AdDetector will make sure you never mistake a sponsored story for a real one

[Victorious Secret]

 

 

 

Death to sponsored posts that don't disclose their sponsoredness. Or something. Maybe this should roll into ADP for extra luls. 

 

 

 

Sponsored news stories — or what are more politely known as "native ads" — are becoming a fixture of the web, yet it isn't always so easy to tell when an article is sponsored. Google engineer Ian Webster is now trying to solve that problem with a browser extension called AdDetector, which searches out native ads and drops a bright red bar over the top of the page announcing that what you're viewing is a paid promotion. The extension doesn't work flawlessly, but it did detect most of the sponsored pages that I tested it on. It's been set up to work with a close to 50 sites already, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BuzzFeed, several Gawker Media sites, and two Vox Media sites, including The Verge.

 

 

http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/21/6052875/addetector-chrome-firefox-extension-labels-native-ads

[Murdoch]

This article is an advertisement paid for by Ad Detector. 

[WereCat]

This article is an advertisement paid for by Ad Detector. 

This comment is advertisment paid by aesrock.

 

But seriously

I find this useless as I dont care who is sponsoring who. I allow ads on sites I like and block them on sites I dont like.

[Murdoch]

But seriously

I find this useless as I dont care who is sponsoring who. I allow ads on sites I like and block them on sites I dont like.

 

If people don't want to pay for news. Publications have to source revenue somewhere. This is the result of that.

 

If anybody cared, they'd be buying newspapers again. Or subscribing to online services for their news.

[gastew15]

This comment is advertisment paid by aesrock.

 

But seriously

I find this useless as I dont care who is sponsoring who. I allow ads on sites I like and block them on sites I dont like.

I would assume that it's not for blocking the, but for telling you that it's sponsored, so it may be biased.

[Deletive]

I don't care who the ad is paid by. I'll just hate them moree

[Murdoch]

We already pay for the internet so why to allow distractive website to hollow our entertainment? I disagree.

 

What?

 

How does paying for the internet pay for journalists? The rest of the gibberish I can't even fathom.

 

The point is, the public isn't willing to pay for journalists, or 'traditional printed press'. Advertisers however are willing to pay for sponsored content, or native advertisements. If it's a case of accepting this money or not having a business model at all, it's pretty obvious they'd have to accept it.

 

Collectively as a society, we've decided news isn't worth paying for, thus this is the result. An influx of advertisements masked as stories, or stories sponsored by advertisers, or stories embedded with advertisements.

 

#wedonotlog

[StingBull]

I thought FCC regulations said that you absolutely MUST disclose that you are being sponsored.

[Xorbot]

 

 

[AdDetector] This forum thread is an advertisement paid for by [AdDetector]  x

[LAwLz]

That's pretty useful. I think this should be something offered by the website though and not an addon. You shouldn't hide the fact that what the users are viewing is an ad. If you're running for example a news site then you should even think of trying to trick people.

[Builder]

That's pretty useful. I think this should be something offered by the website though and not an addon. You shouldn't hide the fact that what the users are viewing is an ad. If you're running for example a news site then you should even think of trying to trick people.

In general they don't, they just put advertisement at the bottom in tiny print.

[colonel_mortis]

For anyone who may be interested, the supported sites, based on the github code, are:

• ad-assets.nytimes.com
• betabeat.com
• blogs.vancouversun.com
• business.time.com
• buzzfeed.com
• businessinsider.com
• chicagotribune.com
• content.time.com
• curbed.com
• deadspin.com
• denverpost.com
• digiday.com
• ew.com
• fastcompany.com
• foodandwine.com
• forbes.com
• fortune.com
• gawker.com
• gigaom.com
• girlinthelittleredkitchen.com
• homes.yahoo.com
• huffingtonpost.com
• hollywoodlife.com
• innovationinsights.wired.com
• latimes.com
• lifehacker.com
• mashable.com
• mediaite.com
• money.msn.com
• newsweek.com
• nydailynews.com
• nypost.com
• on.aol.com
• online.wsj.com
• paidpost.nytimes.com
• pando.com
• pcworld.com
• refinery29.com
• screen.yahoo.com
• slate.com
• stylemepretty.com
• suntimes.com
• theatlantic.com
• theawl.com
• thekitchn.com
• theonion.com
• theverge.com
• thewrap.com
• usatoday.com
• vanityfair.com
• ianww.com
• venturebeat.com
• washingtonpost.com
• wired.com

[WereCat]

I would assume that it's not for blocking the, but for telling you that it's sponsored, so it may be biased.

Sorry for miss understanding. I was thinking that if I have AdBlock enabled then AdDetector would not work. That's why I was saying that if I have AdBlock disabled on those sites I wish support then it would make AdDetector useless in most cases. However if it works even though AdBloxk is enabled then I can see use for it.

[pk-man]

For 5 EASY payments of $49.99, you can have this wonderful AdDetector that tells you if you reading a sponsored article.  If you call within the next 30 minutes, we'll double the offer and you'll get this extension for BOTH Chrome AND Firefox. So what are you waiting for??? CALL NOW

plus $39.99 shipping and handling

[SuperfastJellyfish]

But I use AdBlock.

[Redheadsrule13]

But I use AdBlock.

Damn, I would almost think you didn't read the post.

It's not for annoying popups or anything like that, it's for telling you when an article is actually sponsored by a company, possibly making it biased.

[mr moose]

We already pay for the internet so why to allow distractive website to hollow our entertainment? I disagree.

There is a big difference between paying for access to the internet and paying for services provided on the internet.

[Murdoch]

For those of you not really getting why this might be needed, John Oliver did a great overview on his show.