While AdBlock Plus offers its web browser add-on to the public for free, it makes money by operating a "white list" of adverts that it allows to get through its filters.
. . . Although AdBlock Plus states that "no one can buy their way onto the white list", it does charge fees for what it terms "support services", the details of which are not made public.
We'll cure the cancer, as long as we can give you herpes and a batch of crabs.
#1: The whitelist of "acceptable ads" is heavily restrictive and does not charge anything to 90+% of the participants. To be clear, they only charge AD NETWORKS to get whitelisted, and then only after inspection. #2: The whitelist of "acceptable ads" is two clicks to disable, prompted during Adblock install. #3: The "acceptable ads", while ads and thus unacceptable, are way less bad than trying to surf without Adblock.
The existence of the whitelist was incredibly controversial, but a combination of "I want sites I visit to make money from advertising" and "I want the advertising to be less obnoxious" combines to gives people who don't mind ads a better experience than no-Adblock ads, and gives advertisers WAY better return on investment: They're only showing to people who want to see it and they're only showing ads that aren't deliberately deceptive or excessively obnoxious, so they get way more clickthroughs from consumers who can now trust them.
It's like... watching American TV, but having all the politicians, pharmaceutical companies, and ambulance chaser ads filtered out. Sure, it would be better to ALSO filter out the car commercials and fast food ads, but maybe you want the channel to get that revenue so you put up with some of Snapple and Ford's bullshit. And if you don't want Snapple or Ford's bullshit, you can also block them with a one-time trivial effort.
I understand that. I have, however, a dastardly devilish time saying "I want sites I visit to make money from advertising" at all. Why would a site be a good one if it is subscribed to an evil outdated practice?
Take your telly example. If there were such techie goodness out there that would completely filter the really bad from the merely bad, and if people used it, they would not be exposed to the level of really bad to which others are exposed, and would therefore be unaware of the monied forces being brought to bear on our economic lives (which, thanks to campaign ads, becomes our political life). If you filter out what you do not want, you miss the importance of the filtered.
There is analogy I made years ago with the latent heat of evaporation. I was helping someone study for a silly test or something, and learned that when a water molecule changes phase state from, say, liquid to vapor, it absorbs 15 degrees of temp (don't remember C or F). When it then condenses, it releases that heat.
If the pressures to forces someone to make a drastic decision can be mitigated by, say, blocking certain ads, they may never feel the pressure necessary to fight against all ads, similar to the way the latent heat of evaporation smooths out temperature variation around the globe with the cycle of water evaporation and later condensation.
AdBlock's strategy is similar to methadone treatment for heroin addiction; it does nothing for the cravings that continue the addiction, and forces the addict into a schedule that may be destructive for their continuing productivity. Better to seek treatments that, while painful, once completed at least destroy the cravings.
Water molecules absorb energy, not temperature. It takes about 2260J to vaporize one gram of water. If all the heat energy for that was coming from 100g of water it would drop in temperature about 5.4°C. If all my back of the envelope calculations are correct. But it depends on what mass of water is providing the energy how much the temperature change is. That being said the large latent heat of water is partly why it is acting like a buffer. for now.
I believe you can prevent Adblock's whitelist of adverts by unchecking "Allow unobtrusive ads" or such in its settings.
But screw that. Use ublock instead.
I'm sure others will outline more extensive blockers-- ghostery, noscript, disconnect, and mixes thereof-- which are undoubtedly more effective but require some micromanaging when you want to whitelist certain behavior. If you've got the technical savvy, that's certainly a good way to go. If you want quick and easy, ublock is a good start. I install ublock on my parents' machines, since I don't want to explain to them how to whitelist site X across multiple plugins.
For normal people I just install Adblock Plus, subscribe to the standard list + malware domain blocks, and disable "acceptable ads". Works like a charm.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2015-04-23 10:22 pm (UTC). . . Although AdBlock Plus states that "no one can buy their way onto the white list", it does charge fees for what it terms "support services", the details of which are not made public.
We'll cure the cancer, as long as we can give you herpes and a batch of crabs.
Not. Good. Enough.
(no subject)
Date: 2015-04-23 10:40 pm (UTC)#1: The whitelist of "acceptable ads" is heavily restrictive and does not charge anything to 90+% of the participants. To be clear, they only charge AD NETWORKS to get whitelisted, and then only after inspection.
#2: The whitelist of "acceptable ads" is two clicks to disable, prompted during Adblock install.
#3: The "acceptable ads", while ads and thus unacceptable, are way less bad than trying to surf without Adblock.
The existence of the whitelist was incredibly controversial, but a combination of "I want sites I visit to make money from advertising" and "I want the advertising to be less obnoxious" combines to gives people who don't mind ads a better experience than no-Adblock ads, and gives advertisers WAY better return on investment: They're only showing to people who want to see it and they're only showing ads that aren't deliberately deceptive or excessively obnoxious, so they get way more clickthroughs from consumers who can now trust them.
It's like... watching American TV, but having all the politicians, pharmaceutical companies, and ambulance chaser ads filtered out. Sure, it would be better to ALSO filter out the car commercials and fast food ads, but maybe you want the channel to get that revenue so you put up with some of Snapple and Ford's bullshit. And if you don't want Snapple or Ford's bullshit, you can also block them with a one-time trivial effort.
(no subject)
Date: 2015-04-24 04:15 am (UTC)Take your telly example. If there were such techie goodness out there that would completely filter the really bad from the merely bad, and if people used it, they would not be exposed to the level of really bad to which others are exposed, and would therefore be unaware of the monied forces being brought to bear on our economic lives (which, thanks to campaign ads, becomes our political life). If you filter out what you do not want, you miss the importance of the filtered.
There is analogy I made years ago with the latent heat of evaporation. I was helping someone study for a silly test or something, and learned that when a water molecule changes phase state from, say, liquid to vapor, it absorbs 15 degrees of temp (don't remember C or F). When it then condenses, it releases that heat.
If the pressures to forces someone to make a drastic decision can be mitigated by, say, blocking certain ads, they may never feel the pressure necessary to fight against all ads, similar to the way the latent heat of evaporation smooths out temperature variation around the globe with the cycle of water evaporation and later condensation.
AdBlock's strategy is similar to methadone treatment for heroin addiction; it does nothing for the cravings that continue the addiction, and forces the addict into a schedule that may be destructive for their continuing productivity. Better to seek treatments that, while painful, once completed at least destroy the cravings.
(no subject)
Date: 2015-04-24 05:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2015-04-24 12:02 pm (UTC)I'm on your side on this one. But I understand the arguments on the other side.
(no subject)
Date: 2015-04-24 07:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2015-04-24 11:59 am (UTC)The only reason I use AdBlock is for the godawful flashing/moving monstrosities.
(no subject)
Date: 2015-04-23 10:43 pm (UTC)But screw that. Use ublock instead.
I'm sure others will outline more extensive blockers-- ghostery, noscript, disconnect, and mixes thereof-- which are undoubtedly more effective but require some micromanaging when you want to whitelist certain behavior. If you've got the technical savvy, that's certainly a good way to go. If you want quick and easy, ublock is a good start. I install ublock on my parents' machines, since I don't want to explain to them how to whitelist site X across multiple plugins.
(no subject)
Date: 2015-04-23 11:43 pm (UTC)