It allows people who want to support ad-based publishers with quality ads, while still blocking the heavy junk.
Not an unacceptable thing to me, especially if it makes the developer some extra money without forcing me to let the ads through.
It allows people who want to support ad-based publishers with quality ads, while still blocking the heavy junk.
Not an unacceptable thing to me, especially if it makes the developer some extra money without forcing me to let the ads through.
Also, given that the blockers don't have the sophistication level that you'd expect from say, µBlock, where you can just click on something annoying and banish it, is that ad being displayed because the ad company is giving backhanders to the developer, or was it just missed in the filter? Who knows?
Ad blocking software having "acceptable ads" is identical to antivirus software having "acceptable viruses".
Ooh, I just reread the article. The company trying to convince blocking software to do this is the outfit behind the original Adblock Plus, the original people who started this practice.
But as soon as people start paying to be included on that list, it's not a list of high-quality ads, it's a list of people that have paid you money that you have decided meet some minimum bar (that you have incentives to keep low).
Make it opt-in, and it's like the micropayments future we were promised.