[BridgeRat]

Can you please ask Adobe to stop ramming the "Adobe Stock Metaverse Mix Collection" sidebar ad down our throats. This is the one with the flashing graphics on the head of a statue. I have to look away until it goes away because it is triggering photosensitive epilepsy.

I tried to opt-out but that did no good. I know this ad revenue keeps BBO going and I don't want to follow a legal path here - but I will if you can't make them get rid of it.

[diana_eva]

BridgeRat, on 2022-May-10, 09:02, said:

Can you please ask Adobe to stop ramming the "Adobe Stock Metaverse Mix Collection" sidebar ad down our throats. This is the one with the flashing graphics on the head of a statue. I have to look away until it goes away because it is triggering photosensitive epilepsy.

I tried to opt-out but that did no good. I know this ad revenue keeps BBO going and I don't want to follow a legal path here - but I will if you can't make them get rid of it.

We hid ads for your username, but this will only work when you are logged into our site. We show ads from google and similar ad networks, so the campaign itself, which isn't coming from a direct contract between Adobe and BBO, will continue to be displayed over the internet on other pages monetized with ads.

[mycroft]

Without BBO reporting these dangerous ads to those ad networks, they don't go away. Receivers of the ads have no pull whatever. Yes, you can't do anything with Adobe directly, but that shouldn't end your ability or responsibility.

I know that companies like BBO also have close to no pull whatever, but it's better than that of their customers, and there are records of BBO and others reporting dangerous (malware, popover, push out of boundaries) ads to the networks in the past to effect.

It is good that you have mitigated the effect for this user, but I'm sure they are not the only bridge player susceptible to photosensitive epileptic attacks. I know it may be fruitless, but the chance is better than if BridgeRat reports it.

I also agree that stopping it on BBO doesn't stop the rest of the internet from being a danger from it. However, reporting it to the ad networks is the only way to get it to be removed from the greater internet.

[mycroft]

No, I'm saying that dangerous ads need to be warned against, or reported to the network so they get fixed, just like ads with malware or ones that push themselves past their bounding boxes need to be. And that I realize that the chance of anything happening is small, but higher from BBO than from the target eyeballs.

Specifically, this "BBO Zealot" was saying that I really didn't think BBO had done all they should be doing, even if what they did do was a welcome, if temporary, solution.

Every audience production in the last 40 years has been required to put up a warning if they use strobes or other visuals that are known to trigger this condition. TV shows that have these kinds of effects are required to warn before the show, and after every ad break. It's not like it's new or rare. Why should advertisers be exempt from any consequences that everyone else is? When they fail, should those failures not be reported?

I believe you when you say that other things besides the Pokémon Effect can trigger this. Fine. I'm sure the warnings will be expanded as needed.

It's interesting you bring up peanut butter, alcohol, and cigarettes. All three are not allowed at the bridge table in my local clubs. The peanut butter specifically for *one* person - the other hundred or so have to live with it or leave.

I'm reminded of being asked "is there something flashing behind me?" when I forgot to start the clock, and *that* was setting off a photosensitive, 20 feet away. I'm not enamoured of the player in question, but I was *profusely apologetic*, and *immediately* did what I could to fix the problem.

[diana_eva]

mycroft, on 2022-May-11, 10:49, said:

I also agree that stopping it on BBO doesn't stop the rest of the internet from being a danger from it. However, reporting it to the ad networks is the only way to get it to be removed from the greater internet.

BBO uses very conservative filters for ads. We block a lot of ads that other websites find acceptable (dating is one example, but also flashy, moving banners, sound, video, ads that auto-play, ads that expand, etc).

We already reported that there is a campaign from Adobe that some of our users find too flashy, but it is unlikely that pinpointing and removing this particular campaign from BBO will propagate to the rest of the internet, since Adobe isn't a malicious advertiser. That's why I specified that it's unlikely for BBO's report to result in these ads being removed from elsewhere.

[mycroft]

Thank you Diana! All I wanted to see was "we reported it up the chain, [but don't expect much result]". That, to me, is BBO's responsibility to their users, not just "assist specific users when reported" - although that is also very good to see,

It wasn't clear from your first response, which is why I mentioned it. I felt uncomfortable doing so, especially as I know how effective it is likely to be as well,so I'm glad it was done and I just misread the report.

[diana_eva]

Yes, we always pass the complaints further, but google isn't very responsive so we're basically just waiting for the automatic scans and algorithms to kick in, while encouraging players to keep reporting the ads that are too disrupting.

Sometimes it's forbidden ads, clearly in violation of our existing filters and those are gone faster. Other times it's distasteful ads, so it's a bit of a grey area, even if they are gone from BBO they won't be gone from elsewhere.

[barmar]

I saw another annoying ad from Adobe a few days ago, with a bunch of colorful smiley faces swaying randomly. Hopefully these will get blocked as a group.