Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 982364
Replace adblock plus by adblock edge or another abp fork
Last modified: 2015-06-29 08:03:38 EDT
Description of problem: Due to recent controversy about Adblock Plus and their business model which make clear that Adblock Plus obviously is not an ad-blocker in the first place but a ad-seller, So i request replacing adblock plus by adblock edge or another non controversial adblock plus fork which is missing the "acceptable ads" feature. [1] http://www.h-online.com/newsticker/news/item/Serious-accusations-against-AdBlock-Plus-1897360.html [2] http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/5/4496852/adblock-plus-eye-google-whitelist [3] http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/adblock-plus-accused-of-shaking-down-websites/
Not 100% sure this is still the case but for what's it worth: The fedora package I created had the acceptable ads feature disabled as I did consider this ripe for abuse. Not glad to see though that I was right. If this is still the case for the current packages, the controversy is not relevant for us, is it? How is adblock edge featurewise? What other fork is sensible?
IMHO it's still relevant because the feature itself is still present even if its disabled by default. And since this controversity started adblock plus and the Eyeos GmbH are discredited and lost a huge amount of trustworthiness. So from this point of view adblock plus should be either replaced by one of it's forks or adblock edge should land in fedoras repositories as an alternative to adblock plus. I'm using adblock edge so I can only talk about this fork. ABE doesn't have the acceptable ads feature at all. It's completely removed from the sourcecode.
The "non-intrusive ads" feature really does not bother me. I wholeheartedly agree with it. Once ad companies get it through their heads that we don't *want* intrusive advertising, maybe they'll switch to non-intrusive stuff like AdWords does. However, if the project is asking for money to be on the whitelist, this does raise serious ethical concerns. I propose making a new package for AdBlock Edge. I think this one should stay around for those who don't mind the feature.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 20 development cycle. Changing version to '20'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora20
This message is a reminder that Fedora 20 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 20. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '20'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 20 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 20 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-06-23. Fedora 20 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.