We just launched almost exactly what you describe. It is called FairBlocker. An ad blocker with a monthly subscription fee (of your choice), which we then split up among the sites where ads are blocked.
We're looking for feedback from people who get the problem - what do you think? Feel free to email me directly if you want: zack@fairblocker.com
It sounds like the only way you could possibly implement this is by having ad networks sell ad blocking. However, there are too many ad networks for this to be viable.
The next step in the arms race is to provide hosted ad blocking, where the action happens (however nested) in a headless server and an AI looks it over and relays only the stuff that looks like content into a cleaned up session for the user. It would eventually start looking like a CDN where the ad blocker caches the content so it doesn't have to bother contacting the underlying site so often.
I'd love an adblocker with a blacklist instead of whitelist so I could keep the ads on for the long tail of my browsing and remove them only on sites that go overboard.
I posted this on Reddit when I saw this article there: I'd really love a process by which you can automatically say 'I block these types of ads', and the site can choose to serve you content or not based on that. What we have at the moment, where a lot of people get harangued by malicious advertisements, and a lot of people block even the most harmless ad content, is a really unfair to both sides. A way to auto-negotiate what you're willing to 'pay' would be excellent. As things stand, I don't block ads, but I'd really like to be able to block the worst of them without screwing people over.
This would also separate out the people who are legitimately concerned about malware and excessively intrusive ads from those (sadly, I suspect, the majority) who simply don't want to pay for others' work.
Yes, using an ad-blocker list is exactly what I was planning. Would then blacklist from the index any sites that serve ads. Would prolly also at a minimum, heavily penalize affiliate links.
Not that this really does this, but I would be all for a better adblocking tool that did communicate back to whatever adhosting company presented ads on a page.
If I opt in to allow my browsing behavior to help improve the sites I visit, I am presented the ads.
When I click to disable an ad, I am presented some options:
* The content is not relevant to me or the topic
* The ad is intrusive or hurts my experience on the site
Then let me decide to block all ads on the site, just this ad, or these types (e.g. popovers) on the site.
The data can then be relayed back (again, I opted in) to the ad company and the site's owners and they might even be allowed to see browsing behavior that shows how much time you spend on the site.
It could be a clear message to advertisers and content providers about the amount of revenue they are missing out on and why.
Ok, so of all the replies here, this is the first I've read that's actually raised a really good point. Simply blocking requests will make ad block detection easier for Websites. Then again, this seems to be pretty prevalent already (as in lots of sites I visit already detect this).
Seems to me this functionality could be wrapped up in a web proxy. The proxy can pretend to allow all the ads, and simply drop them on the way to clients. Of course this doesn't deal with the issue of ads soaking up a bunch of bandwidth.
I get tired of installing ad blockers on every machine/device in the house, and on some machines use multiple different browsers -- I'm suffering from blocker installation fatigue.
What if there was a version an offensive version of AdBlocker? Instead of just hiding ads it would simulate clicks based on your individual preferences.
E.g. hit insurance company that is not paying for their claims.
That's a really intrusive, dangerous way of implementing ad blocking, though. Much better to have that functionality live in the browser itself (or an extension).
This is a really clever way to effect this result, but still presents the two classic issues with anti-adblock methods:
1) distorts the ad marketplace, resulting in impressions that may be paid and not seen, or seen and not paid, and;
2) anti-consumer experience, as the consumer expects no ads.
Disclosure: Years ago I cofounded a company that offers a private ad exchange to large sites, and recently released a Subscriptions service that is able to blank out ads with good technical hygiene for paying subscribers. [1]
We're looking for feedback from people who get the problem - what do you think? Feel free to email me directly if you want: zack@fairblocker.com
reply