zlacker

>>taubek+(OP)
Is it time for an open source adblocker that only blocks bad actors?

I am perfectly fine with ads, I've previously run sites where it was a small source of income myself. I know it would be in a cat and mouse game with the bad guys but if it blocked most of them it would certainly help a lot of people.

>>rmason+ud
Adblock Plus is already like this and everybody technical quickly realised the reality of an advertising "Whitelist" instantly creates a de facto protection racket where getting an exclusion from the adblocker becomes a valuable commodity. It's worth paying WHATEVER the adblock operator is asking to get on the whitelist. Adblock Plus got big bucks from Google who in turn have saved billions from striking a deal with them. The small guys - well they got screwed - you need to go through certain well financed ad networks to deliver "Acceptable ads". Adblock Plus is still popular for some reason but I don't know any technical people who still use it because well it's corrupt and hostile to its own users and has a clear drop-in replacement.

In the opinion of the vast majority of adblocker users, agree with it or not, ALL advertisers are bad actors. So they will never voluntarily choose filter lists which allow "good ads" the vast majority of the time. As such this will only happen if you get the adblocker to set allowing "acceptable ads" as a default, which makes what you're talking about INTRINSICALLY corrupt and paternalistic. If you want people to actually do this, show up at the houses of Adblock developers with suitcases of money, plenty of drugs, and beautiful prostitutes and whisper sweet stories into their ears about how they can help small businesses find markets for their products. Sadly ublock origin's developers appear to be incorruptible.

Google has figured out trying to push "acceptable ads" any harder is pointless and has instead moved to simply make adblocking technically harder to do by taking control of web standards.