Should Adblock Plus ship standard by default?

[czr114]

Since Ubuntu aims to be "Linux for humans", with maximum usability from installation, should Adblock Plus ship standard, by default?

While it is trivial to install, some people not know how or not bother doing so.

Additionally, while a power user can have it installed and subscribed in maybe 2-3 minutes, defaulting it would eliminate a very common and very repetitive post-install task, potentially saving tens of thousands of cumulative man-hours.

A default status would also spur usage on live CDs, stock systems, and other unmodified configurations.

While I can't quantify the current adoption ratio, I have to believe that more users would prefer a clean web than a polluted web, if given the choice.

The major subscriptions are virtually free of false positives.

I can't see a compelling reason to not include it. The small portion of the userbase which prefers a web slathered in pollution can easily disable the add-on in less time than it takes the rest to install and enable it.

[kevin11951]

That would **** off almost everyone (in terms of business and OEMs). And since Canonical is beholden to businesses (as are all companies that do what they do), that may not be a good idea.

[FuturePilot]

While I really like AdBlock Plus I don't think it's the right place for the distro to be making that decision. Leave that up to the user.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Blocking ads just means web sites need to start charging you a subscription or do creepy things that involve selling your personal information.

[bigsmitty64]

while i really like adblock plus i don't think it's the right place for the distro to be making that decision. Leave that up to the user.
+1

[czr114]

That would **** off almost everyone (in terms of business and OEMs). And since Canonical is beholden to businesses (as are all companies that do what they do), that may not be a good idea.
That begs the question whether the distro is built for its users, or built for third-party advertisers. We're also doing a good job getting under the skin of Microsoft and malware authors - and that's a good thing.



Blocking ads just means web sites need to start charging you a subscription or do creepy things that involve selling your personal information.
It's already being done, because people are sick of advertising, both for its excesses, intrusiveness, as well as the propaganda/message it displays.

I don't know anybody, personally, who stills surfs without some form of protection from it.

[NightwishFan]

I use adblock without a blacklist, and block any ads I see that are obtrusive.

[malspa]

While I really like AdBlock Plus I don't think it's the right place for the distro to be making that decision. Leave that up to the user.

I have to agree with this. Personally, I wouldn't mind if Adblock Plus was a standard thing, but there are many people who feel that blocking ads is not a good thing. It should be opt-in, not opt-out.

[pwnst*r]

While I really like AdBlock Plus I don't think it's the right place for the distro to be making that decision. Leave that up to the user.

/thread

[czr114]

I have to agree with this. Personally, I wouldn't mind if Adblock Plus was a standard thing, but there are many people who feel that blocking ads is not a good thing. It should be opt-in, not opt-out.
But it's the advertising that's doing the intruding, not the Adblock, so shouldn't people have to opt-in to the advertising by disabling a default Adblock?

Years ago, we fought a hard fight to keep spammers from smooth talking the press and the ISPs into their world of opt-out email advertising. Had we lost that battle, email would be virtually unusable today.

The issue of the gross abuse of tracking beacons and behavioral profiling deserves a side discussion. While it isn't advertising, itself, it's pretty vile stuff, and the average user would need a techie and a lawyer to understand a site's privacy policy - and that's only after they've already loaded the page.

Most people don't know of the dark world behind the annoying, misleading banners themselves.

In many ways, a default block policy protects the naive or uninformed from falling prey to privacy intrusions, much as a default-block on .exe attachments over SMTP is necessary to protect users from marauding worms. Those who might need to send such a file can always zip it or change the extension. In that case, the balancing test would protect the innocent.

[malspa]

well, crz114, you asked the question, I answered with my opinion. I use Adblock, but I think it should be an option.

[Oxwivi]

If it is shipped by default, the user should be notified.

[handy]

Perhaps as a compromise it could be an included Bookmark link in the standard Ubuntu installation.

The name Adblock Plus, basically informs the uninitiated of what it does.

The uninitiated, then use the link to go to the Firefox Add-ons page for Adblock Plus, read a bit & push the "Add to Firefox" button, if it suits them & carry on from there.

[mick222]

Many websites including some Linux ones rely on advertising so I don't mind them if they are not to intrusive. The ones that really annoy me are the rollover ads in articles, as i tend to play with my mouse while reading.

[Giant Speck]

Let's just send one giant "eff you" to anyone with a website that actually needs the ad revenue to stay afloat.

[Oxwivi]

Well, many provide free services you can't blame them.

And if ABP is installed by default, at least EasyPrivacy should be included, with respect to OP's statements.

[Goldfissh]

A lot of websites need ad revenue to actually stay online. Installing Ad-Block stops people seeing these ads, cutting the funds the admins receive by a large amount.

Ad-Block is brilliant, but it should only be available to those who understand its use, and ultimately it should always be down to the individual to decide what they wish to install on their machine.

[Oxwivi]

The websites are at fault for the development of adblocks. The more obtrusive they became the more were the users motivated to block them. If they don't stop the obtrusive ads, it'll be their eventual downfall.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not generalising the websites, but obtrusive ads have been on the rise in general.

And the second issue is Flash and animated ads. Ads already bogs down on limited bandwidths, and even more so with Flash and other animations. And to my annoyance the ads are loaded before the actual content! Facebook is a prime example, just try running it when downloading an unrestricted torrent.

[m4tic]

Don't drag us into your world of paranoia.

[Oxwivi]

If I were paranoid, I wouldn't be able to use internet at all.