>whitelists advertisers if they are not too shitty.
I don't have any source with me right now, but I've heard that they only whitelist advertisers that pay them (I recall some people comparing this to blackmail).
I don't have any source with me right now, but I've heard that they only whitelist advertisers that pay them (I recall some people comparing this to blackmail).
https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization
TL;DR is that if by participating in the "Acceptable Ads" initiative the organization gains 10 million more ad impressions per month, then they have to pay. If they are "smaller" than that, it's free to them.
Everybody has to keep their ads acceptable, however; you can't bribe your way out of it.
Riiiiight.
On the other hand; it's blackmail. It also falls apart if there are too many competing services or people generally catch on and switch to another ad-blocker. Then companies either pay N-vetting services or their investment is completely wasted. The end result is an (arguably) overly-strict vetting service because people will switch if they don't block enough ads.
As a consumer; I just wanted an ad-blocker sooo....
But the fundamental idea of forcing ad networks to pay for vetting of their ads before they are shown seems very pro-consumer.