[danielhgma]

> taking money to allow people to defeat the core purpose of your application.

Seriously. This is so bad for users

[epistasis]

Perhaps for you, but this does not subvert the core purpose of Crystal for me.

I will continue using Crystal, with the default option, since I don't mind seeing minimal, non-intrusive ads that don't completely disrupt my user experience. And I don't have a problem with responsible websites with responsible ads getting paid.

In fact, this option to have vetted ads is pretty much ideal for me!

Edit: I'm curious, why do people dislike my preference here? I'm not saying anybody else has to like Crystal, just that it's matches my desires.

[nugget]

Vetted or acceptable ads is a fake narrative - a smokescreen - it's just a way for these adblock apps to extort ad networks for a payout. In the article it mentions that hundreds of companies including all the big search and display networks, and all of the big native ad networks, are included on the whitelist. Who is left?

[epistasis]

While it could be a smokescreen, it certainly doesn't have to be a smokescreen. If it turns out that Crystal is letting intrusive ads through, then they're doing a bad job and I'll stop using it.

[nugget]

We already know who will be let through - the ABP whitelist is public. It's the majority of the ad tech world including the most intrusive native networks.

[epistasis]

I don't have much experience with ABP, but I'm also having difficulty finding complaints about intrusive ads getting through ABP.

Is this something that you've experienced personally, or is it just from the companies reputations that are on the whitelist?

[nugget]

I experienced it personally and switched from ABP to uBlock as a result.

[nosuchthing]

Seems almost like extortion.. the advertisers already paid for advertising but now Crystal demands additional payments from the advertisers or else it blocks the ads. The websites don't seem to get any additional payment from Crystal for this "vetting".

[epistasis]

It could seem like extortion, or it could seem like certification. Websites have proven that they're terrible at vetting ads for security and intrusiveness, they do not care about that. By paying a different company to perform the certification, then there's less of a conflict of interest.

Of course, this depends on trusting someone. Trust can be misplaced, but I already know I can't trust websites, so Im looking for someone else.

[manigandham]

The adblocker companies cant be trusted either since they only stand to gain from this behaviour. ABP makes tens of millions from this.

The only way trust works is if there's a neutral 3rd party that represents all sides and has respect.

[outericky]

Certification in your sense is conforming to a certain standard. This is extortion.

Basically "conforming" is paying. That's extortion. Pay are demands or no soup for you.