The end of AdBlock plus.

This crook has finally shown what he came for:

arstechnica.com...

Many webmasters have struggled to fight back ads blckers, some with messages asking their users to turn off their adblocker, other by hidding content in dives named googleads, advertisings, ads, pub... Other with paywalls. But no one really could find a 100% reliable solution to keep the users and the ad revenue at the same time.

Now, looks like Ad Block plus has found the solution, allow webmasters to pay them so they let some "acceptable" ads pass their filter.

Isn´t this hilarious?

Well I always wondered how did they survived all along because ads are to websites the same way ads are to TV or newspapers, you can hardly have one without the other...

I know they blackmailed google, yahoo and MS but looks like this is not enough to keep them afloat so they will not blackmail the publishers.

They have 100 million users. That´s nothing.

As a webmaster myself I say ditch those users, block your websites from those users, don´t pay anything to adblockplus.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

AD Blockers to me are a necessary evil.

I've been hit a few times by malicious advertising.

If the Ad Content Networks were more pro active in blocking malicious advertising. There would not be a need for AD Blockers at all.

YouTube is one of the main reasons why people use AdBlock. Browsing YouTube without an ad blocker is a truly miserable experience.

But I'm sure someone will come up with a way to block the "acceptable" ads.

Just use a script called "no-script".

Works better than adblockers.

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual

As a webmaster myself I say ditch those users, block your websites from those users, don´t pay anything to adblockplus.

Is your name "Rachel, from Credit Card Services"? The fact is, your ads are a nuisance. If that's your attitude, one of defending obnoxious ads, then go ahead and block me because you are promoting ads, not whatever your site is supposedly for. They have co-opted you--with money--in the same way you say AdBlocker has gone. What's the difference? You sat AdBlocker is accepting money for serving ads. YOU accept money for serving ads.

Pot, meet kettle.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

Ads are killing the internet for mobile users especially , hover over a ad for a second and it will come to life eating up your bandwith this could cause many people to ditch the internet as people are sick of being stalked Minority Report style by ads

BAN THEM

Not a big deal. Even if Adblock Plus goes under, there are more than enough adblock extensions out there to choose from. I'm using 4 different ad blocking extensions in my browser, along with ghostery and a script blocker.

Even so, I occasionally still see an ad. It's infuriating.

One of my adblockers has a manual ad blocking tool. You activate it, highlight the offending ad, and then add it to a personal block list. It's called Adguard Adblocker and is probably my favorite one right now.

There used to be a fork of ABP called Adblock Extreme, which didn't allow "nice" ads and just tried to block all of them. I don't know if it's still being updated these days though.

I don't really have a horse in this race, as ad's are obnoxious to me, but I deal with them because i know they are benefiting whatever page I am on (and clearly interested in myself). I've never had an ad blocker.

I am interested to see what others think of this though

-Alee

I thought about using a adblocker the only trouble is.. How would I know which hot singles are in my area?

That AdBlock would start selling ads was know before, at least I heard it at least a year ago. Mght be way more because it has been several years ago when I stopped relying on extensions and stuff.

There are so many ways to block ads with or without an extension or a third party program. Some sites block the use of limited programs others use others. If webmaster themselves want to exclude users because they use them it is ok too, as information is everywhere. I don't use AdBlock (or another) as, for one, I don't like to be relying on extension/apps/programs when I can do it myself in my OS or equipment. And two, for the exact reason what AdBlock is proposing now, I don't need them to decide (because of $$$) what I will and will not see.

uBlock Origin for chrome and Firefox is far better than Adblock ever was even before they sold out.

I actually didn't mind some basic ads but my slow internet connection is crippled by these latest auto play videos and ads with obnoxious code.

If a site owner wants to block me for blocking their intrusive ads then so be it. They will only suffer less traffic and content as a result and I will find a more reliable place to linger.

More than one way.

I don't mind ads as long as they quietly stick to the side(s) and/or top/bottom of a page.

But, once they start making noise with no interaction from myself, blocking the entire page or any content of the page... I can't stand that. I also hate when forums use those ads that embed themselves as links on keywords in people's posts. Sometimes you don't know if the user has intentionally put a link there or if it's an ad.

But I understand that websites must use advertisements to make money and keep the site up. I just wish that more sites would keep the users desire to not be intruded with ads in mind. (ATS does a pretty good job at this, in my opinion)

Wow! I didn´t know this subject would raise so much interest.

I use an adsblock for the same reason of all of you but at the same time I need the ads money to pay my work as a webmaster and to pay for server and all the sites expenses.

The solution I found was to only use googleads and allow only text and image ads, no expandable, no video and no flash.

I also encourage users to let me know about problematic ads they see on my websites so I can inspect them and if necessary block them at the adsense control panel.

As to users visiting my websites with an adsblocket turned on they will see a message explaining why the ads are needed and asking them to allow ads from my sites. If they don´t turn off the adsblocker the only thing they will see on the website is very basic non interactive content.

As some said, blocking scripts is effective in some cases but as more and more sites are relying on client side scripting AKA _javascript to actually run the site functions so if you block all scripts you won´t be able to use the site at all.

a reply to: schuyler

So you would rather pay for the site as opposed to just seeing some ads? Or would you prefer if people used their own money to keep sites alive so that you can used them without nuisance?

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

how does that work with other software scripts?

a reply to: intrepid

I honestly can't remember. When did ads first show up on ATS?

a reply to: Snarl

Always had them as far as I can remember.

originally posted by: Misterlondon
I thought about using a adblocker the only trouble is.. How would I know which hot singles are in my area?

There is that, but according to my email they are all in Russia.

originally posted by: tinimark
uBlock Origin for chrome and Firefox is far better than Adblock ever was even before they sold out.

I actually didn't mind some basic ads but my slow internet connection is crippled by these latest auto play videos and ads with obnoxious code.

If a site owner wants to block me for blocking their intrusive ads then so be it. They will only suffer less traffic and content as a result and I will find a more reliable place to linger.

Was gona say that but you beat me to it! Ohh well, but yes it is far better and so far not a sellout.