list of addons without which I wouldn't touch anything on the net with /yours/
BetterPrivacy — "Super-Cookie Safeguard"
Calomel SSL Validation — Validate the grade of security of the SSL connection.
CanvasBlocker — Changes the JS-API for modifying <canvas> to prevent Canvas-Fingerprinting.
Cookie Monster — Comprehensive Cookie Management
Decentraleyes — Local emulation of Content Delivery Networks.
Disable Plugin & Mimetype Enumeration — Prevent sites from grabbing a list of your plugins & mime types.
Disconnect — Make the web faster, more private, and more secure.
Facebook™ Disconnect — Facebook™ Disconnect is an efficient firewall to disconnect third-party websites from accessing to your Facebook.
Facebook Disconnect — Stop Facebook from tracking the webpages you go to.
Ghostery — Enjoy a faster, safer and cleaner browsing experience.
Google Disconnect — Stop Google from tracking the webpages you go to.
HTTPS-Everywhere — Encrypt the Web! Automatically use HTTPS security on many sites.
Location Guard — Hide your geographic location from websites.
Random Agent Spoofer — Allows the use of various browser profiles (including useragent ,platform, oscpu, accept headers and other options), which it can randomly switch between after a chosen period of time has expired
RequestPolicy — Control which cross-site requests are allowed. Improve the privacy of your browsing. Secure yourself from Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) and other attacks.
Twitter Disconnect — Stop Twitter from tracking the webpages you go to.
uMatrix — Point & click to forbid/allow any class of requests made by your browser. Use it to block scripts, iframes, ads, facebook, etc.
+ a decent adblocker - I guess I'll have to switch to uBlock now but a combination of Adblock Plus, Adblock Plus Pop-up Addon, Customizations for Adblock Plus, Disable Anti-Adblock and Element Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus still seem to be serving me well thus far - I don't know if 'Disable Anti-Adblock' works for anything other than ABP but, if it does, I'll keep it.
ALMOST AS ESSENTIAL
Avira Browser Safety — Protects your privacy by blocking online threats.
Disconnect Search — Search privately using your favorite search engine.
eCleaner — Clears preferences left by extensions after uninstallation
Extension Defender — Protect Firefox with Extension Defender, scan your extensions for unwanted or malicious apps.
Master Password+ — Various enhancements for built-in "Master Password" feature
Plain Text Offenders — This addon notifies you if the current website has any entries on plaintextoffenders.com. plaintextoffenders.com catalogs websites that are improperly handling user passwords.
Preferences Monitor — Track your Firefox's (about:config) preferences for unwanted changes.
Prevent writing passwords without SSL — This extension prevents user to type a password in a page served without "https" protocol: it disables the input of the password and highlights the password box with red. I wrote it for people worried about security and privacy. It's compatible with TOR Browser. The source code is very brief and easy to be read... but I cannot ensure that it works with all websites. For testing purpose, you can temporarily disable the extension adding the GET parameter "disableSSLchecker" to the url, for example: http://www.site.xyz/page?disableSSLchecker
Security Plus — Security Plus provides free checking of urls for viruses. It uses up to 64 different antivirus products and scan engines to check for viruses.
TrackMeNot — Protect against data profiling by search engines
WorldIP — Professional Geo Add-on with security features and advanced network tools
WOT — Web of trust.
BehindTheOverlay — One click to close any overlay on any website.
Bloody Vikings! — Simplifies the use of temporary e-mail addresses in order to protect your real address from spam.
BugMeNot Plugin — Log in with BugMeNot, with single click.
Clean Links — Converts obfuscated/nested links to genuine clean links
Flagfox — Displays a flag depicting the location of the current server
FormFox — Pops up form action when submit button is about to be clicked.
Link Alert — Displays an icon in the tooltip or next to the cursor indicating the target of a link.
Link Properties Plus — Provides extended link properties: size of linked file, last modified time, etc.
View Dependencies — Adds a tab listing dependencies and their sizes in the Page Info window.
INFORMATIVE / NTERESTING
AdDetector — Detect news articles paid for by sponsors.
Cahoots — Cahoots zeigt dir Verbindungen von Journalisten zu Vereinen, Organisationen und Unternehmen.
Fact Checker — Accessing the World Wide Research Paper!
illuminator — an add-on that clarifies corporate data and political sponsorship in html text.
Lightbeam — Lightbeam is a Firefox add-on that allows you to see the third parties that are collecting information about your browsing activity, with and without your consent. Using interactive visualizations, Lightbeam shows you the relationships between these third parties and the sites you visit.
Members Interests — Promoting transparency in democracy.
A FEW I'M TRIALLING TO SEE IF THEY'RE ANY USE
cyscon Security Shield — Protect yourself against cyber criminals!
Fake Domain — Protect yourself against fake websites! Fake Domain helps make sure the site you are on is where you really want to be.
IPFlood — Simulate the use of a series of proxy changing at each new connection.
Redirect Bypasser — Avoid redirects and has direct access to the sites you want to visit.
rpki-validator — RPKI Validator
NOT THAT I GOOGLE ANYTHING BUT JUST IN CASE THAT FEATURE GETS IMPORTED ALONG WITH WHATEVER ELSE THE SITE I'M BROWSING IMPORTED FROM GOOGLE
Redirect to google.com main site — when GOOGLE.COM redirects you to google.*.* site based on IP address of the geographical location, this will be prevented, using this addon you will be redirected back to google.com main site.
Remove Google Tracking for Copy — For Google Search results. This addon add context menu to support remove google tracking for copy.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 12:55 GMT DropBear
Tuesday 9th February 2016 13:19 GMT Someone_Somewhere
Re: ESSENTIAL ADDONS
>were you just saying something about your browser inexplicably slowing to a crawl...?
There's nothing inexplicable about my browser slowing to a crawl - it's thanks to all my addons.
And I've only mentioned the security/privacy related ones - I have 132 installed in total!
I resent the fact that (thanks to the human race producing so many c**ts with no morals) I need them, but need them I do; just like I need locks on my doors and windows, burglar alarms, sensor-activated lighting, etc. on my home - if other people weren't inclined to burgle my home, rape my wife and daugther and kill the dog, I wouldn't need them, but people are, so there's reallly no choice.
In fairness though, I don't have all of them activated all of the time - only the essential ones. - and I enable/disable the others according to need
I only occasionally need Bloody Vikings! and Plain Text Offenders for instance and most of the time they're disabled.
Same goes for the Informative/Interesting ones - I switch them on when I'm researching and want to know what hidden agenda(s) (if any) lurk behind what I read; the rest of the time, they're disabled.
I might remove Clean Links altogether as I mostly just check the statusbar anyway.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 12:11 GMT PassiveSmoking
Sorry, but any ad blocker that knowingly doesn't block all ads isn't fit for purpose.
I don't block ads because they annoy the ever living crap out of me (although they most definitely do), I block them because I can't trust them not to be infested with malware, spyware, etc etc. We've already had a couple of stories this week about ad servers being compromised by bad guys who then use them to push malicious ads. If I can't be certain that there's zero risk to me and if there's no benefit to me (and watching your ads is not a benefit!) then why take the risk?
It also kind of smacks of extortion. "Nice ads, it would be a shame if somebody blocked them"
Does anybody an ad blocker for firefox and/or chrome that's run by people with more integrity than AdBlock?
Tuesday 9th February 2016 13:10 GMT PAT MCCLUNG
Truly it is amazing that some company may want to send me an advertisement that i would prefer not to see. What kind of marketing is that? Absurd. Perhaps we should form an organization, called "We Prefer", which promises NEVER to buy anything that appears on their Web pages as an unsolicited advertisement. A stronger form is to pledge NEVER to buy ANYTHING from a company that is such an intrusive advertiser.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 13:29 GMT Someone_Somewhere
Re: We Prefer
Although, when I think about it, it's not really the advertisers who are at fault so much as the sites that do nothing to prevent it whilst reaping the benefits of allowing them to display their ads in the first place - for once, I think the messenger is actually to blame.
Of course, if we really want to hurt them, we should all learn how to hack/crack and deface the websites with our own intrusive elements until they stop behaving like pimps - pimps who don't care how many people get incurable diseases from their working girls so long as the money keeps rolling in.
No, "it pays for the free content you benefit from" isn't an excuse - get funding from reputable sources!!!
Tuesday 9th February 2016 13:36 GMT Charles 9
Tuesday 9th February 2016 14:07 GMT Someone_Somewhere
Re: We Prefer
>And if none is forthcoming? You either starve yourself or take your stuff off the Internet?
In theory? Yes. You have moral values you're not prepared to compromise because the ends don't justify the means. If you handle stolen goods the Law deosn't look kindly upon you because you'd otherwise have to find a different source of income to keep the wolf from the door - and nor should it.
In reality? There are all these security/privacy solutions you can (and should) avail yourself of because nobody is going to watch out for your interests other than you yourself.
Yes, it's an imperfect world and we all have to make compromises in order to get by in it. But I have little sympathy for those who bleat that they have no choice. They always have a choice; they just don't want to have to make the one that takes more effort. If the content is /that/ good then enough people will be prepared to pay for it to cover costs and/or reputable people will want to advertise alongside it. If I find myself obliged to make deals with the morally disenfranchised in order to publish it then, just maybe, that content isn't as good as I'd like to think.
Wednesday 10th February 2016 19:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: We Prefer
"They always have a choice;"
Not always. There ARE such things as cornered people: true rejects who NO ONE will talk to. He gives his all and he's shoved down as a result. At that point, there's only one alternative to starving and that's to break the rules. How does society deal with the hopeless rejects?
Sunday 28th February 2016 12:09 GMT Someone_Somewhere
Re: How does society deal with the hopeless rejects?
Unfortunately, the solution to that requires a much more thorough overhaul to human nature than simply a change in source of income - and I'm not sure it will ever happen.
Giving your all just isn't enough in a world in which how hard you work is barely even tangentially related to the reward you reap for your efforts - you don't need to give your all: you need connections, luck, timing, something attention-grabbing and (best of all) inherited wealth.
You don't need to be any good, you just need to come up with something like 'Peeple', I'm sorry to say.
The world/Life isn't fair, no, but feeling sorry for onesself won't change that, so, we either pick ourselves up and keep trying until we finally 'get a break' or we try some other endeavour.
I am, myself, one of the 'rejects' we're talking about and I've had my share of failure (sometimes my fault, sometimes bad luck, sometimes due to the machinations of others) but I wouldn't attempt to blame any ethically dubious behaviour on lack of options: I refuse to indulge in ethically dubious behaviour - my self-respect is too high a price to pay as far as I'm concerned*
* I know because I've already paid that price in my life - haven't done it since though.
Tuesday 9th February 2016 19:04 GMT Alan Brown
The reason for these "peace talks"
Adblockers are effective and popular, thanks to intrusive/obnoxious adverts and malware vectored via ad networks.
Marketers can trivially bankrupt a developer by tying him up in court - it's been done several times in the past along with gagging orders so the dev can't say who's suing him (or even that he's being sued).
This threat means that when the advertising industry parks tanks on your lawn, it's time to negotiate - whilst everyone else makes a beeline for the exits and jumps on the next adblocker (assuming the original was opensourced).
It's whack-a-mole. Advertisers can't win but they don't need to. They stay in business by taking money from suckers and anything which starts impacting the revenue line is going to be a target for takedowns, private property rights be damned.
Thursday 11th February 2016 13:55 GMT Charles 9
Re: The reason for these "peace talks"
"Marketers can trivially bankrupt a developer by tying him up in court - it's been done several times in the past along with gagging orders so the dev can't say who's suing him (or even that he's being sued)."
What about if they run into a dev who employs a canary in a country where one legally cannot be compelled to lie or where being compelled to lie interferes with another law such a fiduciary duty (meaning you create a law versus law situation)?
Tuesday 9th February 2016 23:03 GMT Public Citizen
Too many advertisers are acting like pirates and the content providers are acting as the conduit for the piracy.
Slow loading sites because of an overload of bloated adware steals peoples time. In addition the additional bandwidth required steals what are sometimes very limited resources for those who don't have unlimited bandwidth.
Any debate that doesn't start with these two ~facts~ already in agreement will inevitably end with people "talking" [more likely yelling] past each other.
In addition, any website that automatically starts an audio track is not just an anoyance but another time thief for those of us who have music or other audio content already running. It's like somebody bursting into your office and starting to talk ~at~ you without first checking to see if you are already talking to somebody or engaged in a phone call or project using audio.
Until advertisers and content providers can agree on a "code of conduct" that is acceptable to most web users there will continue to be a need for ad-blockers. It's like the little security chain on the front door. It allows you to "filter" who has access [short of a brute force break in] to your house.
My computer is another conduit into my home/office. Those who can't act like civilized ~guests~ aren't allowed in. In person or via digital access.
Wednesday 10th February 2016 05:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
Thursday 11th February 2016 13:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Friday 12th February 2016 19:21 GMT illiad
I do believe that has already happened.. they found that no-one went back, so they had to stop doing it...
The same with copy protection too, many found it too obstructive, even to a *paying* user, meaning they almost sold nothing... even with high levels of piracy, user loyalty still meant the game earned plenty of money... :)
Sunday 14th February 2016 13:37 GMT Charles 9
Oh? Tell that to the developer of World of Goo. BTW, if copy protection really was a problem, why is Netflix (which copy-protects its streams IIRC) doing so well, why are BluRay Discs (which are copy-protected) still the go-to medium for movies, and why are the studios adamant about copy protection and a Trusted Path for future 4K movie disc players?
Monday 15th February 2016 23:22 GMT illiad
BluRay Discs CAN be hacked(some much easier than DVDS!!) - But it is still about the only place you can get TRUE HD!! NO bandwidth limiting, NO ads, No problem for those rich enough to afford it...:/
Studios ALWAYS talk 'protection' even back when they thought 3D would be the future...
some exhibitor even GAVE a BluRay to a 'random person' (confident it could not be cracked) and 30 mins later they were given it back, WITH 2 copies.. LOLOLOL..
so it continues.. desperately selling the earth... must get more popcorn... :)
Thursday 25th February 2016 17:30 GMT Richard Gadsden
If you want me to see your ads
Then host them on the same servers as your content. No third-party advertising, and there's no (easy) way for the adblocker to work.
Of course, that means that you have to sell the ads to the actual content provider, rather than through a third party, and you have to get them through approval. You know, like a real advertiser running an ad in a newspaper.