4 ms·

One of the problems there, is Google has locked this down. Chrome and Firefox warn users if they visit "deceptive websites", and disallow it. It's touted as pa

One of the problems there, is Google has locked this down. Chrome and Firefox warn users if they visit "deceptive websites", and disallow it. It's touted as part of their "safe browsing feature". What it means in practice though, is that if you use another ad network, and that ad network has an advert that Google dislike, they will block your website on Chrome,Firefox and Safari also uses it now I believe. They won't just block the advert, they will block your whole website. Getting unblocked takes ages, and is a complete pain, because google will not tell you which advert it objects to. So it's not a simple case of "Use other networks", because Google have thought about that, and locked it down. It's a big risk to use another ad network, because Google might just decide to block your website. The fact that Google now controls what websites users are allowed to visit, should ring alarm bells with everyone. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be reported on.

mercer 10y ago
> What it means in practice though, is that if you use another ad network, and that ad network has an advert that Google dislike, they will block your website on Chrome,Firefox and Safari also uses it now I believe. They won't just block the advert, they will block your whole website. Getting unblocked takes ages, and is a complete pain, because google will not tell you which advert it objects to. Does this actually happen? And if so, what about the advert does Google dislike? And if there is no good reason for this, how does Google get away with it?
- Tyr42 10y ago
  It's usually a legitimately harmful ad. Malware, adware or other bad stuff. But these slip through quality control of ad networks, even when they don't want them.
  - volatilitish 10y ago
    It's worse than that IMHO. They dislike "deceptive" adverts. So for example, if it's an image, saying "download" then Google will block your website. Who knows, maybe in the future they'll start banning websites that advertise gambling or other things they dislike. Now I do think that adverts like that are irritating, and deceptive, but should the website that happens to be using an ad-network, that allowed an advertiser to upload an image that says "download", be blocked so that users cannot access it from Chrome and firefox? Of course not. Censorship in browsers is just not a good thing going forward. And pretty much every ad-network (Even adsense) has problems keeping out bad adverts. I don't see why Google should penalise website owners for an advertising-industry-wide problem. IMHO It should be investigated by governments, as it's a clear case of using their muscle to retain their absolute monopoly of online advertising.
    - AlexandrB 10y ago
      > Now I do think that adverts like that are irritating, and deceptive, but should the website that happens to be using an ad-network, that allowed an advertiser to upload an image that says "download", be blocked so that users cannot access it from Chrome and firefox? Of course not. Why not? At least that would get websites to look at the ads their ad networks are serving up a little more than "not at all". Ultimately these ads would impact the site's brand even if browsers didn't block it, the damage would just be more subtle and easier to ignore. Until somebody in the ad delivery chain accepts responsibility for ad quality nothing is going to change. Publishers and websites have the most to lose here and should be demanding better from their ad networks.
      - volatilitish 10y ago
        So you want to squash the tiny amount of competition there is in the online advertising space? I think it would be fantastic to have a credible alternative to Google adsense, but there isn't one at the moment. Technically, a better approach would be for Google to block the advertisement or even the ad network. Blocking the website publisher is just bullying tactics.
- Kalium 10y ago
  "Dislike" often means "contains malware" or similar. Few ad networks are both sizable and very aggressive about policing.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Citation requested.

mercer 10y ago

> What it means in practice though, is that if you use another ad network, and that ad network has an advert that Google dislike, they will block your website on Chrome,Firefox and Safari also uses it now I believe. They won't just block the advert, they will block your whole website. Getting unblocked takes ages, and is a complete pain, because google will not tell you which advert it objects to. Does this actually happen? And if so, what about the advert does Google dislike? And if there is no good reason for this, how does Google get away with it?

Tyr42 10y ago
It's usually a legitimately harmful ad. Malware, adware or other bad stuff. But these slip through quality control of ad networks, even when they don't want them.
- volatilitish 10y ago
  It's worse than that IMHO. They dislike "deceptive" adverts. So for example, if it's an image, saying "download" then Google will block your website. Who knows, maybe in the future they'll start banning websites that advertise gambling or other things they dislike. Now I do think that adverts like that are irritating, and deceptive, but should the website that happens to be using an ad-network, that allowed an advertiser to upload an image that says "download", be blocked so that users cannot access it from Chrome and firefox? Of course not. Censorship in browsers is just not a good thing going forward. And pretty much every ad-network (Even adsense) has problems keeping out bad adverts. I don't see why Google should penalise website owners for an advertising-industry-wide problem. IMHO It should be investigated by governments, as it's a clear case of using their muscle to retain their absolute monopoly of online advertising.
  - AlexandrB 10y ago
    > Now I do think that adverts like that are irritating, and deceptive, but should the website that happens to be using an ad-network, that allowed an advertiser to upload an image that says "download", be blocked so that users cannot access it from Chrome and firefox? Of course not. Why not? At least that would get websites to look at the ads their ad networks are serving up a little more than "not at all". Ultimately these ads would impact the site's brand even if browsers didn't block it, the damage would just be more subtle and easier to ignore. Until somebody in the ad delivery chain accepts responsibility for ad quality nothing is going to change. Publishers and websites have the most to lose here and should be demanding better from their ad networks.
    - volatilitish 10y ago
      So you want to squash the tiny amount of competition there is in the online advertising space? I think it would be fantastic to have a credible alternative to Google adsense, but there isn't one at the moment. Technically, a better approach would be for Google to block the advertisement or even the ad network. Blocking the website publisher is just bullying tactics.
Kalium 10y ago
"Dislike" often means "contains malware" or similar. Few ad networks are both sizable and very aggressive about policing.

dredmorbius 10y ago

Citation requested.