Google Reportedly Paid Adblock Plus to Whitelist Ads

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
German news site Horizont, has reported the mega-corp Google has been paying Eyeo, the company responsible for Adblock Plus, to whitelist the company’s advertisements. Both Google and Eyeo have offered rational explanations for the actions, but it still comes down to profit and the bottom line for both companies.

"Managing this list requires significant effort on our side and this task cannot be completely taken over by volunteers," the FAQ says. "That's why we are being paid by some larger properties that serve nonintrusive advertisements."
Click to expand...
 
I always wonder, do they really think we're that stupid? Just say, "Hey, Google and us want to make some benjamins, we'll still block most stuff". Anything less and its such an insult to our intelligence.
 
That's like a insect extermination company being paid by the insect lobby to allow a certain few insects to remain in your house after you've paid the company to get rid of all the insects.
 
Madoc said:
That's like a insect extermination company being paid by the insect lobby to allow a certain few insects to remain in your house after you've paid the company to get rid of all the insects.
Click to expand...

Excepting that tools like ad-block are freeware...at least as of yet.
 
Ducman69 said:
I always wonder, do they really think we're that stupid? Just say, "Hey, Google and us want to make some benjamins, we'll still block most stuff". Anything less and its such an insult to our intelligence.
Click to expand...

^^ This ^^
 
ferzerp said:
Well, obviously, being ad supported is a proper business model for a product designed to keep you from seeing ads. :/
Click to expand...

Well, donationware doesn't pay the bills for an intensive freeware product.

Put it this way. The Amgen Tour of California Cycling race here in the USA is a bicycling race sponsored of course by Amgen....You may know the name Amgen, as they became a billion-dollar pharmaceutical company thanks to their steroid products.
 
They should change their name to Bitchblock Whores.

"Thank you for using Bitchblock Whore, where we block the other bitches but will be your little whore."
 
I'll let ads through on sites I support, like the [H]. Beyond that, custom filters + Noscript = win.
 
Quote:
"Managing this list requires significant effort on our side and this task cannot be completely taken over by volunteers," the FAQ says. "That's why we are being paid by some larger properties that serve nonintrusive advertisements."
All ads are intrusive to some degree. If you call your program Adblock Plus it better do just that,or you're nothing but greedy hypocrites.
 
NoScript block them all anyway. No need for adblock at all.
 
Its like mafia protection. "Hey we're gonna block all your ads unless you pay us a little something."

Oh well, I dont use AdBlock anyway. I guess Im a panzy, I feel guilty about it. :(
 
Ads we're not that bad years ago, but its gotten to the point that its in you're face every where you go. It's just too intrusive now.
 
Just block the ads through the context menu. As for the "I always wonder, do they really think we're that stupid?" comment: most people were unaware this was taking place... so perhaps they were right to think that?
 
(23) Any discussion of AD BLOCKING software or instruction for using ad blocking regarding this forum or any other discussion in general of attempting to block advertisement will result in a no questions asked permanent ban on your account. This is not done lightly, rather deliberately to deny access to those who choose to utilize this forum, but not support our sponsors. It takes money to finance the cost of bandwidth, especially a forum of this size and if you don't care enough to support us through our advertisers, then we don't need your business. This will be the only warning with no discussion.
 
I realize there's a policy to not talk about "You Know What" on the forums, but title mentions "You Know What". The title is ban bait.
 
melteye said:
Just block the ads through the context menu. As for the "I always wonder, do they really think we're that stupid?" comment: most people were unaware this was taking place... so perhaps they were right to think that?
Click to expand...



Exactly, and yes they were... Most people are just that.
 
Thuleman said:
(23) Any discussion of AD BLOCKING software or instruction for using ad blocking regarding this forum or any other discussion in general of attempting to block advertisement will result in a no questions asked permanent ban on your account. This is not done lightly, rather deliberately to deny access to those who choose to utilize this forum, but not support our sponsors. It takes money to finance the cost of bandwidth, especially a forum of this size and if you don't care enough to support us through our advertisers, then we don't need your business. This will be the only warning with no discussion.
Click to expand...

You do realize that if a thread is started by an admin it's generally accepted practice to discuss the topic the admin posts about within that specific thread. :rolleyes:
 
Not sure why the obvious has to be explained, but apparently it does, so for the extra slow here it is:

The inconsistency is the issue. When members discuss adblock they get banned. When it's a "news" item that generates page views and ad impressions then it's OK.
 
Well I bet IE 10s built in ad blocker works against google, but how about bing?
 
Oh and this should be interesting in the longer term, could this be used against Google in antitrust law suits? How convenient is that for a company to be able to suppress almost everyone's ads but their own.
 
Thuleman said:
Not sure why the obvious has to be explained, but apparently it does, so for the extra slow here it is:

The inconsistency is the issue. When members discuss adblock they get banned. When it's a "news" item that generates page views and ad impressions then it's OK.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that mods & admins would take offense if anything was said that went against [H]'s best interests. There is truth in the matter that it is news post that is meant to generate traffic but I find your focus of anger to be ill-placed. This thread is another example of the [H] staff actually allowing people to talk the subject through w/o it being offensive to the civility of the rules.
 
Galvin said:
Ads we're not that bad years ago, but its gotten to the point that its in you're face every where you go. It's just too intrusive now.
Click to expand...

Do you remember the whole popup/popunder shit on every damn page of years ago?

F that I've ran one form of adblock or another for probably the last 15 years... For a long time it was similar updating software that just updated your hosts file regularly.

I also have several lists including the anti-social list for abp, makes the web a much much nicer place than without it.

If only Radio and TV and just the general public could be less ad heavy :(. Yes I have Sirius and yes I mostly watch stuff on nflx and amzn.
 
Thuleman said:
The inconsistency is the issue. When members discuss adblock they get banned. When it's a "news" item that generates page views and ad impressions then it's OK.
Click to expand...

As a general rule, splitting hairs with forum admins over rules is not such a great idea. I can't speak for the H, but a lot of boards ban first and ask questions later when people start trying to tell them how to run their site or enforce their rules. We all know why the rule is there, and what it's for. Is a one-time news topic really worth picking that fight over?
 
michael.pa2 said:
Quote:
"Managing this list requires significant effort on our side and this task cannot be completely taken over by volunteers," the FAQ says. "That's why we are being paid by some larger properties that serve nonintrusive advertisements."
All ads are intrusive to some degree. If you call your program Adblock Plus it better do just that,or you're nothing but greedy hypocrites.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can blame them for wanting to make some money.
 
Jospeh said:
I don't think you can blame them for wanting to make some money.
Click to expand...

But you can blame them for making EVERY news topic have to link to another page, with yet MORE ads, to get extra revenue vs accepting the revenue they should be getting. if they want more revenue add more content and pages, don't double dip when you already have ads every place, including the bullshit intext ads.
 
i don't think i've ever actually clicked on an ad online aside from when a site forces you to in order to download something or the odd occasion that i've been fooled by a fake download button.

Who are all these people clicking on all these ads in order to make it profitable? Oh wait, i forgot stupid people are abundant and stupid. Or do advertisers think that if they make adverts more and more intrusive that people will submit to their flashing and obnoxious overlords?
 
gaspah said:
i don't think i've ever actually clicked on an ad online aside from when a site forces you to in order to download something or the odd occasion that i've been fooled by a fake download button.

Who are all these people clicking on all these ads in order to make it profitable? Oh wait, i forgot stupid people are abundant and stupid. Or do advertisers think that if they make adverts more and more intrusive that people will submit to their flashing and obnoxious overlords?
Click to expand...

You are asking a question that has a follow-up which is even more important. Because I feel the same and I can't think of anyone I know who does not. The question is why are companies actually paying for ads when it seems like not a person I know has ever been turned into any kind of sale because of a internet ad. I think the entire ad market is in a bubble. But I guess I must just be missing some large part of the consumer market or something because I can't remember the last time I actually saw an ad and was interested in it and clicked on it.
 
Since Google and Bing both go out of their way to decieve people and trick them into clicking ads I'd say most clicks are accidental/fraudulent and shouldn't be counted or paid for.
 
Phoenix333 said:
You do realize that if a thread is started by an admin it's generally accepted practice to discuss the topic the admin posts about within that specific thread. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think he was just pointing out the irony.
 
Thuleman said:
Not sure why the obvious has to be explained, but apparently it does, so for the extra slow here it is:

The inconsistency is the issue. When members discuss adblock they get banned. When it's a "news" item that generates page views and ad impressions then it's OK.
Click to expand...

Wow, you really seem to be going out of your way to take offense here.


CrimsonKnight13 said:
I'm pretty sure that mods & admins would take offense if anything was said that went against [H]'s best interests. There is truth in the matter that it is news post that is meant to generate traffic but I find your focus of anger to be ill-placed. This thread is another example of the [H] staff actually allowing people to talk the subject through w/o it being offensive to the civility of the rules.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Thuleman said:
(23) Any discussion of AD BLOCKING software or instruction for using ad blocking regarding this forum or any other discussion in general of attempting to block advertisement will result in a no questions asked permanent ban on your account. This is not done lightly, rather deliberately to deny access to those who choose to utilize this forum, but not support our sponsors. It takes money to finance the cost of bandwidth, especially a forum of this size and if you don't care enough to support us through our advertisers, then we don't need your business. This will be the only warning with no discussion.
Click to expand...

This rule only applies randomly. Just sayin'
 
gaspah said:
i don't think i've ever actually clicked on an ad online aside from when a site forces you to in order to download something or the odd occasion that i've been fooled by a fake download button.

Who are all these people clicking on all these ads in order to make it profitable? Oh wait, i forgot stupid people are abundant and stupid. Or do advertisers think that if they make adverts more and more intrusive that people will submit to their flashing and obnoxious overlords?
Click to expand...

rudy said:
You are asking a question that has a follow-up which is even more important. Because I feel the same and I can't think of anyone I know who does not. The question is why are companies actually paying for ads when it seems like not a person I know has ever been turned into any kind of sale because of a internet ad. I think the entire ad market is in a bubble. But I guess I must just be missing some large part of the consumer market or something because I can't remember the last time I actually saw an ad and was interested in it and clicked on it.
Click to expand...

The ads don't have to be clicked on. Ads simply have to be loaded and it counts as a 'view' with some fraction of a cent attributed to it.

What fries my brain is e-mail spam. I still do not understand how or why it exists anymore, unless of course people behind devices/systems like IronPort are the ones perpetuating it.
 
DiabloRojo said:
What fries my brain is e-mail spam. I still do not understand how or why it exists anymore, unless of course people behind devices/systems like IronPort are the ones perpetuating it.
Click to expand...

Because it costs relatively nothing to perpetrate and people still fall for it. That's always a 100% return on your investment.

I suspect 60+ years in the future when there ceases to be anyone alive who didn't grow up with the internet, hardly anyone will fall for it. Still, I expect something else will have taken its place by then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top