Talk:Adblock Plus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Acceptable Ads[edit]

This change goes against mozilla addons guidelines. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/docs/policies/reviews

     the features must adhere to the following requirements:
   * The add-on description must clearly state what changes the add-on makes.
   * All changes must be opt-in, meaning the user must take non-default action to enact the change.
   * The opt-in dialog must clearly state the name of the add-on requesting the change.
   * Uninstalling the add-on restores the user's original settings if they were changed.

This feature is opt-out(enabled by default) not opt-in(disabled by default) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.111.238 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You should consider the entire text instead of quoting something out of context. Here's the portion of the text that's missing:

 Whenever an add-on includes any unexpected feature that:
 * compromises user privacy or security (like sending data to third parties),
 * changes default settings like the homepage or search engine, or
 * changes settings or features in other add-ons or deactivates them altogether
 the features must adhere to the following requirements:
 ...

None of those points apply to Acceptable Ads. Greiner12 (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

AdBlock April fools 2012?[edit]

"Adblock now shows you cats instead of ads". This seems to be everywhere.--만두 (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This was an April Fool joke by AdBlock and has therefore nothing to do with Adblock Plus (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBlock#CatBlock). Greiner12 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethics of Adblocking via BBC - Dec. 2013[edit]

BBC had an interesting article earlier this month on the ethics of adblocking and it's ripe for material that could be mined to improve this article. I'm sorry I dont'have the time to do it but wanted to bring it to your attention. Also wondering if the mention of controversy about acceptable ads program shouldn't be modified to note that controversy wasn't just on adblock plus forum + social media sites but was covered by MSM.

Blinking, beeping, auto-playing. Popping up, over, under. Tracking, intruding, unsettling. If the internet was a pretty face, advertising would be its wart.

Thankfully, if getting "a great six pack in weeks!" isn't your thing, you can simply flick a switch and use an adblocker - software that banishes the sight and hushes the din of irritating advertising all over the web.

The appeal is obvious, and millions have done it, but should you?

According to one count, 84% of the top 100 websites in the world rely on advertising to generate revenue...[1]

References

  1. ^ Lee, Dave (4 December 2013). ""Is it ethical to block adverts online?"". BBC News. Retrieved 20 December 2013. 

Hope the full article is useful. It mentions the Adblock Plus quite a few times. Cheers. joepaT 07:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Original Adblock was confused with AdBlock (a.k.a. BetaFish Adblocker)[edit]

The first paragraph contains the line "It is a fork of the original Adblock extension, developed by Michael McDonald, which is most recently had an update on March 11, 2015." However, the original Adblock extensions saw its last stable release in 2003 and was discontinued in 2007 (see repository history under http://www.mozdev.org/source/browse/adblock/).

The stated date (March 11, 2015) happens to be the same date when AdBlock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBlock) 2.19 was released which is why I assume that the author of this sentence confused those two separate extensions. Therefore I'd suggest that this sentence should be changed to "It is a fork of the original Adblock extension, developed by Michael McDonald, which has been discontinued." Greiner12 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Adblock Plus buys AdBlock[edit]

It seems that Adblock Plus just bought AdBlock: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/02/adblock_flogged_off_to_mystery_buyer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.251.163 (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


no one knows who bought adblock but there is not enough evidence--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Should version 0.9.9.0 be added to the about box for Microsoft Edge?[edit]

It's not the same for Internet Explorer. (I would add it if I could but I can't figure it out) Dre~ (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adblock Plus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Adware[edit]

I think Adblock Plus is adware with its "Acceptable Ads" that is use to make money.

"Adware, or advertising-supported software, is any software package that automatically renders advertisements in order to generate revenue for its author."

Should we not place Category:Adware on the page? --Gstree (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we should. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you referring to ad whitelisting, or to something else? --Gryllida (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not talking about whitelisting. I am talking about about ABP replacing ads with new ads -- ads that the advertisers pay ABP to display:
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a libelous claim; I'm pretty sure categorization is also subject to verification and NPOV policies too. You are placing an ad-blocker within the same category as malware only because they allow "acceptable", non-intrusive advertising, which requires payment to the provider in order to clear, and are running an ad provider that happens to fall within said classification. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much everything you just wrote is false. First, Adware and Malware are two different things. Second saying that I categorized it as adware "only because they allow 'acceptable', non-intrusive advertising" is a lie. I was quite clear on this: "I am not talking about whitelisting. I am talking about about ABP replacing ads with new ads -- ads that the advertisers pay ABP to display." Allowing some ads to run is one thing -- it allows the website owner to make money from advertising in exchange for not being too intrusive about it. Replacing the ads that the website owner gets paid for with a different set of ads that only Adblock Plus gets paid for steals advertising money from the website owner and is a lot more serious.
"Eyeo, the company behind popular advertising and tracker blocker Adblock Plus, has announced that it is launching its own advertising platform which will replace blocked ads with its own - handily monetising its user base through the very thing they wanted to block in the first place. Eyeo, which has long fought for its right to block adverts, has announced that it is to extend its existing Acceptable Ads programme to support the launch of its own advertising platform. Under the previous implementation of the programme, the default behaviour for the company's Adblock Plus software was to allow a small number of adverts - created, naturally, by companies which pay Eyeo for the privilege - to bypass the blocks, providing they adhere to a set of acceptability guidelines. Now, though, the company is going a step further: allowing advertisers to sign up to its own advertising platform, designed specifically to replace the missing adverts blocked by Adblock Plus with its own from which the company takes a cut."[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not adware. A piece of adware shows unsolicited advertisements of its own. Adblock Plus does not do that. Maybe it is doing something malicious here; being an adware isn't the one.
@Guy Macon: Wikipedia works based on consensus. Calling our eminent editor (ViperSnake151) a liar is hardly consensus. Clearly there is a dispute here. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Saying something that is factually untrue" is not the same thing as "being a liar". It could be that the person isn't aware of or doesn't understand the facts. It may even be that through faulty reasoning, they reject easily verifiable factual information, even after being given citations for it.
ViperSnake151 and Codename Lisa, in the discussion above, both of you have made claims that are factually untrue. I will not speculate as to why. To be specific:
" Calling our eminent editor (ViperSnake151) a liar" -- factually untrue. I never called him a liar. Please provide the diff where you think I did.
"A piece of adware shows unsolicited advertisements of its own. Adblock Plus does not do that." -- factually untrue. That is exactly what Adware is doing here (unless you have evidence that they stopped, in which case the claim would no longer be untrue.)
" You are placing an ad-blocker within the same category as malware only because they allow 'acceptable', non-intrusive advertising" -- factually untrue. I explained why I put it in the category twice, and that wasn't the reason. It isn't my fault if you refuse to read or refuse to accept my answer. My explanation was perfectly clear. (Note that you are free to disagree with what I wrote but you cannot pretend that I wrote something else and disagree with that)
"This is a libelous claim; I'm pretty sure categorization is also subject to verification and NPOV policies too." -- factually untrue. What I wrote was a verifiable claim, and I supplied multiple citations to verify it. If either of you actually believe this, report me for libel at Wikipedia:Libel and report me for a NPOV violation at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard -- but be aware of WP:NLT and WP:BOOMERANG. I am betting that neither of you will file any such report because your claims are factually untrue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In the seven sources given, the word "adware" does not appear even once. Also, someone must take a chill pill. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 23:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)