Ahhh I see, so it's like a blacklist paired with a whitelist. I missed that sites not found on the first list would be unrestricted. Thanks for the explanation
What would be interesting is that we move away from domain blacklists (e.g. adblocks, /etc/hosts, pi hole, etc.) to domain/ips whitelists (like firewalls).
Does this allow whitelisting as well as blacklisting? Chrome has offered both for a long time, and I remember being surprised to learn that FF didn't offer either. It's a welcome change!
I wonder if it would be possible to make a whitelist blocker instead of just blacklist? I mean, if a certain domain is in the whitelisted list, you show only responses from whitelisted subdomains. If not, you fall back to blacklist.
By possible I do not mean technically possible, but feasible in the resources required maintaining the list as well as good enough user experience.
It can. Arguably however if you agree with the premise of the whitelist as beneficial and there is a fixed schedule of charges (ie no company is preferenced in charging) then to me it seems OK.
You can't have the whitelist without having ads/networks assessed to see if they meet the criteria. Even if you crowdsourced that [which probably wouldn't be objective enough] you'd need to administrate the whitelist and so you need some revenue to cover the overheads at least. Even automating it there's a cost in creating the code. It seems right to pass that cost on and the networks are the ones holding all the money.
You could have users pay for the whitelisting to avoid "misaligned incentives".
Indeed charging the companies for assessment gives an incentive to reject them so you can charge to assess them again ... 4) profit.
>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).
reply