It does feel shady, but on the other hand I can't really argue with their logic:
- ads are an important revenue stream on the web, so allow unintrusive/inoffensive ads by default
- to do this, companies need to agree to keep all ads under a certain URL pattern "unintrusive" by ABP's definition
- investigating and enforcing the nature of the ads in the whitelist costs money, so make this service free for "small to medium" businesses but charge large ones.
Companies may be hurt by people choosing to block ads, but they're not hurt by Adblock Plus offering them a chance to have their ads unblocked. And users aren't hurt either, as if they don't like the whitelisting they can simply turn it off. It seems to me that if you're ok with adblocking, there's no reason to protest ABP's whitelisting practices.
Agreed. Most countries have an organization to regulate broadcasts, removing advertising that is too obtrusive, obscene, or otherwise unfit for mass consumption. Likewise, filtering malware sites, porn ads (in improper places), and flickering banners seems like a win to me. I am in favor of Adblock Plus' mission, I just wish they were more transparent about their business practices and revenue. This seems like the purpose of a non-profit organization moreso than the job of a few developers.
- ads are an important revenue stream on the web, so allow unintrusive/inoffensive ads by default
- to do this, companies need to agree to keep all ads under a certain URL pattern "unintrusive" by ABP's definition
- investigating and enforcing the nature of the ads in the whitelist costs money, so make this service free for "small to medium" businesses but charge large ones.
Companies may be hurt by people choosing to block ads, but they're not hurt by Adblock Plus offering them a chance to have their ads unblocked. And users aren't hurt either, as if they don't like the whitelisting they can simply turn it off. It seems to me that if you're ok with adblocking, there's no reason to protest ABP's whitelisting practices.