>whitelists advertisers if they are not too shitty.

I don't have any source with me right now, but I've heard that they only whitelist advertisers that pay them (I recall some people comparing this to blackmail).

I didn't know this, but they admit it on their site, and explain it.

https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization

TL;DR is that if by participating in the "Acceptable Ads" initiative the organization gains 10 million more ad impressions per month, then they have to pay. If they are "smaller" than that, it's free to them.

Everybody has to keep their ads acceptable, however; you can't bribe your way out of it.

> Everybody has to keep their ads acceptable, however; you can't bribe your way out of it.

Riiiiight.

Well, it'd be immediately visible to the users. While I think it is blackmail, ABP has a lot to lose by not enforcing strict standards.

They whitelist Taboola, Outbrain, and other native ad networks. I think the strict standards horse has left the barn.

Outbrain provides "uses who read this also read these", no? Or do they also do shady things like splicing in ads between "proper" recommendations?

If ABP started letting unacceptable ads through they'd lose all their users. Enlightened self-interest and all that.

Good point. It only works until somebody decides that they are leaving money on the table.

Found one source that indicates that the payment may be substantial: "Financial Times reports that one digital media company (which asked not to be named) was told that it would cost 30 percent of its advertising revenue to be whitelisted by Eyeo and AdBlock Plus." - http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-...

In a weird way it manages to fix many people's problems with advertising. Ads are sometimes horribly intrusive (to the point that ad-blockers are necessary to me) and it forces companies to adhere to some kind standards when none are technically required.

On the other hand; it's blackmail. It also falls apart if there are too many competing services or people generally catch on and switch to another ad-blocker. Then companies either pay N-vetting services or their investment is completely wasted. The end result is an (arguably) overly-strict vetting service because people will switch if they don't block enough ads.

As a consumer; I just wanted an ad-blocker sooo....

It is comparable to blackmail if they aren't doing any vetting/work or if the advertiser isn't at risk of blacklisting/losing their investment when they put out a troublesome ad.

But the fundamental idea of forcing ad networks to pay for vetting of their ads before they are shown seems very pro-consumer.

> Also, they just landed Larry Ellison of Oracle as a featured speaker.

Man, this would make me cancel my ticket. I try to avoid being in the same state as Larry Ellison. The evil just oozes.

> Also, they just landed Larry Ellison of Oracle as a featured speaker.

Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Lawnmower's can't speak. Lawnmowers just mow the lawn.

> potentially existential threat to the industry

I wonder if it really is a threat. Serving anything related to ads from same domain as content will make it much harder to create reliable blocking rules[1]. If ad blocking requires heuristics like the ones in Readability extension it won't be as popular.

[1] as a bonus it instantly kills simplistic host file method

The EasyList[0] already has blocking for DOM elements and querystring parameters in addition to domain blocks. So even with hosting ads from the same domain, they get blocked.

For example, ABP blocks our same-domain, self-hosted trackers with the default settings even though our domain is not listed there.

[0] - https://easylist.adblockplus.org/en/

I find it amusing that their page loads with a popup: https://screencloud.net/v/vOXl

> existential threat to the industry

I can only hope that it is.