I was reading the thread on reddit discussing this, and I may be the only one thinking WHY do they have to pay to get their ads unblocked?
The article on businessinsider.com even mentions that the developer of the popular plugin has 90% of the whitelisted advertisements/websites on there for free, so what makes it so the 10% can get through only if they pay?
Are the advertisements malicious, but if a pretty penny is paid the developers look the otherway? Is it because Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Taboola are huge so it’s possible for ABP to say “You can get a little bit of something, or absolutely nothing”.
ABP has a list of criteria that must be met in order to be an “acceptable advertisement” but mentions nothing about you may have to fork up some of that sweet sweet comission.
Full disclosure, part of what I do professionally is develop a variety of software that displays advertisers to users. AdBlock Plus is certainly not helping our business generate revenue, but I use and have used the software before and believe that if a user doesn’t want to see ads and access a website, then I’m not going to sweat it…it’s their choice. I just have a problem that there’s a possibility if one day it became a huge issue where traffic is so great that advertising can’t pay the bare minimum to run a service, I may need to pay a fee to get my ads approved through ad blockers.
It’s too bad, it seems like people will create a service or application for a purpose and want to genuinly help a greater good, but as soon as money is involved, the user base will be pushed something they didn’t originally sign on to. It’s something that has taken great services down.
So on that note, uBlock is supposed to be a great ad blocker, or AdBlock Edge if you want to use something a bit more familiar. They’ll work for now, until they decide that they can make shitloads of money by exploiting the trust of their users, and the websites they affect.
Last Updated: 2015-02-04 06:58:17 +0000 UTC
What are your thoughts on this?