Adblock Plus

It is dishonest to set the acceptable ads setting to default opt out. People need to know about this little conflict of interest so they a choice to use it if they agree with it instead of hiding it. It makes adblock look bad and it makes it look like someone got paid off. The explanation under "what are you stupid" has a responded who comes across as corrupt and arrogant. With transparency going I doubt this stuff can be hidden for long. Also you survey is old and it opinions are changing. Despite the results seeming dubious. Explain the cost of sponsorship to people and see how that survey goes. There are no acceptable ads. This kind of mentality is what has groups like Comcast and AT&T trying to replace the net with cable TV.

The cost of sponsorship is loss of democracy. Sponsorship boils down to bribery or censorship. The point of sponsorship and sponsored media systems is censorship. When they talk of getting the money out of politics the only way is to get rid of sponsorship and sponsored media. Legitimate media systems only ever take money and influence from their legitimate end users and that doesn't include suppliers or ad firms. Understanding this issue involves seeing the tactic of conflating money with speech and privacy with organizational secrecy. Money is not speech its bribery and organizational secrecy is the antithesis of privacy and leads to surveillance states, hence the transparency revolution that's unfolding. So much of law, tax and even implements like vouchers are about turning down the volume on money and reducing the value of capital. Democracy itself is meant to do this. It is meant to give people a political voice so that they will have a share of the power and will not be subject to money over lack of it. Sponsorship given even a little bit of time corrupts absolutely. Its value is power for the sake of power, its about money for the sake of money. Sponsorship is ultimately the most dangerous and destructive form of money as power, it is censorship that consolidates media leads to a concentration of money and power.

So again, there is no acceptable sponsorship/censorship and hence no acceptable ads. We won't have ad block on systems like MaidSAFE because we won't need it, the next internet won't have acceptable ads.

Letting the unwashed "install and forget" masses watch the less-intrusive advertising is a way to stave off the result of ubiquitous ad-blocking: The end of the Web as a network of ad-supported websites that are free at the point of use. I'm much happier with the Web being indirectly paid for by those who actually fall for the ads than being nickel-and-dimed for every piece of content (a.k.a. "microtransactions") just because that ends up being the only way content providers can make money so they can keep providing content.

You, and the inarticulate idiots who spout conspiracy theories like yours, form a vocal minority among adblocking users, while the silent majority is fine with unobtrusive text ads and similar aspects of the Acceptable Ads Initiative.

I would even be okay if every major ad-blocker hard-coded the usage of the Acceptable Ads whitelist (not likely, because that would give forks like Adblock Edge a legitimate reason to exist), because ads that pass the test are unlikely to be vectors for malware (I got heavily into adblockers in the first place because of the scourge of malvertising, and there are also high-quality lists to protect against the domains that malware itself is commonly served from).

Yeah I completely agree that point of sponsorship and sponsored media systems is all about censorship. In my opinion they always make new conspiracy theories for getting the money out of politics. Isn’t that true?