30 ms·
Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
- axtscz 10y agoMy guess is that Google ads would be whitelisted?
- lucasmullens 10y agoThey're following a standard: https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/ Seems like a safe bet they wouldn't serve ads that would get blocked.
- whyleyc 10y agoExcept they don't follow that standard: http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-ads/ http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-...
- mpeg 10y agoSeems like you haven't read the better ad coalition standard, because it doesn't say anything about creative content – it's just about formats. And, honestly, that site is basically a south african blog; as much as I love picking a fight when it's due, I don't think Google is to blame here, but the advertisers targeting their core demographics.
- amelius 10y agoThat's a silly website. They only research different forms of ads, but they have (conveniently?) forgotten about user tracking.
- krackers 10y agoI suppose Google's own ad network will be unaffected, thereby "encouraging" sites to move to Google's network for a no-block guarantee?
- Sir_Substance 10y agoYup. I'm a big supporter of ad blockers, but this is a conflict of interest the size of Everest. If Google is really interested in ensuring good user experiences, they should work with the EFF to set up a fund of some kind to support this work, and then have EFF manage it.
- refulgentis 10y agoI'm not sure offering prime position to a relatively random tech foundation that Google donates to will play better than relying on an independent advertising industry group. Given. A choice between indiscriminate regulation by a foundation of my industry, and an independent organization of an industry choosing to self-regulate, companies should prefer the second.
- sowbug 10y agohttp://allthingsd.com/20120103/after-chrome-ads-flap-google-puts-itself-in-the-penalty-box/ http://allthingsd.com/20120103/after-chrome-ads-flap-google-...
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago2012 Google and 2017 Google are nearly two completely different companies, ethically.
- kenshaw 10y agoMy cynical side can't help but think they will do this first, then later disable uBlock / other ad blockers (or the APIs they rely on) and claim that "we can do it better." I can't imagine that this isn't a violation of some kind of law (RICO, antitrust, or otherwise), but I don't imagine this would ever be prosecuted.
- rileyteige 10y agoMy cynical side agrees with your cynical side, while my optimistic side thinks that a move like this would significantly boost market share for alternative browsers, myself included.
- nikkwong 10y agoWhy would end users opt for alternative browsers in this case? For end users this situation is a win: no more 'intrusive' ads. It only ends up being a loss for competing advertising platforms and possibly advertisers.
- thegayngler 10y agoI would like sites to remain free to use. Ads help support free to use sites or portions of sites.
- literallycancer 10y agoOr you could directly support the sites you like with the money you now waste on sub-optimal purchases caused by ads.
- ams6110 10y agoI pretty much use Firefox for everything anyway, except for Google Apps.
- lettergram 10y ago
- seibelj 10y agoAs someone who uses ublock origin and has been blocking ads for many years, I will consider turning it off if this is effective. My problem is not with ads themselves, it's with terrible ads.
- cpeterso 10y agoI don't mind ads; I just don't want clickbait crap about shocking celebrity photos and "deep searches" for local singles. <plug> So I created a minimal blocklist for the worst clickbait (mostly Outbrain and Taboola). The list is compatible with uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus. https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/ https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/ </plug>
- lettergram 10y agoGoogle owns the largest ad network... I can't imagine this will be effective, because Google can already do this if they wanted.
- GhotiFish 10y agosome terrible ads don't look terrible, but instead behave terribly. Violating your privacy, Consuming your bandwidth, ect. How would you recognize these except to audit them yourself? If you read the criteria from the coalition for better ads: ...the following types of ad experiences fell beneath the initial Better Ads Standard: pop-up ads, prestitial ads, ads with density greater than 30%, flashing animated ads, auto-play video ads with sound, poststitial ads with countdown, full-screen scrollover ads, and large sticky ads. In other words, privacy compromising is not considered bad behavior. Nor is exorbitant use of bandwidth, It seems their focus is merely on what the average consumer would consider toxic. same source as the story: https://www.betterads.org/coalition-for-better-ads-releases-initial-better-ads-standards-for-desktop-and-mobile-web/ https://www.betterads.org/coalition-for-better-ads-releases-...
- harwoodleon 10y agoThis is where it will fail (if indeed it is true). Privacy is not a massive concern for people, but it is a concern. It's enough of a concern for people to mistrust the brand serving the adverts - google. Considering how much google relies on its brand, trust is a big part of the reason why people entrust google with their often very private searches. People don't like advertising for lot of reasons, that's why they use ad blockers and not ad filters. This is why googles attempt to introduce a block on advertising is like a salesman attempting to stop people from cold calling.
- aanm1988 10y agoHow is it not a massive legal problem to have an ad company supplying the ad blocker, and deciding what gets blocked?
- refulgentis 10y agoThe whole "relying on an open standards organization" bit.
- kesor 10y agoI call bullshit.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago"How is it not" seems like a bad way to start a legal question, since everything is legal by default until someone passes a law prohibiting it. So there's usually no special reason at all for something to be legal.
- aanm1988 10y agoDid you understand the question? Yes? Then what does it matter?
- 65827 10y agoLooking forward to ublock origin no longer working in chrome on whatever pretense, that's obviously the end game here.
- vvggff 10y agoUse firefox?
- gavinpc 10y agoWho is clicking on these ads, anyway? I've never understood how this adds up to profit (for the advertisers).
- refulgentis 10y agoWith ~infinite inventory, there's ~infinite demand for ads, even crap ones that barely monetize.
- lucasmullens 10y agoA small percentage of users click ads that I assume make up for the users who don't. And for the record, I click ads sometimes. Mainly on Facebook, because they're impressively relevant. I've discovered quite a few apps and products that I like through ads.
- vkou 10y agoWho responds to Advance-fee scam emails? Most people don't. Enough do that make the practice profitable enough to fill our mailboxes with spam. The same applies to scummy web ads.
- mpeg 10y agoIt should be telling that generally most advertising is paid per impression, not per click (even when the advertiser pays per click, their cost per click is generally calculated from CTR and thus really a cost per impression) You might not click on the ads, but (if you're not blocking them) you're probably seeing them, and remembering some of them, and they influence you.
- GoToRO 10y agoMost people don't even recognize the ads. They don't understand what "sponsored" means for example (and it's implications; what?! people are paying money?). This is not because they are sd. They work in totally different domains and just like we don't know the latest things in those domains, they don't know the latest in ours.
- akerro 10y agoI do. Oh, not really me, but https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/ does it for me.
- aesthetics1 10y ago"In one possible application Google is considering, it may choose to block all advertising that appears on sites with offending ads, instead of the individual offending ads themselves. In other words, site owners may be required to ensure all of their ads meet the standards, or could see all advertising across their sites blocked in Chrome." I like this approach. It punishes site owners for running malicious or badly-behaved ads. I think this is a step forward. I hate blocking ads across the board - I just want to stop the intrusive and dangerous variety. I can tolerate the rest.
- ben_jones 10y agoWait doesn't google adsense occasionally server malicious ads? Especially if we extend the definition of 'malicious' to mean misleading spyware?
- OJFord 10y agoYes, but doesn't the 'occasionally' arise because Google does not want them, tries to avoid them, and removes them if it agrees with user reports?
- Klathmon 10y agoI like this approach as well. But sadly it will be fought by many who believe all ads to be "offending", and will declare Google as even more "evil" because of it. But I think this is a great step to stop the "race to the bottom". Right now there is no incentive for an ad network to make "well behaved" ads. Most of the "ad blocking crowd" will block them regardless of how nice they are, and advertisers will pay less for them, and site owners don't care because the money gets better the scummier the ads are. By auto-blocking sites with the worst offenders at the browser level they can start to push all sides toward wanting "better" ads. It gives networks, advertisers, and site owners all incentive to make sure their ads are unobtrusive and safe.
- aanm1988 10y agoOr it will be seen as another power grab by google. I'm not saying it's a move that hurts consumers, I'm saying I see it as a power grab and yet more control over the web being handed over. I'm unconvinced that relying on a coalition to set standards is enough of a gap.
- adambard 10y agoNote that this is built-in in Opera, which is basically a skin over Chromium at this point. I definitely recommend it.
- epmaybe 10y agoHow is opera like chromium at this point? I've been using safari mostly, so I've not kept up with browsers and development.
- aqzman 10y agoI'm not the parent poster, but I believe the parent was referencing the fact that Opera now uses the same rendering engine as Chrome/Chromium. I haven't used Opera since they changed rendering engines, so I can't comment beyond that.
- guelo 10y agoWow that seems like playing with fire for Google. Maybe they figure that Trump's lax antitrust enforcement will give them free rein to screw with competitors for the next 4-8 years.
- umanwizard 10y agoWhat law does this violate?
- kobeya 10y agoAntitrust laws. What happens when Google allows its own ads while blocking Facebook's?
- tutufan 10y agoOut of curiosity, what antitrust enforcement were you expecting in the last 100 days that didn't happen?
- manmal 10y agoThat sounds like an anti trust case in the making.
- ortusdux 10y agoMy first instinct is that this feature will involve google contributor, where users can block ads and still send revenue to sites they frequent. https://contributor.google.com/ https://contributor.google.com/ I went to check on the status of that program and got this message: We’re launching a new and improved Contributor in early 2017!
- jacques_chester 10y agoThat would place pressure on advertisers outside of Google's network to switch, yes. Edit: though from the article it really does seem much more benign. Disclosure: I am working on what is, ostensibly, a competing product.
- acdha 10y agoIt'd be a neat middle option: display safe ads in Chrome with Google providing assurances that impressions/clicks aren't bots without the crazy messes of JavaScript currently used for that, and put a “Pay this site directly and never see ads” button next to it so people who really don't like ads can opt-out.
- harwoodleon 10y agoBrave is already doing this http://brave.com http://brave.com
- killjoywashere 10y agoWhy didn't WSJ block access to this article?
- gigatexal 10y agoWhoa. A company where 85%+ of its revenue comes from ads and over that owns a really popular browser is going to block ads? Could be a power play to give Google even more control over advertisers
- kristianc 10y agoG and FB also control over 85% of new online advertising spend. If it starts to choke advertisers, they don't have many other options but to get in line.
- mpeg 10y agoThis isn't about controlling advertiser spend at all. It's about controlling publisher supply. Publishers have other choices for ad supply, Google is not the most lucrative, but it's the best for high volume so it's everywhere, because people need to get their fill rates. If a major browser like Chrome starts punishing publishers for not policing their supply, it'll only benefit the big networks. (I'm actually very skeptical of this article's claims...)
- phoneyphone 10y agoPaywall removed: http://outline.com/f35FY6 http://outline.com/f35FY6
- pookeh 10y agoHmm... Step 1. Surprise the world with better ad blocking tech than what currently exists. Step 2. When trust in tech is established, start blocking ads from other ad networks by calling them foul. Do this slowly so it's not obvious. Step 3. Wait for customers of other ad networks to notice their ads are not effective. Step 4. Steal customers...Profit.
- taurath 10y agoThats just mutually assured destruction - all IE/edge browsers would start blocking all google ads, firefox would block everyone, chrome would black all not google ads, and half the internet economy collapses
- nojvek 10y agoOr better ad creators start behaving nicely. Remember zombie cookies in flash, or shitty animations that chew 100% battery, or IE toolbar spam, or ActiveX ad scripts that could read local files. Blocking ads is not an easy job. Especially with things like native ads. Blocking shitty ads should be easier though.
- ashark 10y agoMy guess is any such collapse (if it could even happen, sans some pretty serious privacy-protecting regulation) would be very temporary. Free ad- and spying-supported services make all sorts of other business models very difficult or untenable (see, for example, private, local voice recognition—why offer that product when you'll surely fail because the spytastic Google/Amazon/Apple/Microsoft offerings are free?) and even weaken the motivation for community-driven and Free, open source competition. Those other things would fill the void left by the death (please oh please) of the spy/ad economy. Hell, traditional non-spying ads might even make a comeback.
- BillinghamJ 10y agoMicrosoft doesn't have any serious advertising business. Firefox has none. So how exactly could it be mutually assured destruction? More likely is an antitrust lawsuit.
- gerdesj 10y agoJudging by the comments before this one, very few actually read the article - soooo /. My take: Ad wrangler attempts to quash competition by leveraging it's dominant browser share. How on earth does an ad slinger take the moral high ground wrt ad intrusiveness or whatever is currently considered naughty by targets of ads?
- sssilver 10y agoEmbrace, Extend, Extinguish?
- askvictor 10y agoI can only hope they are also developing a micropayment system to allow easy payment for web content. This shouldn't be too hard - they have a billing system (Google Play) already
- mpeg 10y agoThey have a system to allow easy payment for web content: Google ads.
- askvictor 10y agoSo... Marry Google Ads and Google Play to allow consumers to pay directly for content without the ads?
- harwoodleon 10y agoSee Brave Browser (http://brave.com http://brave.com)
- madshiva 10y agoNo, reading should be free. it's not a movie, if you want learn you need to do it freely. Brave will only work for some people. Also what about my comment? If I publish something even on Facebook why I'm not paid too? Where is the limit? If there's "nothing free" principe why people help each others on forum? (it's start to become less and less) people don't want more to do free things, but this is bad, bad because it's was about helping, information, not about payment to read crap. or steal content from other (pinterest)
- gcb0 10y agoOffending ads = non-google ads.
- AceJohnny2 10y agoI wonder if this is the replacement for Google Contributor that they've alluding to for a while. I'm sure u/Filligree can't comment... :)
- israrkhan 10y agoI wonder how this will impact their competitors (Facebook?). I assume these features will be opt-in instead of enabled-by-default. it could be pretty catastrophic if it is enabled by default. For an optin feature, it is not much different from today, where a user can install adblocker extension. Very few consumers opt to do so. A while ago, Apple added ad blocking features to iOS 9, however users had to explicitly enable them by installing an adblocker apps. I have not seen significant impact by this move (G and FB are still growing).
- mpeg 10y agoFacebook runs the tightest ship when it comes to ad formats. They don't allow rich media ads at all either, so malvertising is almost non-existent on Facebook. They wouldn't be impacted by this at all, in my opinion who this hurts most is publishers.
- sintaxi 10y agoYet another power grab from Google.
- discordance 10y agoIs this an indication that Google isn't able to control 'bad' content ingested up stream in their ad network?
- microdrum 10y agoWill the feature block paid placements in search results, too? I think most English speakers would consider these to be, erm, advertisements.
- rhino369 10y agoIf google does this then Firefox should ad block google ads. What's good for the goose.
- theprop 10y agoWhile video ads with sound on and popups are pretty irritating, I think interstitial ads with a timer are more in the grey area. I mostly use the Epic Privacy Browser which already by default blocks all ads.
- hackuser 10y agoWho is the Coalition for Better Ads? Their About page gives no names. Is Google a member? How influential is Google? Whose interests does the Coalition serve? https://www.betterads.org/about/ https://www.betterads.org/about/ "Leading international trade associations and companies involved in online media ..."
- JohnJamesRambo 10y agoThis would be fantastic. I finally installed Adblock Plus and I feel bad about it, but I had had enough. I couldn't even see content on legitimate webpages anymore through all the pop up ads and auto start videos. I don't mind normal ads but it was getting ridiculous. The arms race had tipped too far to the ad providers. I just want to block the ridiculous, which is what this sounds like it would do.
- claroscuro 10y agoIf you go to a restaurant and order a salad, you're not obligated to eat the olives, and you have the right to take them off your plate. Likewise, you have the right to bring an intermediary who looks at your salad and hides all the olives for you. If your intermediary happens to work for Green Olive Co. and he hides the black olives but not the green ones, you have the right to switch to another intermediary. Or get another intermediary who checks the plate and hides the rest of the olives. Or do whatever you want, because you're not obligated to consume any part of the salad that you don't want to.
- koolba 10y agoIn your metaphor the salad is filled on your plate by you running back and forth to a salad bar to grab the ingredients one by one. Those of us with ad blockers don't bother fetching the olives at all.
- sixstringtheory 10y agoSure, but in your example, you've paid for the salad. The whole reason (presumably) that advertising has gotten in the state it's in is that nobody wants to pay for things, but it costs money to keep the lights on. Full disclaimer: I use things for free day in and day out. I try to pay for things that I find value in as my budget allows. I find many ads annoying.
- claroscuro 10y agoYeah, I see how my analogy fails now. I still don't think there is a moral right or wrong with AdBlockers. Web sites are text--how you choose to render them is (or should be) up to you, in my opinion.
- slig 10y agoThere's no free salad. The restaurant owner is not obligated to give you a salad, with or without olives.
- mehwoot 10y agoIf you go to a restaurant and order a salad Sure, if you're blocking ads on a platform where you paid a subscription I'd agree with you.
- Analemma_ 10y agoGoogle has to know this is going to invite a wave of antitrust investigations. I guess they think they can win?
- sengork 10y agoThat's practically one way to speed up browsing performance without changing the underlying technology itself.
- microdrum 10y agoSerious question: I see that they are (sort of) adhering to (some) standard of "ad acceptability." Why are ads that consume a few too many CPU cycles more morally repugnant than ads that nearly invisibly manipulate a consumer's search results with undermining, misdirecting, or hortatory messaging?
- harwoodleon 10y agoBecause they gave to be seen to do something. Google have never really cared how dirty or malicious it's ad inventory is.
- imazurenko 10y agoЕсть небольшая разница между удалением рекламы и фильтрацией всей рекламы кроме своей. Теперь нужно будет ставить дополнительный ублок, поверх штатного. Как всё это будет работать - медленно и ломать вёрстку.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- politician 10y agoThis will put them in a position to avoid or bypass hosts file blocking by being able to reroute ads through alternate hosts on the fly. Hmm, maybe I should patent that idea.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- coding123 10y agoI really want to know if others do this. I don't click on ANY ads, except chumbox ads. Yes I'm admitting it - I want to know what those stars look like now!!!!!
- ebbv 10y agoConsidering Google's main business is selling ads I'm guessing they are only going to block ads from competitors. Who will then have very solid ground for a lawsuit for anti-competitive behavior. This seems like a bad idea.
- shredfg 10y agoThey basically going to track the websites you visit and sell the data to get revenue.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- danbruc 10y agoThe »Coalition for Better Ads« is just the same as »Acceptable Ads« - we will try not annoy you with flashing ads. Both entirely fail to address privacy issues. Just search for »tracking« [1][2] or »privacy« on those sites, there is nothing at all. Not acceptable for me. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:betterads.org https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:betterads.org [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:acceptableads.com https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:acceptableads....
- heavymark 10y agoAt first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would incredibly increase the number of ads blocked. My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use their built in blocker rather than downloading a third party extension which would highly likely block there ads. And if people have a built in blocker that blocks the mostly bad ads, the people would start to hate ads less and be okay with 'good ads'. Also since people wouldn't use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely. It's a very risky move on Google's part, so would be a bit surprised if it happens. But doing nothing, is equally if not more risky in the long run for there business model.
- milkytron 10y agoI would love to hear/read the dialogue that occurred when the first person pitched this idea at Google. > Also since people wouldn't use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely. I'm sure a few might, and it'll likely discourage others from entering the market as well. But I do think that open source alternatives would live on and continue to be used if your guess is correct. And your guess does seem very plausible.
- zeure 10y agoUblock Origin is extremely popular and it's open source model keeps it from playing favorites with some "acceptable" ads.
- ganfortran 10y agoWell this is going to be a tool for Google to tame unscrupulous advertisers. Good and Bad.
- wybiral 10y agoIn general I like Google but a transparent move like this makes me consider finally installing a third party ad-blocker instead.
- shmerl 10y agoIt's probably a way to counter more aggressive ad blocking, since it will allow some ads, and especially tracking.
- ww520 10y agoThis is a bad idea. Unless Google allows the ad-blocker to block Google's ads as well as others, it will be viewed as anti-competitive, antitrust.
- dorianm 10y ago> According to those standards, ad formats such as pop-ups, auto-playing video ads with sound and “prestitial” ads with countdown timers are deemed to be “beneath a threshold of consumer acceptability.” Seems reasonable considering Chromium goal: > Chromium is an open-source browser project that aims to build a safer, faster, and more stable way for all Internet users to experience the web. https://www.chromium.org/Home https://www.chromium.org/Home
- afarrell 10y agoI wish google would give me the option to describe what ads not to show me and would only block those ads. Then again, I wish Gmail could see that 60% of my email traffic is with one other person and stop showing me ads for dating sites. And I wish that Amazon ads would be for goods complimentary to the things I've bought rather than ads for the items I've already bought.
- knob 10y agoHonorable mention goes to Adnauseam (https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/). It is an extension for Firefox and Chrome, which clicks on almost every ad. Hopefully, costing advertisers money. The interesting part is: Google removed Adnauseum from their Chrome Extensions. If you anyway install it, every Chrome restart requires that you re-enable the extension. I like the extension... the advertisers are costing me money by consuming bandwidth, and slowing down everything... well I will try to hit them where it hurts.
- ReverseCold 10y agoVivaldi (chrome, but it assumes you know what you're doing, and no Google integration) doesn't disable it after a restart.
- chc 10y agoThere's a pretty significant difference there, though. They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at, while you're costing them money just to be malicious. If you don't want to look at the content, just don't. If you want to look at the content but don't want to see ads, use an ad blocker. Punishing them for trying to stay afloat while giving you something you want is just pathological behavior.
- literallycancer 10y agoYou can rationalize it however you want, but there's only two possibilities. 1. People like you, who say "but I can just ignore ads" are right, and ad companies are about to go out of the business. 2. People who are convinced that ads don't affect them are wrong. It doesn't seem like ad companies are struggling to me? So the logical conclusion is that ignoring ads doesn't work. Now on the retaliation. Anyone trying to expose me to ads is aggressively trying to compromise my decision making process. Since they started, I see nothing wrong with defending myself by increasing their costs. >They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at The real cost is that your decisions are compromised.
- yakult 10y agoI wonder if Google will use this feature to accidentally-on-purpose step on other adblocking extensions' toes, tech wise. Will running uBlock on top of it hurt performance like running two antiviruses? All of a sudden, Mozilla's decision to move towards Chrome's extension model looks suspicious.
- TACIXAT 10y agoAnti-competitive / monopoly lawsuit in 3... 2... 1...
- intrasight 10y agoThe sentence parse, but beyond that it makes no sense.
- arielm 10y agoThe concept of an ads company blocking "some" ads that _it_ decides aren't good for users sounds a bit like google blocking its competitors, doesn't it?
- perseusprime11 10y agoBefore everybody gets excited, please read the fine print. They are working with the Coalition for Better Ads and industry trades to support the Better Ads Standards. If anyone is interested, here is the standard: https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/
- Pxtl 10y agoIt's too late. After my 9-year-old son's start-page got taken over by a malicious ad, I set up uBlock. I was fighting long and hard to avoid adblocking because I really did think it was wrong to view the web without the ads that support it... but the industry has utterly failed to keep their houses clean. Whatever "polite" implementation Google implements in Chrome won't be enough anymore.
- always_good 10y agoI'm visiting my parents for Easter and was driven to installed uBlock Origin on my dad's laptop because of Google's own Adsense ads. He was on this website: http://www.beverlybees.com/install-package-bees-langstroth-hive/ http://www.beverlybees.com/install-package-bees-langstroth-h... and the first ad said "Click here to download the video player extension" which got him to install a browser extension. When I asked him why, he said "well, I'm trying to watch this tutorial video and it said I needed an extension". It was just an unrelated ad. Adsense must've picked up the "install" keyword on the page and started showing "download" ads. I told him it was an ad and he went back to the page, falling for the 2nd mid-article ad further down which was a large play/download button. The ads made him think he was looking for a video even though there is no video in the blog post tutorial. Watching my dad get fooled like this so helplessly really nauseated me, and it's Google's own ads. How many ad clicks are from people thinking it's part of the content? I installed uBlock Origin immediately.
- harwoodleon 10y agoClick bait ads that are made to mimic UX / UI are as close to malware as you can get and often result in malware installs. Good on you for protecting your dad.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- frik 10y agoWe need less terrible ads. Let's go back to static picture-based banner ads. The picture-link tracks the ad-clicks, simply, reliable and non bloated third party JS needed. So where are the ad networks that offer such ad-type?
- padmabushan 10y agoppl at google are scared of FB's resurgent growth. now they are leveraging on advantages they already have. if FB reacts with introducing plugins for blocking ads completely (on desktop and mobile), It would ensure total annihilation of ad industry. that is the a step fb can take now to force google to make truce and backoff their adblocking features.
- harwoodleon 10y agoGoogle have totally missed the point here. Ad blocking is a reaction to advertising, not good ads or bad ads. People install ad blockers, not ad filters. Advertising is dead in its current state. The first banner ad had a success rate of 95%, compare that with today's metrics of less than 1% and you see the issue. Google is trying to do something to please shareholders, but ultimately this strategy will fail.
- partiallypro 10y agoSo, Google...largest ad company in the world is going to start blocking its competitors ads and white listing their own. How is this not going to end in an FTC law suit? Sounds super shady, I know Google is a darling, but ask yourself if Microsoft had as much advertising market share as Google and they did this...would you still be ok with it? If the answer is no, then you should see that Google is possibly not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and has a long term strategy to snuff out all remaining competition while retaining their own market share and revenues...which ad blockers have greatly effected.
- visarga 10y agoGood! I hope it blocks YouTube ads as well.
- onmobiletemp 10y agoSome people dont like this. May i suggest firefox? Not fast enough for you? You could always contribute.
- no_gravity 10y agoThis will be pretty interesting. The web has been in a downward spiral for years: Fewer and fewer users browse the web without an adblocker. Which leads Publishers to bombard them with more and more ads. Which leads more users to use adblockers. Blocking annoying ads for all users by default could break this vicious circle.
- Animats 10y agoThen watch Google start blocking add-ons that block ads Google likes.
- mike-cardwell 10y agoMaybe time to stop using and recommending Chrome? I heard of this browser called "Firefox" which isn't developed by an advertising company.
- pluma 10y agoAs a web developer you can take my Chrom(e|ium) from my cold dead hands. I tried out Firefox for a week this year and the experience didn't come anywhere close to that of using Chrome, not only for development but also as a user. Heck, even Electrolysis is still a mess with half the extensions still blocking it.
- literallycancer 10y agoI like how Chrome still doesn't let you turn off the downloads bar showing up when you download something. After 10 years, "it's a feature" guys. It's really beyond my understanding how a megacorp like Google has a product with worse UX than old Opera which was developed by what, a hundred people, maybe?
- c3833174 10y agoAren't the developers tools part of webkit and available in any related browser?
- mike-cardwell 10y agoAs a web developer who would prefer that the entire point of the web doesn't degenerate into being a portal for serving up ads, I'll stick to browsers not built by ad companies.
- erickhill 10y agoMy god, to get quality journalism it would be so strange if the death of online ads brought some semblance of Print back again.
- tim333 10y agoI guess it makes sense for them as they can block annoying ads but leave Google ads up there.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- satysin 10y agoGoogle has to do something about ads IMHO. On the desktop it isn't so bad as we have extensions such as uBlock Origin but Chrome on Android is a truly awful experience on some sites. Just yesterday I tapped a news story from Google Now only to be greeted with a full screen and vibrating phone ad a few seconds after the story loaded. Totally unacceptable and from a story promoted by Google within Google Now! The big issue for Google is clearly conflict of interest. But like I and others have said something needs to be done to sort out the mess that is web advertising. We need industry standards on what is acceptable and anything that isn't gets blocked.
- executesorder66 10y ago> On the desktop it isn't so bad as we have extensions such as uBlock Origin but Chrome on Android is a truly awful experience on some sites. Yeah. If only Google allowed uBlock Origin to be installed on Chrome for mobile they wouldn't need to create their own adblocker. /s
- scanr 10y agoI'd be surprised if they block tracking which is the other half of what ad blockers do and arguably the half that I think is more important. It would be neat if they checked your DNT setting and then blocked tracking based on that.
- skyisblue 10y agoIt will be interesting to see if they block ads that are served through Doubleclick for Publishers, a Google owned ad server. Publishers that use DFP will be paying Google to serve ads that will ultimately be blocked by a Google owned browser.
- handsomechad 10y agoWill this potentially be able to disable tracking cookies from the likes of Facebook and others who follow you around the internet?
- sbt 10y agoLOL
- mysticlabs 10y agoTrojan horse.
- therealmarv 10y agoFinally. The mobile web is literally broken without adblocker on Android. In the meantime the Adguard (Fake VPN, non root) filter + Chrome does a good job for now.
- nkkollaw 10y agoSeems like a great move for Google. Block all ads except theirs (and, most people won't install another ad blocker if there is one built-in), so that publishers will be forced to use Google ads if they want to target customers.
- thr0waway1239 10y agoWhile the notion that Google is going to "do something about the ad problem" is completely laughable, it would turn out to be a great thing if they just blocked all ads from Facebook as a starting point. This would start some kind of tit for tat race which will spiral out of control for both companies until it ends up in MAD. Once both companies destroy each other, we can pick up the pieces left over and start to build a nicer web free of these two privacy plagues.
- erezsh 10y agoNice dream
- a_imho 10y agoWhen content blocking becomes first class citizen on all major browsers you can't go back. Offering a sub-par browsing experience which forces people to look at your ads is a surefire way to drive users to competitors. Unless you have some lobbying ace up your sleeve to force 'acceptable ads' as a standard to implement.
- idclip 10y agoImitation is zhe best form of flattery.
- te_chris 10y agoThis makes microsoft look like saints.
- madshiva 10y ago"Alphabet Inc.'s Google is planning to introduce an ad-blocking feature in the mobile and desktop versions of its popular Chrome web browser, according to people's familiar with the company's plans." Yeah like every journalist do not give your source, make false article, try to say what will be the future and fail to do it. This site have BIG annoying ad at start. F * this site. (Downvote me it's free) this is not a value added article, it only try to bias make view and try to pretend they know what will happen, like we all know, journalist don't know anything they are just follower and they need to start to give info that matter, that are true of today, not of the future, without any added value.
- damandloi 10y agoChrome has already won the war of browsers however the new ones (Brave, Vivaldi, UC) are jostling their way with inbuilt ad blockers. Now, it might seem that Google wants to maintain an edge over these with the new ad-blocking feature but one can tell that it will only block ads outside Google network. The way I see it as a bigger bet on cannibalizing itself because if Google does not then somebody else will.
- amelius 10y agoIs this visual ad-blocking only? Or are they also going to block user-tracking? Just wondering.
- return0 10y agoIt's scary to watch how google manipulates the web to make it "google's web". At first they incentivized everyone to offer specific types of content, then they gradually made monetizing more difficult, and now they are actively going to try to remove the competition. They should be working on improving their ad delivery system instead.
- jug 10y agoBut letting through their own ads because Google by pure coincidence judges Google's ads to be OK, I guess? I don't like Google's interests guiding their web platform (it's not just a web browser anymore), and this is icing on the cake to me. Thankfully there are community ran alternatives on par with the latest web standards and competing with these corporate web platforms, or else our web would risk being truly lost. With that said, how in the heavens or hells will Google be able to defend this move from competing ad agencies while letting through their own ads? This cannot be the first we'll hear of this if it actually happens.
- dirtbox 10y agoIt makes sense to do this on the mobile browser, trying to get around the net can be horrific on a phone, not to mention the data useage. Ublock and so on already have the desktop sewn up.
- misa_misa 10y agoWhat about the pop-up blocker? Doesn't that block most of the pop-up ads?
- misa_misa 10y agoWhat about the pop-up blocker? Doesn't that block most of the pop-up ads?
- erikb 10y agoYeah, The Ad Company of the twentyfirst century makes an adblocker. I think I'd just deactivate it on day one and use an adblock plugin instead.
- Tomis02 10y agoVivaldi already has an integrated ad-blocker.
- YesThisIsJay 10y agoPull major ads from youtube Google: "Fine! no one can have ads!"
- code4tee 10y agoSo I'm guessing "stripping adds that provide a bad experience for users" is just code for "stripping adds not generating revenue for Google." A lot of other neutral add blockers block Google and hence Google needs to convince users to just let Google be their add filter. It's a risky move by Google and one made likely more out of need for themselves than need for their users. For all the wonders of Google it's still very much a one trick pony from a business standpoint. Anything that threatens their ad revenue is a very real threat to their business health. All the fun "side businesses" while very cool aren't exactly paying the bills.
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoThis isn't a Google coming to Jesus moment and realizing ads are bad. No, this is getting out in front of the ad-blocking movement and proactively saving their business model. Google has every incentive to make advertising on the web palatable for most everyone. If that means blocking some ads, then they need to do that.
- grigjd3 10y agoI like this move. I don't mind ads to support webpages I enjoy but I do want to 've rid of the really annoying ads. I also don't get why advertisers do that. If I am annoyed by an ad, I'm not going to buy.
- ihsw2 10y agoThis is interesting -- it leads to another eventuality where, instead of blocking ads, Google replaces "bad ads" with "good ads" and provides revenue to website owners that suffer from lost revenue as a result of ad-blocking.
- etruong42 10y ago"Advertising company will block ads"? or is it "Advertising company will block ads (obviously except its own)"? "Content providers - use Google's ad network if you want to make sure you get ad revenue from Chrome!" Will Google try to remain "fair"? Does the profit-maximizing moves align with "fairness"?
- abraves10001 10y agoI am not sure profit-maximization is ever primarily concerned with fairness. Google is probably not the exception to this. However, like many things Google this is something that will improve user experience (no more shitty, malware infested ads, by default) and undercut their competitors. So, most of their users aren't really going to be up in arms.
- kesor 10y agoWhat about the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)? According to wikipedia they have criticized Microsoft for enabling Do Not Track by default in Internet Explorer 10. They also went against Mozilla for planning to turn on blocking of 3rd party HTTP cookies in Firefox. They even blocked AdBlock to attend an event of theirs. So I am sure they will just LOVE that Google is making all of its competitors dance to the IAB's tune. I wonder who is pulling the strings behind IAB when Google goes and does something like this.
- stephenr 10y agoI've barely read/skimmed a few dozen of the comments here and its clear most people didn't even read the article. The primary goal for this possible feature is to block "bad" ads, as deemed by the ad industry.
- Can_Not 10y agoIf Google can block "bad ads", like malware and the ones that trigger alert/confirm in rapidly generated iframes, I imagine adblock uasage could decline growth. I'll always use ublock origin and privacy badger though.
- gorhill 10y agoAds are a subset of a larger issue: the out of control data mining and tracking[1]. Focusing only on whether an ad is visually pleasant or not does not address the larger issue -- which larger issue is the foremost reason people should install a content blocker, to get back in the control seat of their user agent. [1] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMBm.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMBm.jpg:large https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/803998582227533825 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/803998582227533825 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyhfYyWWEAAH8zq.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyhfYyWWEAAH8zq.jpg:large https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/649256227277537280 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/649256227277537280 (visually, a page with no ads) => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQKfGQBWoAAhNc7.png:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQKfGQBWoAAhNc7.png:large
- Qub3d 10y agoBTW, this person is the creator of Ublock Origin.
- sounds 10y agoTo Grandparent Poster: (gorhill) Thank you for creating Ublock Origin! :)
- brettz 10y agoIf we stop out of control tracking and the ads model, how do we stop all content from going behind a paywall? Asking because at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free but uBlock Origin seems to go for a scorched earth approach that doesn't seem sustainable.
- jobu 10y agoThe problem is that so many sites have absolutely no shame about how many or what kind of ads they will jam into a page. LA Times is a great example - https://nelsonslog.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/la-times-and-ads/ https://nelsonslog.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/la-times-and-ads... If a site is willing to treat their consumers that badly then fuck them. I have no respect and will not feel bad about using an ad blocker there. On the flip side, a number of sites have started asking to turn off ad blockers (e.g. Wired), and if it's a site I visit frequently I'm willing to give it a try. If the page is filled with video ads or blinky shit, the ad blocker gets turned on again.
- vorticalbox 10y agoOpera already does this already and includes an unlimited VPN for free.
- mnw21cam 10y agoUsability alert: Really faint text.
- jhatax 10y agoHow many prognosticators among us think that Google will end up buying one of the big ad-blocking companies out there? If acquired, this would be a coup for Wladimir Palant and folks like him. Currently, Adblock Plus allows us to uncheck the "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" option. If Google were to acquire said company (or similar offering), this ability to disallow non-intrusive advertising will be either hidden or removed entirely. If Google's properties are the only ones "allowed" through the filter, that's another case of monopoly power. Time will tell. There is a silver lining for users here. If Google does go down this route, Firefox and Edge will eventually follow suit. This somewhat concerted action against intrusive ads will put a lot of pressure on ad agencies and content providers, which could be the impetus they need to rethink their ad delivery strategy to be more user-friendly.
- CodeWriter23 10y agoGoogle, meet The Sherman Act.
- Pica_soO 10y agoSometimes just being able to do a thing, distorts the whole playing field. Actually, just having this red button, will make google adds-business untouchable for any serious competition. One nuke atop a rocket makes your country s borders safer then any tank army ever could. And this is what this is. A nuke, who even by just lying there in the ground, doing near nothing, fortifies the walls of this empire.
- johnnydoebk 10y agoIf you can't fight it, join it. Then lead it.
- heliophobicdude 10y agoSo Google will be blocking competitor ads? Will they block their's too? How does this bode for anti-trust protections?
- toplulz 10y agoprobably google trying to destroy the competition. maybe block other ad networks but not theirs.
- shirleeinffld 10y agoI just added to my extensions in Chrome and still have Adblocker in Safari, Bing and FireFox
- shirleeinffld 10y agoPretty interesting; I just today found it and added the extension to my Chrome and it works fine. Still have Adblock in Safari, Bing and Firefox.
- shirleeinffld 10y agoI just added to my extensions in Chrome and still have Adblocker in Safari, Bing and FireFox
- jasonkostempski 10y agoI like the idea but only because FF will likey copy them without the conflict of interest.