The big names in the internet would have reached into their wallets to try to remedy the problem blocking of banner ads present on the websites and activated by all those users who have installed the plug-in on their browser Adblock Plus.
It was the Financial Times to uncover Pandora's box by explaining how Google, Microsoft and Amazon would pay the developers of Eyeo, the company that created the plug-in much reviled by the big names on the web, to unblock advertisements. In practice, in the 'White list' (acceptable ads whitelist) where some sites and small companies that produce very limited volumes of advertising are already present for free, other sites are added for a fee (but it is not known at what figure). Unblocked for a fee, this is the substance of the business: legitimate according to current regulations even if not very transparent.
According to what the Financial Times has found, it seems that the owners of Eyeo have accepted the request of the internet giants but only for non-invasive advertising banners. The goal of the big names on the web is to recover a good portion of those 300 million users who use Adblock Plus and who today consider themselves protected by more invasive advertising.
In this story, each of the protagonists does not seem to make a good impression: the scene shows us the various Google, Amazon and Microsoft chasing after a team of developers, who put them in a lot of trouble by finding the antidote to the bombing of theonline advertising, in an attempt to convince them to loosen the blockade against the payment of a sum that we will obviously never know. So who is the good guy in this story? The giants of the web, Adblock or us surfers?
