Their definition of "acceptable" seems straightforward and paying for certification seems like a pretty standard business model.
If they were to bend their definition for money, that woukd be shady. Do they?
I was browsing the web with AdBlock Plus and found myself assaulted by an image of someone's fungus-infected toenail or something similarly nauseating. I went to report it as a mistake on their forums only to find there was already a thread about Taboola, and they were firm that Taboola was "acceptable". The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money.
I went to uBlock that day and haven't looked back. Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it.
So it is just your imagination. Their definition of "acceptable" is here:
https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria
> Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it.
You did not even read it, but just immediately jumped to "shady"/bribery....
> I wanted no part of it.
Me neither, but you spreading misinformation is not okay.
The policy on images is the one that is relevant to my complaint, so let's look at that one:
> Static image ads may qualify as acceptable, according to an evaluation of their unobtrusiveness based on their integration on the webpage.
The policy was stricter back in 2015 (http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplu...):
> Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images
It changed to the one with more wiggle room in February 2016, in the middle of a backlash against AdBlock Plus's continued tolerance for Taboola's antics. Here's that thread for context: https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991
Under either definition, it's hard to argue that Taboola's images were "acceptable". They were explicitly designed to grab attention, bore no relation to the text content of the ad, and frequently were disgusting specifically because gross images draw the eye. Adblock Plus kept insisting that Taboola was cooperating, but users (including myself) kept reporting over and over again that their garbage was getting through. After years of violations that get dismissed as "mistakes" (documented in part on the thread linked above), it's reasonable to assume that the only reason they weren't dropped like a hot potato was because they were paying to not be dropped.
If there was no way to block ads Id probably be happy to downsize my internet usage.
Or are you saying you might as well not pay for premium if you'll still have to deal with the product placement anyway?
I could be totally wrong, but ublock-origin just keeps certain things that match a pattern from appearing in the html. It can't remove the annoying "in-video" ads, right?
As a power user I also set JS off by default and whitelist specific sites, and also use garbage websites in private mode so their garbage tracking is hopefully purged.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-badges?utm_conte...
What this review means? Do you have a link? Is it reviewed by a security developer hired by Mozilla or some community person?
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-extensions-...
It's exactly what you're asking for, a badge showing that Mozilla "staff security experts" have carefully reviewed the extension to ensure that it is free of malicious or unsafe code. The extension must also be effective at what it does, offer a good user experience, and be regularly updated.