Hey, official eyeo (we're written with a lower letter now because it's fancy) representative here. Just clearing things up.
As you pointed out, we're a company. That means making money to defend against lawsuits, paying employees, etc.
It's not blackmail though, because as it was also pointed out, most websites join for free. No strings attached. Well, the strings are that the ads they want to display need to meet all of the Acceptable Ads criterias, which we found most users don't mind.
That allows us to find a middle ground between "we're drinking all the beer and pay nothing" that other, more scorched-earth-like adblockers go for, and the "oh gods my eyes"-design some ad-bloated websites go for, which no one really wants.
From a publisher perspective, we're not the evil guys either. We're not reducing anyone's revenue, we're allowing publishers to recuperate some of the losses caused by the user's choice of opting out of really annoying ads.
I appreciate the response, but it really doesn't justify what eyeo is actually doing to publishers. I've read about some of the amounts Google and others pay you and there's no justification for it to be that high. A large portion of your project is community-based, so why does it need millions to function? Other community based solutions and open-source projects fare just fine -- and yes they're still paid well.
Also, it's frustrating to still see your company play the "help us out we're broke" card by asking for donations after install even though you're a venture-funded company.
If anything, you guys should be going after the ad-networks since they are the ones allowing the malicious and rude ads to be placed - not the people whose livelihood depends on ads.
Regarding fees, only large entities (those with more than 10 million additional ad impressions per month due to participation in the Acceptable Ads initiative) have to pay. For these entities, our licensing fee normally represents 30 percent of the additional revenue created by whitelisting its acceptable ads.
You are right. That fee is anything but fair. I was under the impression that they were operating their program under a non-profit, but it doesn't seem so.
They are a venture-funded company, so they are in it for more than the community, and can find other ways to monetize their service.