[rickmb]

It is definitely optional: http://www.freenews.fr/spip.php?article12949 (even with my limited French I find the original text less confusing than google translate, ).

But yes, the fact that it's on by default is questionable.

However, most ISP-supplied consumer routers have firewall rules on by default, for very good reasons. Although I personally think this one should be opt-in, on by default is not necessarily evil in this particular use case.

Besides being a bit ham-fisted, there's nothing inherently wrong with an ISP offering filters against malicious content.

Also, with the user-accessible opt-out, it would even be legal under the Netherlands' much praised Net Neutrality law. Unlike most of these alarmist headlines, the ISP is not blocking anything.

[negrit]

Actually in France you can't control most ISP-supplied consumer routers. And for sure on this one you don't have the control at all. Source: i'm french.

[mddw]

Of course you can. You can even use your own router.

[bloubi]

Most ads are not malicious content at all. Wake up, the web has changed in 15 years. And like it or not, the whole web economy is based on advertising. Do you prefer to be charged 5 cents for every query on Google?

[anonymouz]

Anything that tracks me without my permission it is malicious. I view the web the way I want - and that includes using AdBlock, NoScript and RequestPolicy.

If it happens to be that enough people share that preference with me to make the current ad-ridden web unprofitable for many sites, well, then so be it. In that case a new model will appear in due time.

[jakobe]

I browsed the web for some time without ad blocker. I kept clicking on ads, because they featured a big green right arrow, that looked just like a "next page" button. These ads were clearly designed to mislead me, rather than inform me. This falls pretty much under what I consider a malicious ad.

The ad was served by Google.

[d0vs]

Of course it is. Blocking at the router level is still blocking. And the fact that it's on by default makes it only worse for websites depending on ad revenue.

[mtgx]

I you think this was done not because they are pissed off with Google, you are quite naive. This is very much an aggressive action against Google.

[aroberge]

It's not only Google ads that are blocked; almost all ads are blocked. So, it's not an agressive action against Google per se, contrary to what you may understand from that very incomplete article.