Talk:Adblock Plus/Archives/2017

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Adblock Plus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131208011244/http://www.h-online.com/newsticker/news/item/Serious-accusations-against-AdBlock-Plus-1897360.html to http://www.h-online.com/newsticker/news/item/Serious-accusations-against-Adblock-Plus-1897360.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Adware
I think Adblock Plus is adware with its "Acceptable Ads" that is use to make money.

"Adware, or advertising-supported software, is any software package that automatically renders advertisements in order to generate revenue for its author."

Should we not place Category:Adware on the page? --Gstree (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we should. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to ad whitelisting, or to something else? --Gryllida (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about whitelisting. I am talking about about ABP replacing ads with new ads -- ads that the advertisers pay ABP to display:
 * Adblock Plus, has announced that it is launching its own advertising platform which will replace blocked ads with its own
 * Ultimate irony: Adblock Plus is now selling ads -- replacing bad ads with 'acceptable' ones
 * AdBlock Plus Selling Ads to Display in Place of Blocked Ads
 * Adblock Plus now sells ads
 * Adblock Plus launching platform to sell 'acceptable' ads
 * What Adblock Plus Forgot Before Its Acceptable Ads Platform Release
 * Adblock Plus Is Selling 'Acceptable' Ads (But You Can Still Block Them)
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a libelous claim; I'm pretty sure categorization is also subject to verification and NPOV policies too. You are placing an ad-blocker within the same category as malware only because they allow "acceptable", non-intrusive advertising, which requires payment to the provider in order to clear, and are running an ad provider that happens to fall within said classification. ViperSnake151   Talk  17:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everything you just wrote is false. First, Adware and Malware are two different things. Second saying that I categorized it as adware "only because they allow 'acceptable', non-intrusive advertising" is a lie. I was quite clear on this: "I am not talking about whitelisting. I am talking about about ABP replacing ads with new ads -- ads that the advertisers pay ABP to display." Allowing some ads to run is one thing -- it allows the website owner to make money from advertising in exchange for not being too intrusive about it. Replacing the ads that the website owner gets paid for with a different set of ads that only Adblock Plus gets paid for steals advertising money from the website owner and is a lot more serious.


 * "Eyeo, the company behind popular advertising and tracker blocker Adblock Plus, has announced that it is launching its own advertising platform which will replace blocked ads with its own - handily monetising its user base through the very thing they wanted to block in the first place. Eyeo, which has long fought for its right to block adverts, has announced that it is to extend its existing Acceptable Ads programme to support the launch of its own advertising platform. Under the previous implementation of the programme, the default behaviour for the company's Adblock Plus software was to allow a small number of adverts - created, naturally, by companies which pay Eyeo for the privilege - to bypass the blocks, providing they adhere to a set of acceptability guidelines. Now, though, the company is going a step further: allowing advertisers to sign up to its own advertising platform, designed specifically to replace the missing adverts blocked by Adblock Plus with its own from which the company takes a cut." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not adware. A piece of adware shows unsolicited advertisements of its own. Adblock Plus does not do that. Maybe it is doing something malicious here; being an adware isn't the one.
 * Wikipedia works based on consensus. Calling our eminent editor (ViperSnake151) a liar is hardly consensus. Clearly there is a dispute here. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Saying something that is factually untrue" is not the same thing as "being a liar". It could be that the person isn't aware of or doesn't understand the facts. It may even be that through faulty reasoning, they reject easily verifiable factual information, even after being given citations for it.


 * ViperSnake151 and Codename Lisa, in the discussion above, both of you have made claims that are factually untrue. I will not speculate as to why. To be specific:
 * " Calling our eminent editor (ViperSnake151) a liar" -- factually untrue. I never called him a liar. Please provide the diff where you think I did.
 * "A piece of adware shows unsolicited advertisements of its own. Adblock Plus does not do that." -- factually untrue. That is exactly what Adware is doing here (unless you have evidence that they stopped, in which case the claim would no longer be untrue.)
 * " You are placing an ad-blocker within the same category as malware only because they allow 'acceptable', non-intrusive advertising" -- factually untrue. I explained why I put it in the category twice, and that wasn't the reason. It isn't my fault if you refuse to read or refuse to accept my answer. My explanation was perfectly clear. (Note that you are free to disagree with what I wrote but you cannot pretend that I wrote something else and disagree with that)
 * "This is a libelous claim; I'm pretty sure categorization is also subject to verification and NPOV policies too." -- factually untrue. What I wrote was a verifiable claim, and I supplied multiple citations to verify it. If either of you actually believe this, report me for libel at Libel and report me for a NPOV violation at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard -- but be aware of WP:NLT and WP:BOOMERANG. I am betting that neither of you will file any such report because your claims are factually untrue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In the seven sources given, the word "adware" does not appear even once. Also, someone must take a chill pill.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 23:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)