Yes we know of it. That's why we actively avoid it. It doesn't take many searches to figure out its downfalls. AdBlock, AdBlock Plus, and the non Origin uBlock are all owned by the same company and they allow corporations to pay to let ads through.

Adblock Plus is not recommended as by default it allows certain promoted ads to show if it deems them unobtrusive. I think they actually receive profits from ads, which is asinine for an adblocking entity.

On the other hand, uBlock does much more than just block ads. First of all, it blocks all ads, and it blocks other trackers and annoyances from Facebook, Google, as well as having the ability to add custom rules for bypassing certain types of popovers, and to clean up tracking data that often gets appended when you click a URL.

It was recommended until they changed their business model to charging advertisers to be allowed through the blocking because they were "the good type of advert"

Here is one reason.

https://uk.pcmag.com/web-sites/39469/adblock-plus-extortion-or-smart-business

UBO > AdBlock

There's a bunch of history there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#Controversies

Other folks who've commented on Adblock Plus have hit the important stuff. I just want to follow up with the comment that it also tends to bog down the browser after a certain point; browsing just got painfully slow on Firefox with it. I didn't bother troubleshooting it because that was around the same time they started allowing ads, so I bailed and didn't look back.

I used to use it, but switched away to uBo because abp didn't work properly