I never said they didn't have a definition. I read it at the time and again yesterday. When I said "whatever definition ... they were using", I was saying that they were not using their own published definition. If they were, Taboola would never have been allowed through.

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.