Ad-blockers are a Mafia-style 'protection racket' – UK's Minister of Fun

[steven36]

UK Culture Minister John Whittingdale compared ad-blocking software to “a modern day protection racket” in his Oxford Media Convention keynote yesterday.

 

But a study of the full text shows he would prefer to bang some sense into the ad industry, rather than shake down individuals using content filters in their web browsers.

 

The Minister of Fun's appeal to make ads less annoying took up as much space as his excoriation of the economic impact of ad blockers, but were hardly reported at all.

 

“Some of the ad-blocking companies are drawing up their own rules of acceptable advertising or offering to white list providers in return for payment. Many see such practices as akin to a modern day protection racket,” said Whittingdale.

 

More than one in five Britons now use an ad-blocker, up significantly from 15 per cent last summer.

 

Mobile ads have significantly degraded the user experience - and that’s just safe ads. Publishers including The Economist have even inadvertently served up malware.

 

Whittingdale’s “protection racket” comparison refers to ad blocking software companies to whitelist ads from publishers — but only if they pay. One example is Eyeo’s “acceptable ads” programme. Eyeo markets Adblock Plus.

 

Eyeo’s paying customers include Google, Microsoft and Amazon, and the notorious clickbait ad network Taboola. German publisher Axel Springer has called the practice anti-competitive and says it's imposing a gatekeeper’s tax on the advertising industry.

 

Whittingdale appeared sympathetic to the publishers - but also to end users who have to suffer intrusive ads.

 

“Quite simply – if people don’t pay in some way for content, then that content will eventually no longer exist,” he said. Most people get this, he added.

 

“We need the whole advertising sector to be smarter. If we can avoid the intrusive ads that consumers dislike, then I believe there should be a decrease in the use of ad-blockers,” he said.

 

Whittingdale commented that he was personally against regulation but wanted representatives to sort it out between themselves. That’s code for “we’ll legislate if you don’t”, and the inference is that ads must get less intrusive.

 

“Government stands ready to help in any way we can - as long as this does not erode consumer choice," he said. Which he didn't have to - consumer choice clearly means being able to apply whatever end-user filtering you want. Doesn't it?

 

The Source

[Batu69]

Thread moved from software news forum.

[OrbingStorm]

On 03/03/2016 at 9:56 AM, steven36 said:

 

“Some of the ad-blocking companies are drawing up their own rules of acceptable advertising or offering to white list providers in return for payment. Many see such practices as akin to a modern day protection racket

Yes and then charge the person for their App to block adds and then to take money from companies to unblock their adds.Wrong way of doing business..Double dipping.

[benjd91]

I'll just put my two cents,

 

Some sites like Forbes added mandatory disabling of ad-blockers, worse, even if you had disabled them, a script or two redirected you already to another page does not allow you to go back to where you were headed. Now this is what I hate. Some ads lead you elsewhere than where you wanted to go.

 

If ads and websites are able to make them less intrusive, like one liners, or don't redirect you from the site you are visiting then its fine. But until that happens, its still worth using an adblocker, together with scripts to detect anti-adblockers and remove them.

 

This is what I do believe: If the visitor really wanted to support the site, then he would welcome the ads provided they are unintrusive or better yet donate to keep the site up, but if not, then please do not bother the user by sending him to other pages.

 

[CODYQX4]

2 hours ago, benjd91 said:

I'll just put my two cents,

 

Some sites like Forbes added mandatory disabling of ad-blockers, worse, even if you had disabled them, a script or two redirected you already to another page does not allow you to go back to where you were headed. Now this is what I hate. Some ads lead you elsewhere than where you wanted to go.

 

If ads and websites are able to make them less intrusive, like one liners, or don't redirect you from the site you are visiting then its fine. But until that happens, its still worth using an adblocker, together with scripts to detect anti-adblockers and remove them.

 

This is what I do believe: If the visitor really wanted to support the site, then he would welcome the ads provided they are unintrusive or better yet donate to keep the site up, but if not, then please do not bother the user by sending him to other pages.

 

Step 1. Go to Forbes, Disable Adblocker

Step 2. Find the Link again because it booted you to the homepage.

Step 3. Get Malware from unblocked ads

[steven36]

4 hours ago, CODYQX4 said:

Step 1. Go to Forbes, Disable Adblocker

Step 2. Find the Link again because it booted you to the homepage.

Step 3. Get Malware from unblocked ads

I can go to forbes with a adblocker on  and script blocker on as long as i allow 1st party cookies . They may of been  anti adblock once but just seem to be anti cookie block now for a good while .

 

I just use uBlock Origin witch is open source and dont do it for profit.