5 ms·

My 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

My 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 9y ago
My 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 9y ago
  Why 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 9y ago
    I would like sites to remain free to use. Ads help support free to use sites or portions of sites.
    - literallycancer 9y ago
      Or you could directly support the sites you like with the money you now waste on sub-optimal purchases caused by ads.
ams6110 9y ago
I pretty much use Firefox for everything anyway, except for Google Apps.
- lettergram 9y ago
  I actually love Firefox on mobile. It allows me to use ublock. Given I'm constantly on my mobile browser (why download an app if I can access it via the web), the ad block feature is awesome. Edit: This actually pushed me back to Firefox after using chromium for years.
smartician 9y ago
The EU prosecuted Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, with seems much more benign than Google using their market leading browser to block out competitor's ads.
eberkund 9y ago
I think they realize the issues that could cause. But by including an adblocker out of the box many users may less inclined to install a third party plugin when one is already provided, especially less advanced users.
crowbahr 9y ago
If they try they'll see a lot of people move to Firefox. Like I'm game with Google's ideas here honestly and I'd be willing to try it but I would drop it like it's hot if it disables other blockers.
rasz 9y ago
Apparently Google does not allow Chrome extensions that let you download YouTube videos, seems like a nice precedence. Looking at popularvideo downloaders gets you things like Video Downloader professional: "Caution: The download of YouTube videos to hard drive is locked because of restrictions of the Chrome Store."
- username223 9y ago
  Fortunately, we have `youtube-dl` and keepvid.com to combat this crap.
  - dao- 9y ago
    Also, for the time being we have browsers that aren't Chrome...
johncolanduoni 9y ago
My cynical side can't help but think that accusing Google of RICO violations is pretty silly if you don't have reason to believe that they will commit one of the specific set of crimes (which are illegal in their own right) you need to to even have a snowball's chance in hell of a RICO charge/civil suit. I'm confident that Google wouldn't need to murder or assault anyone, or commit wire fraud, or steal cars, or forge a passport, or pretty much anything on that list to use this to get rid of uBlock. https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
nialv7 9y ago
And then they can just block all ads except those provided by Google... They are trying to be both the player and the judge at the same time.
derefr 9y ago
There's really no way to disable all ad-blocking in a browser, even if the browser-vendor wanted desperately to do so, because—whether ad-stripping browser extensions exist or not—ad-stripping HTTP proxies (e.g. Privoxy) will always exist. And if you think users couldn't handle using one of those, there's nothing stopping someone from making an e.g. "Privoxy configurator + blocklist updater" browser extension that just serves as a client GUI to your ad-stripping proxy's control channel. (Or giving the daemon a system-tray icon that launches an Electron GUI or something.) The development of ad-blockers outside of the browser kind of stalled ~5 years ago, but only because everyone has been pretty satisfied with the browser extension solution to the problem. Take it away, and other solutions will just come back into play, with all the modern lessons learned from building the browser-extensions brought in.
- gcb0 9y ago
  Of course there is. They can make it so annoying that the ads doesn't look that bad. They own the browser. They can make it so bad that even flash ads will look like a good alternative to all the work required.
  - derefr 9y ago
    All what work required? Proxying is an OS-level concern, not a browser-level concern. You set it up in your OS's control panel. The browser doesn't get to be a part of that workflow, so it can't make it annoying.
    - gcb0 9y ago
      You are ignoring having a proxy in the first place. Compare adblocking today: step 1, search for extension. Step 2, install extension. Step 3, there is no step 3. Now convince your parents to install a proxy, then proceed to explain they can have it on each machine (don't forget phones and tablets!) or centrally on the network (now don't forget to explain about local network while at home versus 4g when they are away)... yada yada yada.
      - 9y ago
make3 9y ago
the second they do this, I switch back to Firefox and never look back.
bbcbasic 9y ago
if (isAdsense) { return false; } // Whatever we do is totally cool of course runAdblockDetect();
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
romanovcode 9y ago
Exactly my thoughts. Another reason to do so is to make sure users will not be forced to install ad-block manually therefore make sure more users see google ads. Because obviously "Google AdBlocker" will show ads from Google and partners.

rileyteige 9y ago

My 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 9y ago
Why 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 9y ago
  I would like sites to remain free to use. Ads help support free to use sites or portions of sites.
  - literallycancer 9y ago
    Or you could directly support the sites you like with the money you now waste on sub-optimal purchases caused by ads.

ams6110 9y ago

I pretty much use Firefox for everything anyway, except for Google Apps.

lettergram 9y ago
I actually love Firefox on mobile. It allows me to use ublock. Given I'm constantly on my mobile browser (why download an app if I can access it via the web), the ad block feature is awesome. Edit: This actually pushed me back to Firefox after using chromium for years.

smartician 9y ago

The EU prosecuted Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, with seems much more benign than Google using their market leading browser to block out competitor's ads.

eberkund 9y ago

I think they realize the issues that could cause. But by including an adblocker out of the box many users may less inclined to install a third party plugin when one is already provided, especially less advanced users.

crowbahr 9y ago

If they try they'll see a lot of people move to Firefox. Like I'm game with Google's ideas here honestly and I'd be willing to try it but I would drop it like it's hot if it disables other blockers.

rasz 9y ago

Apparently Google does not allow Chrome extensions that let you download YouTube videos, seems like a nice precedence. Looking at popularvideo downloaders gets you things like Video Downloader professional: "Caution: The download of YouTube videos to hard drive is locked because of restrictions of the Chrome Store."

username223 9y ago
Fortunately, we have `youtube-dl` and keepvid.com to combat this crap.
- dao- 9y ago
  Also, for the time being we have browsers that aren't Chrome...

johncolanduoni 9y ago

My cynical side can't help but think that accusing Google of RICO violations is pretty silly if you don't have reason to believe that they will commit one of the specific set of crimes (which are illegal in their own right) you need to to even have a snowball's chance in hell of a RICO charge/civil suit. I'm confident that Google wouldn't need to murder or assault anyone, or commit wire fraud, or steal cars, or forge a passport, or pretty much anything on that list to use this to get rid of uBlock. https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

nialv7 9y ago

And then they can just block all ads except those provided by Google... They are trying to be both the player and the judge at the same time.

derefr 9y ago

There's really no way to disable all ad-blocking in a browser, even if the browser-vendor wanted desperately to do so, because—whether ad-stripping browser extensions exist or not—ad-stripping HTTP proxies (e.g. Privoxy) will always exist. And if you think users couldn't handle using one of those, there's nothing stopping someone from making an e.g. "Privoxy configurator + blocklist updater" browser extension that just serves as a client GUI to your ad-stripping proxy's control channel. (Or giving the daemon a system-tray icon that launches an Electron GUI or something.) The development of ad-blockers outside of the browser kind of stalled ~5 years ago, but only because everyone has been pretty satisfied with the browser extension solution to the problem. Take it away, and other solutions will just come back into play, with all the modern lessons learned from building the browser-extensions brought in.

gcb0 9y ago
Of course there is. They can make it so annoying that the ads doesn't look that bad. They own the browser. They can make it so bad that even flash ads will look like a good alternative to all the work required.
- derefr 9y ago
  All what work required? Proxying is an OS-level concern, not a browser-level concern. You set it up in your OS's control panel. The browser doesn't get to be a part of that workflow, so it can't make it annoying.
  - gcb0 9y ago
    You are ignoring having a proxy in the first place. Compare adblocking today: step 1, search for extension. Step 2, install extension. Step 3, there is no step 3. Now convince your parents to install a proxy, then proceed to explain they can have it on each machine (don't forget phones and tablets!) or centrally on the network (now don't forget to explain about local network while at home versus 4g when they are away)... yada yada yada.
    - 9y ago

make3 9y ago

the second they do this, I switch back to Firefox and never look back.

bbcbasic 9y ago

if (isAdsense) { return false; } // Whatever we do is totally cool of course runAdblockDetect();

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

romanovcode 9y ago

Exactly my thoughts. Another reason to do so is to make sure users will not be forced to install ad-block manually therefore make sure more users see google ads. Because obviously "Google AdBlocker" will show ads from Google and partners.