This is simply not good enough. I chose Crystal from a list of 10 or so "Content Blockers" primarily to stop the irritating ads I get on various websites as well as to speed up my experience on mobile. After reading about these changes that Crystal will apparently be incorporating in "6-10 weeks time", and thinking over it since last night......I'm not impressed on various layers.
Firstly, I do understand that these "acceptable-ads" whitelisted sites can be turned off, so at least there is an option there, but it's on by default, so you are effectively stating that your APP has changed to be supported by an organisation that determines what ads are acceptable or not and they are paying Crystal to have this installed as default on the APP. Thats just wrong. Secondly, the developer-trust that anyone had with owners of the APP has been lost, and we, as owners of the APP, are now not sure what Crystal is allowing through the net unbeknown to us.
Now here is the big one. We, as owners of our devices, should be making the decision as to what is acceptable and not. I understand that a full out assault on online advertising isn't what I want, but I do want to see a push towards better advertising and less obtrusive advertsing overall, especially on mobile platforms where data usage counts. By being able to determine what we want to see on sites at a personal level and being able to make the decision ourselves is an important point of this whole "Content Blocking" episode.
In short, I will be asking for a refund of my 79p and will no look for a new content blocker to use, ideally one where I can "whitelist" specific content on my favourite sites, that is until we see a change in the way websites in general deal with advertising.
So you build a moat where people used to just walk across freely, then you build a bridge over the moat and charge people who want to go across the bridge. In what way is this not extortion?
No, it's quite a bit worse, actually. This is more like a private security company charging burglars for exclusive access to your home.
Outbound Firewall = Reason my iDevices stay jailbroken.
It will adress this problem and the one nobody is talking about: apps connecting to various internet adresses when there is no obvious technical reason to do so.
Makes me angry when apps I payed for try to track me via Flurry, Criteo, Google Analytics or others...
Unfortunately, by jailbreaking your phone you've made it substantially more vulnerable to malware than the worst advertisers and trackers could ever do.
This is a rather sleazy business practice because it places control into those who are willing to pony up the most cash. Oh wait, that's called capitalism. Dammit. Vote with your wallet on this one.
The developer on Twitter said whitelisting sites will also be an option in future update. So I guess three options (block all ads, all only ads that we think are acceptable, and allow ad on websites the user specify) is bad.
^^^ BS pure and simple! Because he's been duly lynched and tossed in the river by now... so he could't possibly have tweeted anything from the dead. /s
Wow! I was just going to post to AI about considering more negativity (haven't the slightest idea what I was thinking here!???) in their posts, because it's been proven that click rates are highest on *controversial topics.
I just got PIPPED to the extreme :wow:
*** Controversial topics including those that:
a) purposely put relevant info at the bottom of a post;
b) count on readers not to get that far because they're already screaming in rage, tears of indignation in their eyes, and can't wait to "roid rage" in the comments;
c) guessing that readers are so moralistic that a free app, let alone one that costs $1, is worth going to all out thermonuclear war and "killing" people over (not to be taken lightly that someone is getting mighty close to "doxing" the developer over AI's and their own moralist agendas here.);
All in all... pretty sad that it's come to this. That the vast majority of people/businesses only apply free-market economics and thinking (capitalism) when it benefits themselves. Otherwise they use their other "rights" to go on massive mob lynchings before knowing all of the facts nor considering a different, silent, and often more civilized approach.
Edited: Scratch-thru above - not the right words to describe my intentions, since AI seems to do a good job of "taking a stand" already. Although I think they miss DED..(?!)
This is a rather sleazy business practice because it places control into those who are willing to pony up the most cash. Oh wait, that's called capitalism. Dammit. Vote with your wallet on this one.
I love people who still think the word "capitalism" automatically makes any practice or activity acceptable. I think four decades of economic instability and skyrocketing income and wealth inequality have put that notion to rest.
Unfortunately, by jailbreaking your phone you've made it substantially more vulnerable to malware than the worst advertisers and frackers could ever do.
I am fully aware of the risks jailbreaking imposes and how to protect against them.
Just for the sake of clarity, visit http://murphyapps.co and scroll down to 'On Acceptable Ads'. Here, Dean Murphy states very clearly what will be changing and the control the user will have. I've not made up my mind yet as to whether I agree with his stance or not but I'm swaying towards keeping Crystal.
For all those folks posting stuff like "content isn't free" I guess don't understand the process of use an iPhone, or iPad. Let's get the facts straight. This internet usage on a MOBILE device is not EQUAL to a laptop or desktop computer. There should be 100% complete ability to block ads, no questions asked, and no lame comment condemning the idea. WHY?
"...Think of it this way: if a publisher sends me a magazine with lots of ads, the sender pays the postage. Auto-play a video ad over my mobile connection, and the advertiser has cost me time and money (in the form of data usage). Mobile web ads not only request your attention, they also use your data. Serve me enough ads, and my bandwidth bill goes up.
In a world with unlimited data and no network capacity constraints, mobile ads wouldn't be a problem. But that's not the world we currently live in. Customers pay for mobile data plans. And companies pay for local network capacity in the form of routers, switches, and cables. Hence, one appeal of ad blockers: block the ads, and you reduce network load..."
This is why this story is so sickening. YES, these COSTS money to run those ads... They're taking out of my pocket WITHOUT my PERMISSION. Let the advertiser PAY ME for my BANDWIDTH... and then we can talk about "paying for content".... otherwise, keep your "it's all about capitalism to yourselves" because as a God-Loving Capitalist myself, you give it a bad name. This isn't "capitalism", it's highway robbery. There's a difference.
Just for the sake of clarity, visit http://murphyapps.co and scroll down to 'On Acceptable Ads'. Here, Dean Murphy states very clearly what will be changing and the control the user will have. I've not made up my mind yet as to whether I agree with his stance or not but I'm swaying towards keeping Crystal.
Instead of just a "user managed whitelist" of websites, there should be user managed whitelists and blacklists of advertisers and/or advertising networks, and a way to directly select a specific ad/screen element and add it to either list.
Regarding his criteria for "acceptable ads":
Acceptable Ads are not annoying.
Acceptable Ads do not disrupt or distort the page content we're trying to read.
Acceptable Ads are transparent with us about being an ad.
Acceptable Ads are effective without shouting at us.
Acceptable Ads are appropriate to the site that we are on.
He needs to add a few more:
6. Acceptable Ads do not track your online activities without your explicit consent.
7. Acceptable Ads respect a user's "right to be forgotten" and provide a simple, transparent, and obvious means for doing so.
8. Acceptable Ads do not consume more than a few kilobytes of bandwidth per page.
9. Acceptable Ads are not to exceed one or two per page.
10. Acceptable Ads are determined based on the end user's interests, not those of the ad network, content publisher, or app developer.
thats never going to happen. Because Google is the one paying big bucks to eyeo and crystal. Without tracking Google is worthless.
I am neither interested in nor responsible for protecting Google's business model. Any app developer claiming to offer a content blocking/privacy feature for its users must prioritize the user over the advertiser. The interests of the user and the publisher should completely override the interests of the advertisers and ad networks. The latter should only be accommodated to the extent necessary to generate needed revenue for the publisher, and therefore content for the user. If this cannot be done without harming the user's interests, then a different advertiser and/or ad network should be sought.
It's interesting to note that the Safari browser has had a content blocker of sorts for years. It's called Reader mode. For most websites, it completely hides all advertising and other distracting nonsense and presents the user with the content itself in a clear, attractive, and highly readable format.
Here's a page with and without Reader mode engaged:
The reason why none of the publishers or ad networks have complained about this is that the ads and trackers are still loaded in the background, so they get to charge advertisers as if the ads were displayed to the user when in fact they were hidden. So yeah, that's yet another layer of the web of deceit that surrounds the online advertising business.
Problem is Google is the one that has the $$ to pay eyeo/crystal.
The crystal FAQ says that most advertiers don't pay to be whitelisted. Only a few BIG advertisers (Google). See below:
"I have no involvement with the whitelist directly - however Around 90% of websites on the Eyeo Acceptable Ads whitelist do not pay a fee to be included, only the absolute largest companies pay for inclusion, assuming they meet the criteria of course. "
That's Google. There is a reason why the acceptable ads do not include do not track.
Technically, they are not paying 'to be whitelisted' - they pay once their ads or style of ads have been accepted.
Problem is Google is the one that has the $$ to pay eyeo/crystal.
The crystal FAQ says that most advertiers don't pay to be whitelisted. Only a few BIG advertisers (Google)
Yes, and that is the very root of the online advertising problem. Most websites have developed a high operational overhead that can only be financed by the most egregious ad networks, of which Google is the most prominent. So we can all expect a continuing battle between consumers and advertisers in a never-ending cat and mouse game. Ad blockers represent the latest round, and consumers would be foolish to let their guard down by embracing those whose developers are in bed with advertisers.
Thats why Apple needs to take the kid gloves off and develop their own ad blocker exclusive for iOS.
If Apple cares about customer experience they should. Apple has no conflicts of interest like Google, Crystal, or Eyeo. The goodwill they get from blocking tracking and obnoxious ads will be much more valuable then the hate they will face from the media.
The Apple Ad-blocker should block all tracking, spying, and abnoxious ads by default. There should be an additional option to block all ads. Websites will survive. Because no ad-blocker can block native ads.
Apple has already provided developers with everything they need to produce a good ad blocker. They just need a little time to do it right, in a way that provides user with easier control over what is blocked and what is not. For Apple to take this on internally would potentially expose them to anti-trust scrutiny plus then they would be the ones mired in the cat and mouse game with advertisers.
Ah so you're all in favor of a free market when it favors businesses wielding unfair advantage over consumers, but you draw the line when the tables are turned and consumers fight back by exercising their first amendment rights to free speech?
Obviously you don't understand how the FREE-market works, because you don't even need to use your right to free speech at all to counter bad business practices... and specifically not this one.
It's called the free choice to ask for and receive a refund, and walk away to another business (app) that suits your needs.
Pulling out a developer/business person to the town square and flogging them (or worse, like doxing them and calling the wrath of the crazies upon them) is superfluous and unnecessary... and dare I say as primitive thinking as the religious nuts around the world for not "believing" properly.
In addition specifically to this case, Apple still hasn't paid the developer yet since the sales are held in reserve... plus Apple gives you the consumer the FREE speech opportunity to vote and to review apps... for the World of Apple Fans and Customers to make an informed choice.
Some here have went the Apple vote/review route, but decided to also go "über insulted", overboard, and over indulgent in their attributions of shame-n-blame, because technically, he hasn't done ANYTHING WRONG yet! Please read the article to the end.
Comments
This is simply not good enough. I chose Crystal from a list of 10 or so "Content Blockers" primarily to stop the irritating ads I get on various websites as well as to speed up my experience on mobile. After reading about these changes that Crystal will apparently be incorporating in "6-10 weeks time", and thinking over it since last night......I'm not impressed on various layers.
Firstly, I do understand that these "acceptable-ads" whitelisted sites can be turned off, so at least there is an option there, but it's on by default, so you are effectively stating that your APP has changed to be supported by an organisation that determines what ads are acceptable or not and they are paying Crystal to have this installed as default on the APP. Thats just wrong. Secondly, the developer-trust that anyone had with owners of the APP has been lost, and we, as owners of the APP, are now not sure what Crystal is allowing through the net unbeknown to us.
Now here is the big one. We, as owners of our devices, should be making the decision as to what is acceptable and not. I understand that a full out assault on online advertising isn't what I want, but I do want to see a push towards better advertising and less obtrusive advertsing overall, especially on mobile platforms where data usage counts. By being able to determine what we want to see on sites at a personal level and being able to make the decision ourselves is an important point of this whole "Content Blocking" episode.
In short, I will be asking for a refund of my 79p and will no look for a new content blocker to use, ideally one where I can "whitelist" specific content on my favourite sites, that is until we see a change in the way websites in general deal with advertising.
Stop using "Adblock Plus" ... the rest will be taken care of!
No, it's quite a bit worse, actually. This is more like a private security company charging burglars for exclusive access to your home.
Unfortunately, by jailbreaking your phone you've made it substantially more vulnerable to malware than the worst advertisers and trackers could ever do.
This is a rather sleazy business practice because it places control into those who are willing to pony up the most cash. Oh wait, that's called capitalism. Dammit. Vote with your wallet on this one.
^^^ BS pure and simple! Because he's been duly lynched and tossed in the river by now... so he could't possibly have tweeted anything from the dead. /s
Wow! I was just going to post to AI about considering
more negativity(haven't the slightest idea what I was thinking here!???) in their posts, because it's been proven that click rates are highest on *controversial topics.I just got PIPPED to the extreme :wow:
*** Controversial topics including those that:
a) purposely put relevant info at the bottom of a post;
b) count on readers not to get that far because they're already screaming in rage, tears of indignation in their eyes, and can't wait to "roid rage" in the comments;
c) guessing that readers are so moralistic that a free app, let alone one that costs $1, is worth going to all out thermonuclear war and "killing" people over (not to be taken lightly that someone is getting mighty close to "doxing" the developer over AI's and their own moralist agendas here.);
All in all... pretty sad that it's come to this. That the vast majority of people/businesses only apply free-market economics and thinking (capitalism) when it benefits themselves. Otherwise they use their other "rights" to go on massive mob lynchings before knowing all of the facts nor considering a different, silent, and often more civilized approach.
Edited: Scratch-thru above - not the right words to describe my intentions, since AI seems to do a good job of "taking a stand" already. Although I think they miss DED..(?!)
This is a rather sleazy business practice because it places control into those who are willing to pony up the most cash. Oh wait, that's called capitalism. Dammit. Vote with your wallet on this one.
I love people who still think the word "capitalism" automatically makes any practice or activity acceptable. I think four decades of economic instability and skyrocketing income and wealth inequality have put that notion to rest.
Unfortunately, by jailbreaking your phone you've made it substantially more vulnerable to malware than the worst advertisers and frackers could ever do.
I am fully aware of the risks jailbreaking imposes and how to protect against them.Just for the sake of clarity, visit http://murphyapps.co and scroll down to 'On Acceptable Ads'. Here, Dean Murphy states very clearly what will be changing and the control the user will have. I've not made up my mind yet as to whether I agree with his stance or not but I'm swaying towards keeping Crystal.
"...Think of it this way: if a publisher sends me a magazine with lots of ads, the sender pays the postage. Auto-play a video ad over my mobile connection, and the advertiser has cost me time and money (in the form of data usage). Mobile web ads not only request your attention, they also use your data. Serve me enough ads, and my bandwidth bill goes up.
In a world with unlimited data and no network capacity constraints, mobile ads wouldn't be a problem. But that's not the world we currently live in. Customers pay for mobile data plans. And companies pay for local network capacity in the form of routers, switches, and cables. Hence, one appeal of ad blockers: block the ads, and you reduce network load..."
This is why this story is so sickening. YES, these COSTS money to run those ads... They're taking out of my pocket WITHOUT my PERMISSION. Let the advertiser PAY ME for my BANDWIDTH... and then we can talk about "paying for content".... otherwise, keep your "it's all about capitalism to yourselves" because as a God-Loving Capitalist myself, you give it a bad name. This isn't "capitalism", it's highway robbery. There's a difference.
Will you knee-jerk morons please read before commenting.
Just for the sake of clarity, visit http://murphyapps.co and scroll down to 'On Acceptable Ads'. Here, Dean Murphy states very clearly what will be changing and the control the user will have. I've not made up my mind yet as to whether I agree with his stance or not but I'm swaying towards keeping Crystal.
Instead of just a "user managed whitelist" of websites, there should be user managed whitelists and blacklists of advertisers and/or advertising networks, and a way to directly select a specific ad/screen element and add it to either list.
Regarding his criteria for "acceptable ads":
He needs to add a few more:
6. Acceptable Ads do not track your online activities without your explicit consent.
7. Acceptable Ads respect a user's "right to be forgotten" and provide a simple, transparent, and obvious means for doing so.
8. Acceptable Ads do not consume more than a few kilobytes of bandwidth per page.
9. Acceptable Ads are not to exceed one or two per page.
10. Acceptable Ads are determined based on the end user's interests, not those of the ad network, content publisher, or app developer.
thats never going to happen. Because Google is the one paying big bucks to eyeo and crystal. Without tracking Google is worthless.
I am neither interested in nor responsible for protecting Google's business model. Any app developer claiming to offer a content blocking/privacy feature for its users must prioritize the user over the advertiser. The interests of the user and the publisher should completely override the interests of the advertisers and ad networks. The latter should only be accommodated to the extent necessary to generate needed revenue for the publisher, and therefore content for the user. If this cannot be done without harming the user's interests, then a different advertiser and/or ad network should be sought.
It's interesting to note that the Safari browser has had a content blocker of sorts for years. It's called Reader mode. For most websites, it completely hides all advertising and other distracting nonsense and presents the user with the content itself in a clear, attractive, and highly readable format.
Here's a page with and without Reader mode engaged:
The reason why none of the publishers or ad networks have complained about this is that the ads and trackers are still loaded in the background, so they get to charge advertisers as if the ads were displayed to the user when in fact they were hidden. So yeah, that's yet another layer of the web of deceit that surrounds the online advertising business.
Problem is Google is the one that has the $$ to pay eyeo/crystal.
The crystal FAQ says that most advertiers don't pay to be whitelisted. Only a few BIG advertisers (Google). See below:
"I have no involvement with the whitelist directly - however Around 90% of websites on the Eyeo Acceptable Ads whitelist do not pay a fee to be included, only the absolute largest companies pay for inclusion, assuming they meet the criteria of course. "
That's Google. There is a reason why the acceptable ads do not include do not track.
Technically, they are not paying 'to be whitelisted' - they pay once their ads or style of ads have been accepted.
Problem is Google is the one that has the $$ to pay eyeo/crystal.
The crystal FAQ says that most advertiers don't pay to be whitelisted. Only a few BIG advertisers (Google)
Yes, and that is the very root of the online advertising problem. Most websites have developed a high operational overhead that can only be financed by the most egregious ad networks, of which Google is the most prominent. So we can all expect a continuing battle between consumers and advertisers in a never-ending cat and mouse game. Ad blockers represent the latest round, and consumers would be foolish to let their guard down by embracing those whose developers are in bed with advertisers.
Technically, they are not paying 'to be whitelisted' - they pay once their ads or style of ads have been accepted.
Perhaps, but the criteria for "acceptable ads" only addresses some of the complaints, ignoring questions of privacy and bandwidth usage.
Thats why Apple needs to take the kid gloves off and develop their own ad blocker exclusive for iOS.
If Apple cares about customer experience they should. Apple has no conflicts of interest like Google, Crystal, or Eyeo. The goodwill they get from blocking tracking and obnoxious ads will be much more valuable then the hate they will face from the media.
The Apple Ad-blocker should block all tracking, spying, and abnoxious ads by default. There should be an additional option to block all ads. Websites will survive. Because no ad-blocker can block native ads.
Apple has already provided developers with everything they need to produce a good ad blocker. They just need a little time to do it right, in a way that provides user with easier control over what is blocked and what is not. For Apple to take this on internally would potentially expose them to anti-trust scrutiny plus then they would be the ones mired in the cat and mouse game with advertisers.
Obviously you don't understand how the FREE-market works, because you don't even need to use your right to free speech at all to counter bad business practices... and specifically not this one.
It's called the free choice to ask for and receive a refund, and walk away to another business (app) that suits your needs.
Pulling out a developer/business person to the town square and flogging them (or worse, like doxing them and calling the wrath of the crazies upon them) is superfluous and unnecessary... and dare I say as primitive thinking as the religious nuts around the world for not "believing" properly.
In addition specifically to this case, Apple still hasn't paid the developer yet since the sales are held in reserve... plus Apple gives you the consumer the FREE speech opportunity to vote and to review apps... for the World of Apple Fans and Customers to make an informed choice.
Some here have went the Apple vote/review route, but decided to also go "über insulted", overboard, and over indulgent in their attributions of shame-n-blame, because technically, he hasn't done ANYTHING WRONG yet! Please read the article to the end.