The thinking is that when something says it's an adblocker, it has one job - blocking ads. ABP doesn't do that, hiding behind the euphemism 'acceptable ads'. It would be ok if they promote it as a 'selective blocker' instead of 'adblocker'. It would also be ok if they say adblocker and the acc. ads thingy is opt-in. If Mozilla did something to highlight something that had one job to do and did it, I'm thankful.
P.S: Ublock Origin is not just an adblocker. It can block various types of content.
He doesn't pfft anything, that much is clear from the very first 2 paragraphs. Also this is from 2019, before M1. Next time, at least read a bit of the article.
AdBlock Plus seems to whitelist your ads if you pay them millions [1][2]. The euphemism ABP (and their parent company Eyeo) uses is 'acceptable ads'. Acceptable to Eyeo I guess. It's opt-out at the users end.
OP knows all about this [3][4].
I'm not a fan of some of Mozilla's policies but I'm thankful if it's true that Ublock Origin is shown preference over the shady, user-disrespecting ABP.
If the video was titled 'Why I love these old films', then your reply makes sense.